JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8837
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 27 Aug 2014 19:59

P&W simply haven't given the cost of an engine,or if they have can you please show me?


I have provided their official statement on the last negotiated engine contract between the JPO and them (united technologies) in my post from a few days ago. When the current engine contract is negotiated a similar one will be released.

I don't see the Rafale or any of the other contenders for the MMRCA offering the aircraft with a price with or without an engine!


And please show me one FMS deal for the F-35 that involved the air vehicle but did not involve the engine? Are you not getting it? Or are you doing this just for the heck of it? Each and every F-35 sold to the export customers either by the JPO that directly buys for the partner nations or through its FMS route includes the engines. Instead of negotiating a price target for everything together a fully developed air vehicle contract is negotiated with the prime contractor and a fully delivered (installed) engine contract is negotiated with the engine provider. Every single SAR report lists the cost COMBINED.

The reason for negotiating separate contracts is simple. Every time a new program development is initiated it has to be decided what is to be picked by the service and what is to be picked by the prime contractor. In case of the F-35 the Prime contractor was required to bid for full SI on the aircraft i.e it had to pick a team member that could do the avionics, sensors etc. Bae, Northrop grumman etc were all picked by Lockheed. Propulsion however was a separate competition where the JPO wished to have 2 competing systems pitted against one another to determine which was the best solution going forward. Since Lockheed has no control over the Engine supplier, it does not negotiate contracts on its behalf, whereas it does on behalf of Northrop grumman, Bae etc. Its as simple as that.

All FMS sales involve both the air vehicle (loaded) and the engines, and the JPO issued pricing also involves a combined cost (112 million for A at the moment), its just that the Engine contract lags behind the airframe contract by 6-10 months since the engine has a shorter contract to delivery timeline.

The total cost of the Air vehicle and the engine is open knowledge and the last negotiated contract amount between the JPO and P&W/UT has been released and provided to you. I can provide you the information, you have to do a little work and read it.

P.S - rather than reading a weak article on the GEW and what all of this means when one brings together 4 Billion for current tech vs 4 billion for future tech - go to the source and try to absorb some of the information

http://docdroid.net/gqs9

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby member_23694 » 27 Aug 2014 20:31

Viv S wrote:After 14 years of service, zero export orders. Domestic orders cut by 25% to 33%.


Don't worry Sir, in the very near future there will be a new customer for Rafale with numbers higher than the highest firm order by a single export customer for F 35 :wink:
Further I don't know how much years it will take to prove my point but rest assured I don't see 2400 F 35 entering service in US . There will definitely be a revised figure which will be less.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 27 Aug 2014 21:23

in the very near future there will be a new customer for Rafale with numbers higher than the highest firm order by a single export customer for F 35


Don't bet on it.

There were two customers that had orders bigger than the IAF order.

One will fill those numbers, question is with what - 5th or may even with s 6th gen.

The other is TBD.

The rest please do a proportion calc, instead of raw comparisons.
Last edited by NRao on 27 Aug 2014 21:28, edited 1 time in total.

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby member_23694 » 27 Aug 2014 21:25

brar_w wrote:Hard selling. Whats the customer count even before IOC?


And tell me Sir, who are the customers of F 35 even before IOC. What is the history of aircrafts operated by all these customers of F 35.
Honestly , do they have option to by pass the US and go for aircrafts from any other country. I am not sure .
Most of these customers will always have any replacement fighter aircraft coming from US. So I don;t see a big deal about it

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby member_23694 » 27 Aug 2014 21:29

NRao wrote:There were two customers that had orders bigger than IAF order.


Would definitely like to be corrected . But right now i see only RAAF with 72 orders and UK with 48 ordered (138 planned)
About which two you are talking about with firm orders bigger than IAF order

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8837
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 27 Aug 2014 21:32

The f-35 cannot be greatly reduced in quantity without the shrinking the physical size of the USAF, USN or USMC. As far as single largest order goes its purely a point about requirement. A couple of F-35 operators will most likely operate a fleet in excess of 100 sometime in the future. How far into the future that is cannot be stated with certainty. We also do not know when the 124th Rafale will be delivered to the IAF. None of the F-35 customers need to place all their required orders in one big go. Turkey is doing it in 2-3 phases, Australia is doing it in 2 phases and if their study on Canberra class - Fixed wing ops goes through they'll procure some in the third batch as well. Japan and Italy are investing in a FACO and will most likely milk that line much into the future.

And tell me Sir, who are the customers of F 35 even before IOC


US (MC, USN, USAF)
RAF/RN
RAAF
Norway
Japan
South Korea
IDF



I may be missing a few but these are the customers that have received their aircraft (or will do so prior to IOC) and will be participating in the Joint training at Eglin and contribute to the overall data that is built up. Each has had their LRIP commitment baked into the contracts with the JPO based on the scale of their investment.

Would definitely like to be corrected . But right now i see only RAAF with 72 orders and UK with 48 ordered (138 planned)


The partners are not required to make large, long term commitments in advance. The FMS customers however do and expect Japan to eventually operate a fleet in the three digits (for FACO to make any sense) besides Turkey and the IDF.

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby member_23694 » 27 Aug 2014 21:41

brar_w wrote:US (MC, USN, USAF)
RAF/RN
RAAF
Norway
Japan
South Korea
IDF


Yes Sir, I know the customers :) . You added US too !!!!
What I wan't to stress is that these customers do not have any other option. Simple. Past , present, future they will be using US fighters. So nothing to be proud about .

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 27 Aug 2014 22:09

What I wan't to stress is that these customers do not have any other option. Simple. Past , present, future they will be using US fighters. So nothing to be proud about


You may not agree, which is what this thread is about, but what other option is out there (for a F-35)? Is there one? Yet? Even if they wanted to opt for other than the US?

Also, if they were bound to the US *only*, *all* of them could have opted for a F-15 or a F-18 International or F-16Japan/SK/whatever some such alternative. The UK could have opted for more Typhoons, Italy too. And, the rest too. AND, the all time fav: Rafale.

Why did they *all* opt for a F-35?

Would definitely like to be corrected . But right now i see only RAAF with 72 orders and UK with 48 ordered (138 planned)
About which two you are talking about with firm orders bigger than IAF order


UK had 138 and Japan had 142.

Japan will get that many, for sure, they have to decide if they will all be F-35/their own/US's 6th Gen (some form of partnership). Not sure if the UK will go that far - they could.

However, the math has to be better to compare. Took raw numbers from Wiki and here are some example:

Nation :: Current AF strength :: F-35 Order :: %age (work that out)

Turkey :: 643 :: 100
Australia :: 275 :: 100
Italy :: 470 :: 90
Japan :: 769 :: 142 (42)

India :: 1500 :: 126 (MMRCA)

Now, if one includes the FGFA (144) and the AMCA (XXX), the numbers (rightly) will change - and that is the argument you should have made. But, if you go with raw Rafale numbers it is pathetic. For India to look respectable IAF will have to order some 4-500 Rafales.

