JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

[brar_w]

When the OEM puts out information like 30K hours of operation

The flight hours are tracked by the program and of course tracked by the individual OEM's. They are obviously releasing only the information that is cleared. the JPO has members from each and every customer for the program and this is an international developmental program. they are not pulling out numbers randomly and milestones are as they have occurred.

When the OEM puts out information like 30K hours of operation or an RCS of 0.0001 sq.-meter, you have to question the numbers to see if it makes any physical sense and how they came up with those.

That would be a punishable offense if they actually said that. Even when the boss of the ACC (General Hostage) said the F-35 was stealthier than the f-22, Lockeed did not take that bait and claimed it to be. They kept quite and said only as much as " the RCS values are favorable compared to the requirement". I have never come across any specific RCS number issued by any OEM be it tier 1 or tier 2 supplier.

I'd love to see it though if one number was ever provided but I highly doubt it.
In fact, I insist you provide it since you have made this claim as it is something that I have never seen before and would love to see.

BTW, why would 30,000 fleet hours not make "any physical sense"??? They accomplished 15K in the last 12 months..This has been the result of both addition in the number of aircraft with the number crossing 100 around the middle of last year, and a general rise in both Mission availability (was around 65% as of Q4 2014) and system maturity resulting in multiple flight testing being added per sortie (IFR).

The F-35A CTOL variant made its first flight on December 15, 2006 and flight testing is well underway. In 2011, Lockheed Martin conducted a total of 837 test flights with the F-35A. The F-35B STOVL made its first flight on June 11, 2008. On October 25, 2011, the first F-35B production aircraft (named BF-6) made its inaugural flight marking a significant milestone in the F-35 program. F-35 test and production aircraft flew 2,106 flights in 2012. The F-35C CV made its first flight on June 7, 2010. On February 15, 2013, the first production model F-35C (named CF-6), took flight and will be assigned to the U.S. Navy Fighter Attack Squadron 101 (VFA-101) at Eglin AFB. The first F-35C for the Marine Corps arrived at Eglin AFB on January 13, 2015. In September 2013, the F-35 reached a major milestone surpassing 10,000 flight hours on 6,492 flights. In March 2014, the F-35 reached the 14,000 flight hour mark and as of February 2015, F-35s have logged more than 26,000 cumulative flight hours.

The speed and pace of flying is picking up because you have the highest number of aircraft now and you have the ITF looking to make up the few weeks it lost due to the grounding. As a result they had surpassed 23000 flight hours by year end, 26000 flight hours by Feb. and the 30,000 flight hours has been surpassed as of April 23rd. The did 15K in 12 months between April 14 and April 15, expect an approximately 30-40% increase at a bare minimum thanks to higher availability and the ramp up. So 25K flight hours between April 15 and April 16 won't be too unrealistic and it could actually be more since they have grown sharply over the last 2 and a half years.

One can quickly see they don't make any sense and a sales pitch is being pursued.

Sales pitch for what? Do you think decisions on acquiring the F-35 are made based on unclassified data? Any potential customer sits down with the JPO and gets a SIMAF result handed do it. Some have even requested their own studies to be conducted based on the SIMAF analysis. In fact the entire European contingent asked for it before signing up. All that is based on classified data that is shared once a potential buyer agrees to move into the classified realm.

What the fleet hours has been have also no bearing on the data since the customers, and potential customers don't get that information form the OEM's but the JPO that oversees the program. Those that are already signed up in fact MAKE UP the JPO...They get a seat on the table and access to all information.

but he's in been put in a bad position which may be a career ender. No matter, he'll get picked up by LM a year after he retires.

What if he doesn't end up working for Lockheed?

From the information you've posted, I think your company or organization is getting a piece of the multi-hundred-billion dollar pie.

My company has absolutely nothing to do with the defense industry or even remotely connected to any industry that Lockheed is even remotely involved in. I can make an allegation that your company is getting an X sized pie but that would be baseless and blatantly wrong on my part as an allegation.

All the information I have posted is publicly available and most if not all over the last few dozen pages has been substantiated with evidence either direct links to the posts, or references as in research publications or test reports. If there are any where I may have missed information, I am willing to look them up. There has never been anything been mentioned by me that is not common knowledge, or available for the public at large.