France :: 658 :: 200 (or so Rafale)

Air space to defend, threat, etc count too.

So, throwing numbers and making comparisons is OK, as long as to shout mine-is-bigger-than-yours, some political statement. But in reality it is silly.

However, since this is the official turkey thread, I am not mis-posting by writing about the Rafale in this thread..

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby member_23694 » 27 Aug 2014 22:30

NRao wrote:India :: 1500 :: 126 (MMRCA)


Really :shock: , India 1500 .
Sorry we don't need Rafale

And i am not saying this number is bigger than something else. What i said was in context of a quote and based on the current firm orders for F 35 .

And regarding all the other things etc, F 35 is such a big program it is because of the US requirement [nearly 80% of the total production planned] and not its customer's

NRao wrote:However, since this is the official turkey thread, I am not mis-posting by writing about the Rafale in this thread..
.
Well Sir, Rafale thread was carpet bombed with JSF details so a couple of Rafale posts in this thread in a not too serious note should be allowed even though it may be against the lone super powers latest and greatest fighter aircraft :) .

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8837
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 28 Aug 2014 05:02

dhiraj wrote:
brar_w wrote:US (MC, USN, USAF)
RAF/RN
RAAF
Norway
Japan
South Korea
IDF


Yes Sir, I know the customers :) . You added US too !!!!
What I wan't to stress is that these customers do not have any other option. Simple. Past , present, future they will be using US fighters. So nothing to be proud about .


You asked which customers have ordered the jet pre IOC. I provided exactly what you asked.

These customers do not have an option because there is no OEM in the west that is developing a 5th generation fighter in the same time-lines or any other time line. The task for Lockheed and the F-35 became a whole lot easier given that the europeans OEM's weren't asked to develop a risky and costly 5th generation fighters thereby eroding any possible chance they would have had to cover some of the F-16 gap from the previous generation. Only OEM's that will truly be in the fighter business for any competitive solution post 2025 or so would be Sukhoi, Lockheed and the Chinese..everyone else would have to concentrate on markets where the thread level is not so intense.

And regarding all the other things etc, F 35 is such a big program it is because of the US requirement [nearly 80% of the total production planned] and not its customer's


Of course, yet the export of the F-35 over the next 10-20 years will most likely surpass the entire production (export+domestic) of all of the euro birds.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 28 Aug 2014 09:03

dhiraj wrote:Don't worry Sir, in the very near future there will be a new customer for Rafale with numbers higher than the highest firm order by a single export customer for F 35 :wink:


I am worried since we're the only chumps lined up to buy what no one else seems willing to. With the French hugely downsizing their domestic orders, India is practically bailing out the program.

Not to mention, the pace of delivery is such that by 2020, the Australians or Israelis will field more F-35s than the IAF does Rafales.

Further I don't know how much years it will take to prove my point but rest assured I don't see 2400 F 35 entering service in US . There will definitely be a revised figure which will be less.


- The USMC has some 350 Harriers and F-18s needing replacement.
- The USN has 450 F-18s for replacement.
- The USAF has about 1700 fighters that will be retired over the next two decades.

That's about 2500 aircraft. The USN has not reduced its AC or LHD fleet, so the USN & USMC orders are pretty secure. And even assuming the USAF fleet is downsized, it'll still be at least 1500 strong (even India will field over 700 fighters).

Seeing as the F-35 is the only option for the non-Russian market between 2020 and 2030, a final build number of 3000+ is all but assured.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 28 Aug 2014 10:20

I agree.Whatever the difficulties,costs,etc.,the US really has little other option if it wants a 5th gen fighter to partner the F-22 and replace the numbers of legacy aircraft in the inventory.If further delays,etc. are experienced,it won't matter very much as even the last avatar of the various legacy aircraft provide more than adequate capability for the wars the US has experienced in the recent past and in the future,mil. action against unconventional,asymmetric threats such as ISIS is going to be far more prevalent than classic conventional warfare.The main threat in classic terms is China,why the JSF is urgently needed to give the US and its allies the qualitative advantage over greater Chinese numbers. That capability is in question by some think tanks,etc. The debate goes on.China is playing a relentless game of catch-up with the US tech wise,sealing whatever it can from the US/West on a daily basis.The widening mil. ambitions of SoKo and Japan are the counter moves to China's rapidly increasing threat to the smaller nations of Asia .

Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Rien » 28 Aug 2014 14:39

Viv S wrote:<snip>
Not to mention, the pace of delivery is such that by 2020, the Australians or Israelis will field more F-35s than the IAF does Rafales.


On that point Australia purchased a "temporary" buy of F-18's because the JSF was late on delivery. It's now certain Oz will be flying F-18's into the future while still waiting for the JSF. What assurance do you have that Australia will receive JSFs by 2020 given the poor track record?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6238241670

Viv S wrote:
- The USMC has some 350 Harriers and F-18s needing replacement.
- The USN has 450 F-18s for replacement.
- The USAF has about 1700 fighters that will be retired over the next two decades.

That's about 2500 aircraft. The USN has not reduced its AC or LHD fleet, so the USN & USMC orders are pretty secure. And even assuming the USAF fleet is downsized, it'll still be at least 1500 strong (even India will field over 700 fighters).

Seeing as the F-35 is the only option for the non-Russian market between 2020 and 2030, a final build number of 3000+ is all but assured.


UCAVS such as Dassault Neuron, Gripen, Tejas, MCA, PAKFA, Chinese stealth fighters. There is a choice at every conceivable price point from a choice of manufacturers. A final number of 750+ is optimistic. The US economy is in poor condition. Bharat's economy is strong.

The original order was for 2 800 fighters. It's been cut down to 2,443. My predicted death spiral has started.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... heAir.aspx

Our partners come to us and ask, ‘what is it going to cost to have an F-35?’ We couldn’t give them a good answer,”
Bogdan said.

The GAO’s director of defense procurement, Michael J. Sullivan, cautioned that F-35 sustainment costs threaten its
future. “The department's most recent estimates for operating and supporting the F-35 fleet are somewhere between
$850 billion and $1 trillion which department officials have deemed unaffordable.” Sullivan credited the Pentagon for
making “difficult decisions through the years to put the F-35 on more sound footing, but more risks lie ahead and it
will be important how these risks are managed.” The biggest snag is the F-35 software, which is holding back the entire
program, Sullivan said. The other is the O&S cost. “The estimate right now is deemed unaffordable.”


The person who is in charge of procurement disagrees with you that 3 000 orders is certain. I would say, given prior track record of the F-22, that 750 is the optimistic higher end. Price rise leads to order cuts. Reduction in orders means price for remaining JSF increases. The end result is a $470 million dollar fighter. Just like the F-22, the B2, the F-117 etc. The US has had a lot of failed stealth planes.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8837
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 28 Aug 2014 15:40

On that point Australia purchased a "temporary" buy of F-18's because the JSF was late on delivery. It's now certain Oz will be flying F-18's into the future while still waiting for the JSF. What assurance do you have that Australia will receive JSFs by 2020 given the poor track record?