I can pull numbers out of my back end and say that the F-35 acqusiton would cost $200 Billion ONLEE and everyone else is wrong and there is some big conspiracy with the budgeting..I stick to reporting the latest SAR data and the latest estimate and that for that metric is $391 Billion.

The rest of us can be viewed as "the haters gonna hate".

Hating for the sake of hating? Hate and discuss with logical and arguments that have merits. Calling out information officially issued to the entire media as being INACCURATE, and falsified is useless unless backed up and substantiated.

What else is being FALSIFIED? Have 140 deliveries not been made? Has a FALSE LRIP 8 contract been created and signed by Bogdan on behalf of the US and international customers? Are the SAR reports in it too? Is there a secret slush fund around the world paying for the excess cost because the "real" cost as reported by the SAR is falsified? The JPO negotiates for EACH AND EVERY F-35 whether US or international, and Bogdan signs the contracts with the OEM's. Fine, Don't believe him and his cost targets (because he is going to work for Lockheed one day). Do you believe the SAR? If not then short of actually getting a seat on the negotiating table, and seeing the contract first hand, what else would you believe?

There are limits to "conspiracy theories", unless that is precisely what we are discussing. One one end, there is a member here claiming that the entire RCA was falsified, wrong, and the real fault is being hidden and he claims to know what the "real deal" is which the rest of the world doesn't know, or can't seem to figure out (if only they read this forum)...on the other hand, FTD and FTU's are being claimed as FALSE .


See the numbers being thrown around? 400 Billion, and now $600 Billion? Why bring objectivity when we can just make stuff up. Where exactly does the $600 Billion number come from? One one end the fellow member claims that 2440 aircraft will never be produced, and int eh same breadth he is pegging the cost at $600 Billion for a reduced buy, when the current SAR Estimate points to a cost of $391 odd billion for 2400 aircraft. Do you see the fault in all this? What else has been attempted? How about converting the entire US Cost of the program, from day 1 SDD contract award, to the 2038 procurement of the last JSF (which he claims will never happen since A ) The program will be sitting in some boneyard because it doesn't work and B ) In the event that it works, they'll never buy 2400 but still spend the amount required for them) into INR, and dividing that over an individual Indian taxpayer (contribution) as if that information is relevant? Exactly how, I do not know!

Maybe they can turn the VTOL F-35s on their noses and use them as ventilator fans. Or wind turbines.

Yeah they are waiting to do that...Just waiting till someone comes in and exposes the entire conspiracy. Its just a matter of time. As POGO often says, the end is just around the corner.( I think the fashionable thing is to refer to it as the "DEATH SPIRAL").You can almost hear it now ! Outside of the fantasyland however they are preparing for IOC and deploying to Japan in a couple of years while the USAF is preparing basing both nationally and internationally, foreign customers are about to receive their first aircraft outside of the country.

Yet, unknown to all of us there is a massive design problem, massive amount of weight is to be added because none one of the electronics will work because there is a serious flaw that they are keeping best to hide...!!!

Damn, if only Air-Cheifs around the world spent a little more time reading this forum, instead of applying their mind and expertise...They wouldn't be investing and ordering aircraft..

My only contention is what IF all this does not happen? What if the IOC is on time, the IOC-A is on time and the SDD completes in 2018 without any other major incident over and above those that have been already identified? Would it be magic, or would it be the "cover Up" of the century that has escaped everyone else but not certain forum members...

Love the conspiracy theories!

Why not take the conspiracy theories to the 2 incidents that have occurred on the PAKFA? Including the fire? Any pointers there? All we know is one PR statement that claims everything is nice and fine, and its not going to effect the program in any way. Any Armchair Root Cause analysis there?

[Indranil]

Can you guys discuss the plane without discussing each other. Thanks.

[Mort Walker]

Damn, if only Air-Cheifs around the world spent a little more time reading this forum, instead of applying their mind and expertise...They wouldn't be investing and ordering aircraft..

Time will soon tell. 2017 or 2018? The UK may not order more than 48 due to rising cost and their declining defense budget. The Dutch may just order 37. SK is ordering 40 with an option for 20 more. Norway will be an interesting operator as they may see a threat from Russia and have 56 on order. Should Norway scale back their order, then perhaps the F-35 may not be the best thing sliced bread where everything is going so perfect with the program.