Because they have already received the 2 and there has not been a single F-35 in LRIP post LRIP 4 that has slipped its delivery timeline as per the fixed price contracts that have now become standard practice in the program. RAAF has to now (in the next 6-8 months) make a call in what blocks they want to receive their further orders (beyond the 14). The deliveries of the first 2 have happened and the program of delivery of the remaining 12 (i think) has also been finalized and baked into the LRIP and FSP plan.

It absolutely has to be conceded that the RAAF had to buy a make shift in the Super Hornet and Growlers, but they will most likely end up converting all SH's to the Growler configuration post NGJ arrival so in a way that compromise (4.5 generation aircraft) would not go to waste.

The original order was for 2 800 fighters. It's been cut down to 2,443. My predicted death spiral has started


Yes its started. BTW have the air chiefs from the export customers rung up the program office to cancel the order or did they not read last few of your posts?

The person who is in charge of procurement disagrees with you that 3 000 orders is certain


Partners are working on a bulk buy as we speak. Those orders will most likely start coming in around Q3-Q4 of 2015. As far as the 3000 number is concerned, it is neither too optimistic nor too pessimistic especially considering that the the current F-35 would not be the last version of the jet ever produced. Lockheed has already pitched in a Super Lightning II for the FA-X competition as a lower risk/cost solution and just as the F-16 evolved into the weapons system it is today the F-35's future block versions will evolve as well with plenty of follow on orders as fleet requirements change over time for most customer air forces, and navies.
Last edited by brar_w on 28 Aug 2014 15:48, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8837
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 28 Aug 2014 15:44

Philip wrote:I agree.Whatever the difficulties,costs,etc.,the US really has little other option if it wants a 5th gen fighter to partner the F-22 and replace the numbers of legacy aircraft in the inventory.If further delays,etc. are experienced,it won't matter very much as even the last avatar of the various legacy aircraft provide more than adequate capability for the wars the US has experienced in the recent past and in the future,mil. action against unconventional,asymmetric threats such as ISIS is going to be far more prevalent than classic conventional warfare.The main threat in classic terms is China,why the JSF is urgently needed to give the US and its allies the qualitative advantage over greater Chinese numbers. That capability is in question by some think tanks,etc. The debate goes on.China is playing a relentless game of catch-up with the US tech wise,sealing whatever it can from the US/West on a daily basis.The widening mil. ambitions of SoKo and Japan are the counter moves to China's rapidly increasing threat to the smaller nations of Asia .


There are people who so strongly disagreed with the F-16 CONOPS and the entire purpose of the programs existence that they got their careers burnt because they let their emotions get in the way. Some of them returned back to defense and aerospace reporting a decade or so later and now claim that the multi-role F-16 is not a LWF and that they were right all along. I'll try to scan some stuff form the 70's and 80's on the F-16 written by experts at the time..

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 28 Aug 2014 20:04

brar_w wrote:
Philip wrote:I agree.Whatever the difficulties,costs,etc.,the US really has little other option if it wants a 5th gen fighter to partner the F-22 and replace the numbers of legacy aircraft in the inventory.If further delays,etc. are experienced,it won't matter very much as even the last avatar of the various legacy aircraft provide more than adequate capability for the wars the US has experienced in the recent past and in the future,mil. action against unconventional,asymmetric threats such as ISIS is going to be far more prevalent than classic conventional warfare.The main threat in classic terms is China,why the JSF is urgently needed to give the US and its allies the qualitative advantage over greater Chinese numbers. That capability is in question by some think tanks,etc. The debate goes on.China is playing a relentless game of catch-up with the US tech wise,sealing whatever it can from the US/West on a daily basis.The widening mil. ambitions of SoKo and Japan are the counter moves to China's rapidly increasing threat to the smaller nations of Asia .


There are people who so strongly disagreed with the F-16 CONOPS and the entire purpose of the programs existence that they got their careers burnt because they let their emotions get in the way. Some of them returned back to defense and aerospace reporting a decade or so later and now claim that the multi-role F-16 is not a LWF and that they were right all along. I'll try to scan some stuff form the 70's and 80's on the F-16 written by experts at the time..


the same for the M-1 Abrams tank. It proved to be a reliable, high performing tank. it's how we do things. we're not secretive Russians. if you like that then buy their equipment.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Austin » 23 Sep 2014 14:20

F-35 fighter jet plagued by poor visibility, Pentagon report warns

Bruce Campion-Smith Ottawa Bureau, Published on Wed Mar 06 2013

OTTAWA—The F-35 jet, eyed as Canada’s fighter of the future, may have a fatal flaw — a blind spot that prevents pilots from “checking their six” or easily watching for an enemy behind them, a new report says.

Experienced fighter pilots who have flown the high-tech aircraft say the design shortfall could cost future F-35 pilots their lives.

“Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time,” wrote one American pilot, who flew the fighter last fall at Florida’s Eglin Air Force Base.

“The head rest is too large and will impede aft visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements,” wrote another.

Their comments are contained in a recent assessment prepared by the U.S. Defence Department of the F-35A and the system to train new pilots how to fly it.

The Feb. 15, 2013 report, prepared by Michael Gilmore, director of operational test and evaluation, paints a sobering picture of an aircraft that remains far from being combat ready. Pilots who flew the aircraft last fall faced a litany of “significant” restrictions that barred them from flying at night, in bad weather, in formation with other aircraft, doing aerobatics or testing the jet’s combat capabilities.

“As a result of the immaturity of the F-35A, student pilots were limited in flight maneuvering to very basic aircraft handling,” the report said.

“The aircraft is still very immature; utility of available training is limited,” the report, revealed by the Project on Government Oversight, a U.S. watchdog group.

It also highlighted several “serious” risks with the aircraft, such as lack of lightning protection, potential for fuel leaks and potential difficulties with the ejection seats on early models of the F-35.

While further development is expected to address those shortcomings, the concerns about visibility may not be so easily corrected without a redesign of the aircraft.

“Aft visibility could turn out to be a significant problem for all F-35 pilots in the future,” the report warns.

“Unlike legacy aircraft such as F-15, F-16 and F/A-18, enhanced cockpit visibility was not designed into the F-35,” the report says. “There is no simple relief to limitations of the F-35 cockpit visibility.”

Other pilots even complained about the difficulty of spotting other aircraft in the airport traffic pattern or “staying visual with wingman.” However, the report did note that it’s possible that pilots could adapt “over time and with more experience.”

The report also flagged “deficiencies” with some of the jet’s futuristic design. The radar system has “shortfalls”: it was inoperative on two sorties and failed to display targets on another. The touchscreen used to control radios and navigation is “error prone.”

And the sophisticated helmets worn by the pilots that present images onto their visors have proven a headache, causing “frequent problems” that included blurry and double vision, and flickering displays.

Together, these problems could impair a pilot’s interaction with the jet and their ability to respond in an emergency.

“Therefore, there is no confidence that the pilot can perform critical tasks safely,” the report said.

Mechanics have had their own gripes. It’s takes more than two days to swap out an engine rather than the two hours it was supposed to take.

And because a battery unit is vulnerable in cool temperatures, ground crews have had to keep the aircraft in heated hangars overnight, taking up space that would otherwise be used for jets needing repairs. “Moving jets in and out of a hangar to keep them warm involves five personnel for three to four hours per shift,” the report says.

Despite the report’s concerns, one Canadian remains bullish on the jet’s abilities. Billy Flynn, a former CF-18 pilot and squadron commander is now an F-35 test pilot and says the jet is better than anything he’s flown.

Flynn, who has flown more than 80 aircraft, said the F-35 is the “simplest” aircraft he has ever flown.

“It has the most amount of information ever presented to a pilot,” Flynn told the Star last month. “Dramatically simpler to fly, dramatically more capable than anything I have ever flown.”

“I see massive swaths of airspace. I don’t just see it with the radar. I sense it with the other technologies on the airplane. That’s on a scale dramatically more capable than the little radar I had before,” he said.

“All the sensors work together to give me the best idea of where something is, to identify it,” Flynn said.

The F-35A had been Canada’s pick to replace its fleet of aging CF-18 fighters but concerns about cost and program delays forced Ottawa to restart its selection process last year.

The U.S. briefly grounded its fleet of F-35s late last month after discovering a cracked engine blade. The jets have resumed flying.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 23 Sep 2014 18:00

There was a recent report about the USMC undecided about std. operating procedures for the F-35B ,STOVL variant for the USMC's amphibs.This is because there has been no solution found to the problem of excessive heat from the JSF's engine which is melting the flight deck.They've tried a lot but have found no solution thus far.The Osprey is also giving the USMC the same problems.The USMC has said that it cannot use the JSF in sustained ops but that it is "OK" because it does not anticipate conflicts for now with sustained mil. ops!

Yagnasri

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Yagnasri » 23 Sep 2014 18:08

Useless idiots. Not even anticipated what a huge jet blast will do to iron. So they want a short time operations only. Seems that they are ok with a short time work capability. :mrgreen:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 23 Sep 2014 18:40

Aug 26, 2014 :: USS America Tours South America, Prepares for JSF

This ship is going to surprise a lot of people with its ability to bring forward aviation assets,” Capt. Robert Hall, USS America’s Commanding Officer, told Military​.com in an interview while aboard the ship.


Those on BR should not be among them.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 23 Sep 2014 22:29

DISGRACE: NAVY’S NEW PURPOSE BUILT “F-35B CARRIER” CANNOT WITHSTAND CONTINUOUS F-35B OR MV-22 OPERATIONS
Posted on January 16, 2014 by aviationintel.com

http://news.usni.org/2014/01/15/sna-201 ... ck-amphibs

F35-lightening-lockheed-martin-1The issues with the F-35B’s exhaust gasses, and the MV-22 Osprey’s as well, damaging the decks of America’s “L class” ships is nothing new. What is new is that America’s latest amphibious assault ship, the USS America, designed without a well deck to embark beach landing craft and their assorted tanks and vehicles, instead being focused on aviation operations, cannot handle the aircraft it was purpose-built to deploy.

Now think about that, the Navy decides that the MV-22 and the F-35B are so important to their “gator navy” that they build a much less versatile version of what traditionally are highly versatile ships known as Landing Helicopter Docks (LHDs), that cannot even handle their primary function that compromised the class’s range abilities in the first place. Basically, the LHA-6 ”America Class,” as it is designed today is an aircraft carrier. Sure it looks like the Wasp Class LHD that proceeded it, but once again it totally lacks the ability to deploy vessels from its stern. Instead it is built with Marine aviation almost totally in mind. Such a deviation from the proven Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) concept is controversial to begin with as the US Navy already has close to a dozen massive nuclear carriers that can handle more capable and longer ranged traditional fixed wing naval fighter aircraft. america-011Yet the fact that the deck of this new “state of the art” ship, that cost upwards of six billion dollars to design and field, cannot even provide sustained flight operations of F-35Bs and MV-22s because of the heat involved with exposing the ship’s deck to their exhausts. This is so bad, so wasteful its disgusting.

Hearing these officials trying to spin such obtuse designs blunders over and over again is getting so damn old and tiring that it is hard to even read these articles anymore. So the Navy says the next two Amphibious Assault ships won’t have this problem, jus the six billion dollar one they already have purpose built to operate these aircraft. Yet this is not an issue because according to Captain Mercer (quoted in the article) these aircraft carriers were not designed for sustained air operations? How contradictory is all this? Maybe the captain should look back to 2003′s Operation Iraqi Freedom, where amphibs were used as “Harrier Carriers,” embarking two dozen Harriers for combat operations (see picture below), and that was an operation to oust an impotent dictator, not a protracted peer state conflict in the Pacific! Or what about the recent ”Operation Odyssey Dawn” over Libya, where an LHD, and its Ospreys and Harriers, were used instead of a nuclear powered CVN for air operations?

Harrier CarrierNews flash, you sound like a bunch of incompetent idiots that have no stewardship of America’s treasure or strategic dominance. They should take that ship, remove its proud name, and let it sit in dry dock until the manufacturer can install a deck surface that can sustain constant sustained flight operations of anything in the inventory presently or planned. If both the Osprey and the F-35B are exceeding their engine exhaust temperatures that were stated in relation to America’s deck design, then the manufacturers of these aircraft should pay for its refitting. In other words, it’s time for serious accountability..

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 23 Sep 2014 22:53

^^^^^
He is your thread cousin. He posts such articles every month. Funny guy. But, no one listens to him!!

Sept, 2013: OSPREY DRAGS THE BASKET
Jan: The above post
Feb: DEAR USMC: YOU ARE GETTING YOUR F-35B, NOW GET THE VERY MOST OUT OF IT ............ (HE GIVES UP!!!!!!!!)

May be he should post in larger fonts.

Funny.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 23 Sep 2014 23:14

Austin wrote:F-35 fighter jet plagued by poor visibility, Pentagon report warns

Bruce Campion-Smith Ottawa Bureau, Published on Wed Mar 06 2013


Old article already posted and discussed on the thread.