[brar_w]

Time will soon tell. 2017 or 2018?

USMC IOC 2015 (July), USAF IOC 2016 (July-Dec) and SDD phase completion (The entire development program) by 2018 (december - threshold).

The UK may not order more than 48 due to rising cost and their declining defense budget.

Thats entirely possible. Till this day they haven't yet begun getting AESA's on their Phoon's. They developed the Meteor but have now pushed integration to their fleet to FY18 or so. They don't have a Maritime Surveillance aircraft, and are forced to train on US P-8's while hoping to find money to buy some someday.

With 48, they better have some awesome support for their 2 carriers they are building. Would be a rather waste! IN reality however they are likely to find the money since the project is expected to be in production till 2038. Plenty of time to order new aircraft as everything is made in one production line.

The Dutch may just order 37. SK is ordering 40 with an option for 20 more.

Europe is having a budget crisis, they will most likely move a bulk of their purchases to the right as in mid to late 2020's. ROKAF was always expecting to buy a smaller amount and develop the KF-X for which they sought an Offset from Lockheed.

Norway will be an interesting operator as they may see a threat from Russia and have 56 on order.

Not to mention they are the "smartest" out of all (including the USAF) in that they latched on to the UAI and will therefore look to reap handsome rewards with JSM export to Australia and possibly japan (if not the US one day)

Should Norway scale back their order, then perhaps the F-35 may not be the best thing sliced bread where everything is going so perfect with the program

They won't.

You are forgetting the largest F-35 export customers in Turkey and Australia

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/turkey-buy-100 ... ts-1447485

http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/aus ... 2-1.294804


It doesn't matter how much they sell as export. Nations buy as per their economics, and the geopolitics of the times..The point with this program is to get URF down to acceptable levels (Bogdan's target is $85 Million Or 22% less than what is currently possible) by the time the production ramps up from 39 odd aircraft per year to 150 odd aircraft per year (a little more). If they achieve that, the US can recapitalize its fleets economically. If they can't there would be competing priorities. Export matters for interoperability and OEM bottom line, not to the operator. Lockheed currently budgets some 800-1000 aircraft as export (I think they do although I haven't checked). Is it unreasonable? I think its quite reasonable given he first wave orders and the fact that F-16 operators around the world would at some point look to replace their aircraft and as time goes by the F-35 would get only more economical/affordable and the competing aircraft only more obsolete.

It doesn't matter to the USAF other than that these orders extend production and allow it to spread out its own deliveries. However the delays in the F-35 have put a squeeze on that, in the sense that the USAF would need to aggressively match its 80 F-35A's per annum plan because they'll be loosing about that many F-16's due to retirement in the 2020's. Same with the USN and even more so with the USMC.

where everything is going so perfect with the program.

The program was a case in point of poor project management. Poor management at the OEM, and poor PM at the program office. They should have never attempted to go from SDD award to IOC in the time frame they aimed. While the F-35 was less risky because they had already acheived the F-22 milestones, technically it was far more risky due to the requirements. In the end whatever they estimated in terms of time came to be WRONG and they'll end up taking as much time in the F-35 SDD phase as they spent in the F-22 EMD phase (and about as much as every other 4.5 generation program spends in its similar phase). Since the baseline however there has been a generally upward trend in both the project management at the OEM and at the JPO. They slipped up big time, but have since recovered. Different issues from the f-16 development but issues nonetheless and isn't at often the case? (You make sure you don't make similar mistakes and you end up making new ones?)

The extended time (SDD phase extension) has caused them to shoot the SDD phase development estimates and this ups the overall development and acquisition cost by around 5% ($15 Billion spread over 2443 aircraft) which is largely due to overcoming the STOVL design challenges (SWAT) and the software challenge. This is a reality but keep in mind that COSTING is a complex issue and it isn't purely a science. If they could NARROW down on cost targets early on they would do so and either make the cost a fixed price contract or make it a KPP. This is never done (anywhere int eh world) for good reason. Unless you are willing to just do incremental "safe" upgrades, you better have some wiggle room in your cost estimates so that you extend the R&D and get the job done. You don't want to run out of money and begin cutting capability to get the cost back.

While they tried the best to avoid this on the JSF they did do it in one instance. The SECOND ENGINE. But given that the second engine came in through the "back door" anyway (After the F-135 was selected) and the fact that almost an identical amount of money has gone into the ADVENT and AETD programs it is much wiser to invest the 3-5 Billion to get a 6th generation Adaptive engine then to get another F-135 with comparable performance. Ideally you would want two, heck why not fund RR for a dedicated third engine while we are at it. In reality however the cost for the second engine was to come out of other capability since no one wanted to budget more money for RDT&E. The program took a calculated risk and chose to develop the full SDD capability while the USAF took over and invested a near equal amount in ADVENT (Surprise surprise the Engine makers that lost the JSF contract won that contract while P&W was forced to develop an ADVENT class engine on its own) and later the AETD.

I stand by my claims on the "areas of concern" that still remain. Software, Production Ramp, LCC and ALIS are the only real issues. ALIS is a PHM thing and perhaps the most ambitious component of the entire project. It is going to be a pain in the A$$ and a case in point for future designers to stop reading journals and coming up with stuff to add (this is an area where i have some experience). For a 40 year + service life it was a good "Aim Point", but they needed to get there gradually. For a 2010, or even 2015 induction it was always overly ambitious. Clearly it was an Ex GD employee who came up with that plan

An attempt is being made to pull the time lost by pushing capability upgrades in quicker. There have been confirmed reports of engine enhancements (5% USN contract, and GE and P&W laying out the propulsion roadmap for 2020+), new engine development, and Cyber pod developments in addition to a reinvigorated effort to develop weapons for the F-35 (AARGM_Extended Range). I think they are aiming to bring a lot of Block 5 capability up to block 4 and if they get UAI in time they may just be able to do that.

Also an interesting F-16 Pilot tale on the entire engine issue -

Salute!
+++++++++
Been lurking due to slow or no 'net connect up in the high country of Colorado.

++++++++++

Good grief, ya mean we didn't find a problem during the test program and such?

Think about the Viper and the SLUF. Within one year we flew more hours and sorties and exposed the jets to more repeated, violent maneuvers than Edwards or PAX River did in 5 or 6 years.

So by early 1972, we had seen the fan shroud rubbing problem in our TF-41 motors. They fixed the poblem in short order.

Then we saw the infamous "spacer" problem. This doofer was a sort of sleeve or bushing surounding the main fan-to-turbine shaft that Rolls thot would keep it from flexing too much. After all, we expected more violent maneuvers and gees than seen by the commercial Spey motor, huh? The thing would, in fact, flex and then come apart and cause oil to leak, and then the shaft would grind itself to pieces. Not a good thing. I had flown for one or two weeks after reporting that spring when we lost another jet. Then we were grounded until a solution was found. THEY REMOVED THE SPACERS!!!!!! No kidding.

Then we had the F-100 motors in the Eagle stalling so gently that the pilots didn't even know when one torched if in a slow speed knife fight, heh heh. 'course, we could tell real fast in the Viper, having only one motor. We also had fewer incidents due to a better fuel control unit than found on the Eagle motors.

The scary thing about this engine problem is it appears to have been uncontained. First few years we only had one uncontained turbine failure in the Viper. Fuel tanks caught fire, but the jet didn't explode, and we all felt better about the GD design of the tanks. F-16 net has this accident documented.

So I would not worry too much. The Stubbie motor cranks out an awful lot of thrusties for its size, and I would expect it to have a few growing pains during the increased stresses of sustained operational flying.

Gums sends...

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php ... &start=345

Unfortunately the POGO_Fantasyland and RT that claim Sprey designed the F-16 wouldn't tell you all the problems associated with that development or the other fantasyland where he keeps ranting about a LWF again LWF again when the service doesn't even want that. How the heck he expects his beloved LWF to get to the fight I do not understand. Perhaps on the back of a 747?

[brar_w]

FWIW, forum generated conspiracy theories aside, the recent GAO and the subsequent IG report had a quality control and Mission reliability component to it and not some random out of the box ideal on why the RCA conducted, reviewed by the independent flight worthiness authority was WRONG. That chapter is firmly closed, and the effort has shifted towards getting the pre-trenching fix implemented fleet wide (which