1. The F-35 rear visibility is no worse than the PAK FA.

2. The article's author seems oblivious to the VSI HMDS which is mated to the EODAS to give the pilot a 'God's Eye' view of the airspace around him.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8837
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 24 Sep 2014 04:00

Not only that but if you look at some of the design submissions for the FA-X RFI held in late 2012 and 2013 you'll find that this is only going to be the case in the future. With EODAS there is no need to design for rear visibility and this aspect can be traded off for other design considerations. Its simply not an issue with 360 SA built right into the helmet mounted display. The articles about rear-visibility basically ignore the fact that the USAF, USN and USMC approved of this during the design phase and are continuing to endorse the use of HMD and EODAS like set ups into the future. Technology advances and things move on. The F-35 will most likely not have a 2 seat version, does this mean that it suffers from work overload? NO. Adavances in Mission computing an integration of sensors actually reduces work overload to an extent that even the the USMC has shown some interest (for the future) to kit a single seat F-35 even for the Stand off EW mission something that is currently not possible with single pilot legacy dedicated jammer aircraft.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8837
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 24 Sep 2014 04:05

Philip wrote:There was a recent report about the USMC undecided about std. operating procedures for the F-35B ,STOVL variant for the USMC's amphibs.This is because there has been no solution found to the problem of excessive heat from the JSF's engine which is melting the flight deck.They've tried a lot but have found no solution thus far.The Osprey is also giving the USMC the same problems.The USMC has said that it cannot use the JSF in sustained ops but that it is "OK" because it does not anticipate conflicts for now with sustained mil. ops!


Sollution found and is being implemented. The SOP is something that is always a "work in progress" as a service goes from IOC to FOC and beyond. Do you think this will be different with the F-35? from what has happened in the past? Was SOP not a "work in progress" when the Harrier was introduced into the USMC? What about when the USN first began Carrier operations using Cat's? Was the SOP not a development-transition? Things take time to settle down when a new capability is introduced. The Marines have never used Supersonic, Stealth STOVL before. It will take them time to develop a SOP and come up with "best - practices". Read the SLD interviews of multiple USMC commanders and CO's, to gain any sort of perspective on what they are doing and how they plan on doing things differently. This is of course assuming you are actually interested in gaining a proper perspective of what is going on. The F-35B changes US marine aviation, its a transformational capability given what they could achieve with the Harrier. Capability always comes as a tradeoff. Figure out how to get a logistical footprint that is at par with the harrier while getting a capability that is at par with the F-35B (Both organic and inorganic capability) and you will be a very very rich man.

High tempo is never going to be a strong suite of an LHA, no matter who designs it, the russians, the french , the americans or the Japanese. This needs to be driven home. You will never get the tempo from an LHA that matches that of a carrier of a similar displacement. This is by design, you are trading off a lot of things required to maintain high tempo for the underground space to do things that the LHA is actually designed to do in the first place. The F-35 has been on the Wasp twice, the Wasp class was upgraded to accommodate the F-35B, while the newer LHA's have been built to do so..Tempo rates are limited by the ability to send the ships up in the air which are in turn limited by your ability to house the essentially components. The biggest problem with the F-35B or any other fixed winged aircraft (including the Tejas) is how to get an engine on an LHA. While the V-22 can carry F-404/414 sized engines it cannot carry the F-135. The Navy is looking at a new transport aircraft (lockheed is proposing C-3 built semi-new from those that were previously mothballed) that will be the solution but you will have to realize that this is very much a work in progress. Tell me how the IN plans to get an F-414 on a carrier for the Tejas? The same issues exist for all navies that are introducing a new capability and they are usually sorted out with time. Thats why there is a learning curve associated with integration of a new platform into a force structure.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 24 Sep 2014 09:37

More from "Breaking news" yesterday.
GAO Draft Slams F-35 On ‘Unaffordable’ Costs: $8.8B Over Legacy Fighters
By Colin Clark on September 22, 2014
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/09/gao- ... -fighters/
WASHINGTON: The F-35′s long-term costs may “not be affordable” and appear to be substantially higher than those of the existing combat aircraft fleets that the Joint Strike Fighter will replace, the Government Acocuntability Office says in a draft report.

“The annual F-35 operating and support costs are estimated to be considerably higher than the combined annual costs of several legacy aircraft,” the draft says. This issue is likely to be a topic of debate at the JSF Executive Steering Board meetings to begin Thursday in Oslo, Norway. The nine countries that invested in the F-35′s development will hold bilateral meetings on Wednesday. Then they gather in the shadow of the Norwegian parliament as a group the next day.

The estimated gap between the F-35 sustainment costs and those of the F/A-18, F-15, F-16 and the Harrier fleets as measured in 2010 is impressive, about $8.8 billion, an increase of 79 percent. That estimate comes from the Pentagon’s authoritative Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office, the GAO draft report says. The draft says that costs for the legacy fleet were about $11 billion a year in 2010. Based on CAPE’s estimate, the F-35′s annual costs will be $19.9 billion in 2012 dollars.

A source close to the program pointed to this comparison as one example of how GAO was “comparing apples and oranges.”

Part of the reasons behind those higher costs can be found in these numbers cited by GAO. First, mean flight hours between critical failures: “As of March 2014, this metric was averaging well below its requirements at maturity, meeting an average of 42 percent of those requirements across all three variants,” the GAO says. And mean time to repair the aircraft “is worsening,” though the report does not offer a specific figure.

The GAO report points out throughout the draft report that CAPE estimates are substantially higher than those of the Joint Program Office, which manages the program, for almost everything to do with sustainment. The official CAPE estimate is $23 billion higher than the JPO’s. But the report says that the CAPE estimate for parts costs would be $120 billion higher than the JPO’s if “they used actual replacement rates being observed at F-35 sites.”

Also, the GAO says that DoD “has not fully addressed” aircraft reliability and technical data rights, which may affect sustainment.

The good news for the program is that the Defense Department does appear to have done a “comprehensive” job of building its cost estimates, GAO says.

Spokesman Joe DellaVedova said the Joint Program Office would not comment “on an unfinished, draft report that has not been publicly released.”

However, he defended the program’s efforts, noting it has created “a government-funded reliability and maintainability program,” and did it “while the fleet is young with about 100 aircraft, so any improvements we make now will reap significant benefits over the next 50 years with thousands of F-35s in the fleet.”

So far, he says they’ve come up with about “200 initiatives to improve the reliability and the maintainability of the airplane.”

In addition, DellaVedova said they are “reviewing how the F-35 uses support equipment and studying ways where existing items could be modified or a maintenance procedure could be changed that would enable the fleet to use that piece of equipment. We are investigating how we can flatten the supply chain to get parts to the field faster. We are also working with the services and partners to optimize flight hour programs to ensure pilot readiness and reduce sustainment costs.”

In conversations with several sources close to the F-35 program who have seen this draft, they mentioned that GAO’s methods mean their estimates are inherently out of date. Questions were also raised about the GAO’s methodologies for analyzing fuel costs. The program office and Lockheed Martin have long chafed at the analyses done by OSD and the GAO on long-term program costs, so much of this isn’t surprising. But the program has clearly turned a corner in the last two years and Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, head of the JPO, has recently and repeatedly urged reporters and others to “get over” the program’s early years, wracked as they were by mismanagement, huge cost increases and schedule delays.

The GAO does say that the military “has begun some cost savings efforts and established sustainment affordability targets for the F-35 program, but DoD did not use the military service budgets to establish these targets,” so they “do not provide a clear benchmark…” As one example of that disconnect, the auditors say that the program “arbitrarily lowered” the estimate for F-35 fuel costs by 10 percent.

It will be very interesting to see if the GAO sticks to these conclusions when the report gets approved for release.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20797
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 24 Sep 2014 09:53

Again from Breaking Defense.Same link.
JSF & The Path of DOOM

By Lt. Col. Dan Ward on September 16, 2014

F-35B and CAs commanders and contractors gather for the Air Force Association’s massive annual conference, our favorite iconoclastic officer, the White House-endorsed Lt. Col. Dan Ward, offers this merciless dissection of the Pentagon’s biggest program and how to avoid its mistakes. — the Editors

In February of 2014, Lt. Gen. Charles Davis, the Air Force’s top uniformed acquisition official, said big, audacious programs like the Joint Strike Fighter were “doomed the day the contract was signed.” As the former Program Executive Officer for the JSF, he brings a pretty credible perspective to the situation. Given his first-hand experience and the F-35’s track record of delays, cost overruns, technical problems, operational limitations, and the recent grounding of the entire fleet due to an engine fire, I am very much inclined to agree with him.

The phrasing of Lt. Gen. Davis’ assessment is important: He is not saying the F-35 was recently doomed, or is troubled because of late-breaking developments like sequestration, the Afghan drawdown, recent technical challenges, or the latest Chinese stealth fighter. Not at all. He is saying that America’s most expensive weapon system began its very existence behind the eight ball. It was doomed from the start.

The seeds of JSF’s troubles were firmly rooted in 2001, when the system development contract was signed. For that matter, the situation was already pretty clear in 1996, when the Air Force awarded contracts to develop a pair of competing prototypes. The proposed aircrafts’ complexity, cost, and development timeline all pointed to an ill-advisedly large, pricey, and slow effort that was immediately on track to cost more, take longer, and deliver less than promised. The problems that followed (and the accompanying charges of acquisition malpractice) were therefore entirely predictable and, more importantly, avoidable.

Why do weapon programs like the JSF bust their huge budgets and long schedules, while others like the Navy’s Virginia-class submarine program (which won the Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award three times) come in under budget, ahead of schedule, and perform superbly in the field? As Lt. Gen. Davis implied, the answer can often be found at the program’s inception, when the foundation is laid and when program leaders decide which path to follow.

The JSF malpractitioners chose to follow what we might call “the path of D.O.O.M.” – Delayed, Over-budget, Over-engineered, Marginally-effective — by establishing a massive bureaucracy, a distant delivery date, an enormous budget, and a highly complex technical architecture. This fostered an expansive culture where rising price tags and receding milestones were seen as inevitable and where the primary problem-solving strategy was to add time, money, and complexity to the project. Data from the GAO and other reliable analysts agree this is a demonstrably ineffective approach. Because it was on the Path of D.O.O.M., the JSF’s Nunn-McCurdy breaches in 2004 and 2010 were simply a matter of time.

It didn’t have to be that way. There is an alternative path they could have followed which would have increased the likelihood of delivering an affordable system that is available when needed and effective when used. This better approach goes by many names, but I like to call it the FIRE method.

FIRE stands for Fast, Inexpensive, Restrained, and Elegant. Unlike the expansive D.O.O.M. culture, FIRE fosters a restrained approach to problem solving. Those who follow this path eschew large price tags and long timelines, instead placing a premium on speed and thrift as the Navy did with those Virginia-class submarines. Rear Admiral William Hilarides, the program executive officer for submarines, put it this way, “The Virginia-class program… was originally designed with cost effectiveness in mind. In order to reduce costs on this program, we have to change the way we build submarines, and that’s what we’re doing.”

So, rather than equating budgets with prestige, FIRE projects take pride in doing the most with the least, as when the Air Force Research Lab built a world-class, 500 TFLOP supercomputer called the Condor Cluster for one-tenth the price of a comparable machine. It outperformed every other supercomputer in the DoD, despite being constructed out of 1,760 PlayStation III’s.

The key to avoiding the Path of D.O.O.M. is to establish and nurture passionate advocates of thoughtful simplicity in every dimension of the programs, from organizational structures and procedures to communication methods and technical designs. Embrace and pursue speed and thrift. Exercise some restraint.

Restraint leads to an entirely different approach to solving problems than that followed by the D.O.O.M. method, and thus leads to different solutions. People who use approaches like FIRE leverage intellectual capital more than financial capital, and apply “reductive thinking methods” to prevent over-engineered solutions and requirements creep. Even before the contract is signed, they set up constraints and implement procedures designed to prevent the types of problems experienced on the JSF.

Is it too late to cancel the Joint Strike Fighter? Maybe, although an article by Col Michael Pietrucha in the May-June 2014 issue of Air & Space Power Journal made a strong case that it is not. But regardless of the future viability of that particular aircraft, it is certainly not too late to set other programs on a better path. Indeed, the Air Force seems interested in doing precisely that. In the same interview where Lt. Gen. Davis called the JSF doomed, he went on to point out that “we are not starting all the new audacious big programs that we were…” Instead, the Air Force is pursuing smaller, more restrained systems. Less D.O.O.M., more FIRE. Time will tell whether the shift towards less audacity and more restraint is permanent or effective, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

Dan is a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Air Force, currently stationed at Hanscom Air Force Base. He is the author of FIRE: Why Constraints Ignite Innovation, published by HarperBusiness. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Air Force or Department of Defense.

XCpt. from a comment with Gen.Bogdan's take.

As far as Col. Ward’s analysis, I generally agree, but want to amplify one point: the JSF was sold to leadership and the Congress as Affordable (it’s the number one talking point in early slide decks/powerpoints,) yet the program’s obvious complexity screamed the opposite. The problem is how can reasonable, dissenting voices be heard and not damage the career of the individuals who do not want to participate in rosy groupthink?

Bogdan has a plan for that. Navy Times:

Keeping the program steadily moving forward is the only way to truly drive costs down, Bogdan said, using an oft-cited figure that 80 cents on every dollar of potential savings for the program now comes from economies of scale. “In the next three years we double production, and in the next five years we triple production,” Bogdan said. “So there is a significant ramp coming to us. Anytime a partner or service loses an airplane to the right, meaning I was going to take delivery of it here and I move it later, it effects everybody. We all sink or swim together.”

Of course he is talking about doubling and tripling production of useless prototypes, which Pentagon acquisition chief Kendall has labelled ‘Acquisition Malpractice’ as noted above by Col. Ward. Bogdan, when asked where these sales are coming from, has recently mentioned only South Korea, Singapore and Israel. Really.


Do we see some similarities in the manner in which the LCA programme has been managed?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 24 Sep 2014 10:36

Philip wrote:The estimated gap between the F-35 sustainment costs and those of the F/A-18, F-15, F-16 and the Harrier fleets as measured in 2010 is impressive, about $8.8 billion, an increase of 79 percent. That estimate comes from the Pentagon’s authoritative Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office, the GAO draft report says. The draft says that costs for the legacy fleet were about $11 billion a year in 2010. Based on CAPE’s estimate, the F-35′s annual costs will be $19.9 billion in 2012 dollars.


$20 billion per year for about 2500 aircraft flying 250 hours annually works out to an operating cost of $32,000 per hour. That's about 50% higher than the Eurocanards but also accounts for indirect costs. And that figure will continue to fall as the recent intensive cost reduction programs move towards implementation.

Also, it delivers combat capability commensurate to that cost. There's certainly nothing else on the market that can compete in higher-end segment for now - the Rafale has no VLO capability and is inferior in almost every respect (except for agility), while the PAK FA won't be operational until 2023 (if not later) with avionics and stealth features that are still iffy and an operating cost that'll make the F-35 look cheap.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8837
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 24 Sep 2014 17:14

One problem with the F-35 cost calculations that the calculators ran into was that the added cost included everything that on legacy jets would be considered an "add on". Things like a IRST, FLIR, an enhanced CNI capability, EW etc. Those are not added to the cost of an F-16 or F-18 when calculations are made but for the F-35 they are built in. The F-35 will also be cheaper to use for longer ranges due to its optimization for that aspect compared to the F-16 and F-18 fighters. It brings more capability whether that is through stealth, sensor fusion, flying longer distances while maintaining greater combat capability etc etc etc. The F-16A cost around 2500-5000 dollars per annum to operate (70's to 90's) yet the current block 50/52s in the missions they are being sent out to cost 2-3X that. Same thing with the Super Hornet which costs close to 20K per hour without all the additional stuff (EW pods, FLIR, IRST etc). No one is complaining that the Super Hornet costs 10X as the F-16A are they? Similarly no one will complain when the F-35 costs more because the capability added is quite substantial. Want a reversal in flying costs then better start taking a big hit in capability. The F-35 will most likely cost in between an F-16 and an F-15C as far as CPFH is concerned but will bring home a capability that is much greater with all the support equipment integrated to the airframe (hence baked into the cost) from the start. A bare bone F-35 costs around 17K per hour according to the office of the comptroller FYI.

There is nothing to compare between it and the LCA. 5th generation aircraft come at a cost. Do you think the PAKFA will be magically cheaper than the Su-30MKI to own and operate?

In sum, it would be an interesting exercise to figure out what the cost was to operate the F-4 and F-5 vs the cost to operate the F-16 and F-15C. I won't bring in the F-15E into the picture as that aircraft came in much later. As a hint think the F-15C as a multiple of the F-4's cost that is greater than 3 ;). Was the shift to the F-16 and F-15 model disastrous for the USAF? What about the cost of the F-22 vs the F-15C? Add about 10K to the cost of operating the F-15C (bare bone) to get the cost of operating the F-22. Why stop at that, what was the cost to operate the first generation jet fighter vs the legacy props it replaced? Was that increase in cost justified?

There are serious issues with the GAO calculations that have not been addressed at the moment and will most likely remain unaddressed for some time (till at least 50K fleet hours of the F-35). Some of them are -

1) The cost of the legacy fleet - not including essential mission components that are standard in the F-35 and the cost of which cannot be separated from the F-35's cost of operations
2) The O&S cost model for the F-35 is not the same as that used on the F-16 as for the first time the CAPERS are using a much more detailed presentation that takes into account un-developed systems (ALIS) and munition rounds used over the lifetime
3) There is no comparison that is adjusted for an increase in capability. Does the F-35 provide a 1 for 1 capability replacement for the F-16? How many missions can be accomplished by an F-35 with its support footprint? What would be the added cost of the support footprint if those same missions were to be executed by legacy F-16's and F-18's.

Such tradeoffs have been made every generation and the result has been a more capable weapons system that also costs more.

MAC is doing a analysis of the GAO report that will most likely bring out these very issues and possibly some others. The USAF/USN are not dumb enough to demand a capability set knowing full well that what is demanded will definitely cost more to obtain then what it is replacing. There are however many aspects of long term O&S where the F-35 will be much cheaper to maintain compared to a fleet of mixed aircraft
Last edited by brar_w on 24 Sep 2014 20:10, edited 2 times in total.

member_22605
BRFite
Posts: 159
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby member_22605 » 24 Sep 2014 18:33

^The pak-fa won't be cheaper, but it already is much better in kinematic performance, sensor suite, signature, payload etc as compared to the MKI, can you say the same about the F-35 as compared to the teens?
Cheers!

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19573
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Karan M » 24 Sep 2014 18:54

raghuk wrote:^The pak-fa won't be cheaper, but it already is much better in kinematic performance, sensor suite, signature, payload etc as compared to the MKI, can you say the same about the F-35 as compared to the teens?
Cheers!


Exactly...the JSF was meant to be a A2G/MR supporter for the premier F22 - now its supposed to be the jack of all. Its basically going to depend on stealth and sensors, to compensate.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8837
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 24 Sep 2014 19:26

raghuk wrote:^The pak-fa won't be cheaper, but it already is much better in kinematic performance, sensor suite, signature, payload etc as compared to the MKI, can you say the same about the F-35 as compared to the teens?
Cheers!


Absolutely! There is plenty of information out there that demonstrates just how the F-35 is superior to the Teens in most metrics that aid combat performance. It is more lethal thanks to its sensor suites, stealth and integrated avionics backed by tremendous computing (as has been demonstrated over the last 20 or so pages of this thread), its performance kinematically is superior or at par to the teens in most aspects when discussing realistic combat scenarios.

Lets pick a scenario and we can discuss how much better the F-35 is to the teens

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8837
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 24 Sep 2014 19:32

Karan M wrote:
raghuk wrote:^The pak-fa won't be cheaper, but it already is much better in kinematic performance, sensor suite, signature, payload etc as compared to the MKI, can you say the same about the F-35 as compared to the teens?
Cheers!


Exactly...the JSF was meant to be a A2G/MR supporter for the premier F22 - now its supposed to be the jack of all. Its basically going to depend on stealth and sensors, to compensate.


Thats a gross simplification of how the USAF (i assume you are using the USAF as a benchmark since the USN does not have the F-22) operates its multi role fleet or plans on doing so into the future. The F-16 is a multi-role aircraft tasked with a host of different things. It so happens that air campaigns involve huge amount of A2G deployments and that aspect of the multi role fighter is tougher to bake into a fighter (hence the capability at block 3 is much higher then ideal for the F-35) at IOC. While the F-35 is not as capable kinematically as the F-22, it will regardless be used in the Air to Air missions just as the F-16 have been used for such missions by air forces around the world despite not being kinematically superior to the F-15 in some parameters. There are plenty of plans on adding to this capability and there are plenty of things within the F-35 that make it capable in such a mission. Stealth, sensor fusion, interoperability are just a few. Magazine depth is the current limiting factor but its been known for some years now that the eventual goal is to develop a 6 internal missile load (the timing depends upon what priority this receives from the stakeholders) along with a host of other capability additions that will make the aircraft better at this mission. The F-22 will be the last of the fighters designed around the " Not a pound for air to ground" mentality in the US as the returns are quite diminishing compared to the dollar spent. The 6th generation aircraft coming out of the RFI's at the moment are all inherently Multi-role from the start and would not be so uncompromising for the "sexy" A2A mission as the F-22 was during the ATF days.

Fighters do not fight wars, air forces do and the standardization of the F-35 fleet wide within the US services (MC,N,AF) and the allies will add a dimension that has never been seen before within these organization. If one were to prioritize F-35 IOC vs adding capability to the F-22, from a fleet wide combat capability addition the F-35 would be considered much superior. It simply brings up the capability of entire team in a way your silver bullet capability can never do. Keeping a platform relevant is painstakingly expensive and if history is any indication its the multi-role aircraft that actually succeed in winning over the "budget dollars" vs specialty aircraft. The F-16 and F-15E trumped the F-15C in this regard and the F-35 will do this at a whole other level. No longer would the USN and the USAF need two separate TI programs for any component of the fighter. They would be able to piggy back on one another and this would mean more frequent TI and more support for such an activity given the economies of scale. The only way this is possible is to develop a common multi-role aircraft that is acceptable to all stakeholders. The F-22 was clearly not given its capability and what it brought to the USN (The USN needed the SH and it has been an awesome aircraft for its needs).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 24 Sep 2014 21:09

^The pak-fa won't be cheaper, but it already is much better in kinematic performance, sensor suite, signature, payload etc as compared to the MKI, can you say the same about the F-35 as compared to the teens?
Cheers!


I can understand the question regarding the Russian planes.

The question posed WRT the F-35 exposes ignorance.

(And, just to be clear, I have suggested that the IAF stop buying any more MKIs, buy the PAK-FA instead and not buy the F-35.)

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19573
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Karan M » 24 Sep 2014 22:10

>>>Thats a gross simplification of how the USAF ...

Actually no. The F-22 was to be the door kicker, the premier fighter par excellence & the JSF didn't have to have as many A2A bells and whistles as a result or even be as much of a performer kinematically. The F22 got cancelled after a small run, the JSF has to do more, has picked up some F-22 sensor level abilities but remains far behind overall performance wise, so whats the simplification. The rest of your post merely elaborates what I summarized already.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19573
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Karan M » 24 Sep 2014 22:28

NRao wrote:
^The pak-fa won't be cheaper, but it already is much better in kinematic performance, sensor suite, signature, payload etc as compared to the MKI, can you say the same about the F-35 as compared to the teens?
Cheers!


I can understand the question regarding the Russian planes.

The question posed WRT the F-35 exposes ignorance.

(And, just to be clear, I have suggested that the IAF stop buying any more MKIs, buy the PAK-FA instead and not buy the F-35.)


Yes, he is ignorant and you are wise. You sure showed him.

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby member_20292 » 24 Sep 2014 22:46

brar_w wrote:
Fighters do not fight wars, air forces do and the standardization of the F-35 fleet wide within the US services (MC,N,AF) and the allies will add a dimension that has never been seen before within these organization. If one were to prioritize F-35 IOC vs adding capability to the F-22, from a fleet wide combat capability addition the F-35 would be considered much superior. It simply brings up the capability of entire team in a way your silver bullet capability can never do. Keeping a platform relevant is painstakingly expensive and if history is any indication its the multi-role aircraft that actually succeed in winning over the "budget dollars" vs specialty aircraft. The F-16 and F-15E trumped the F-15C in this regard and the F-35 will do this at a whole other level. No longer would the USN and the USAF need two separate TI programs for any component of the fighter. They would be able to piggy back on one another and this would mean more frequent TI and more support for such an activity given the economies of scale. The only way this is possible is to develop a common multi-role aircraft that is acceptable to all stakeholders. The F-22 was clearly not given its capability and what it brought to the USN (The USN needed the SH and it has been an awesome aircraft for its needs).


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?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8837
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 25 Sep 2014 02:08

mahadevbhu wrote:
brar_w wrote:
Fighters do not fight wars, air forces do and the standardization of the F-35 fleet wide within the US services (MC,N,AF) and the allies will add a dimension that has never been seen before within these organization. If one were to prioritize F-35 IOC vs adding capability to the F-22, from a fleet wide combat capability addition the F-35 would be considered much superior. It simply brings up the capability of entire team in a way your silver bullet capability can never do. Keeping a platform relevant is painstakingly expensive and if history is any indication its the multi-role aircraft that actually succeed in winning over the "budget dollars" vs specialty aircraft. The F-16 and F-15E trumped the F-15C in this regard and the F-35 will do this at a whole other level. No longer would the USN and the USAF need two separate TI programs for any component of the fighter. They would be able to piggy back on one another and this would mean more frequent TI and more support for such an activity given the economies of scale. The only way this is possible is to develop a common multi-role aircraft that is acceptable to all stakeholders. The F-22 was clearly not given its capability and what it brought to the USN (The USN needed the SH and it has been an awesome aircraft for its needs).


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?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8837
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 25 Sep 2014 02:12

Karan M wrote:>>>Thats a gross simplification of how the USAF ...

Actually no. The F-22 was to be the door kicker, the premier fighter par excellence & the JSF didn't have to have as many A2A bells and whistles as a result or even be as much of a performer kinematically. The F22 got cancelled after a small run, the JSF has to do more, has picked up some F-22 sensor level abilities but remains far behind overall performance wise, so whats the simplification. The rest of your post merely elaborates what I summarized already.


It isn't as simple as that. There is not the level of segregation between duties built into the system. The JSF program was charted at a time when the F-22 cuts were well into their maturity. Same thing with the F-15C, the USAF knew that it wasn't going to get as many as it wanted as a result they had to bring up the F-16. F-35 just did not get some of the "sensor capabilities" of the F-22, its sensor performance and capability is well ahead of the F-22 in all aspects. Everything from the radar technology, organic Electronic warfare, mission computing power, CNI suite and SA is superior to the F-22. Kinematic performance is reduced because you are essentially trying to balance things like combat radius, mission capability, logistical footprint, no. of missions, cost and fleet size. You cannot pile on all the stuff on and still buy 2000 fighters.

BTW From the get go, the F-35A will be a part of the AEF along side the F-22 in the A2A mission.
Last edited by brar_w on 26 Sep 2014 01:41, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 25 Sep 2014 02:25

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.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests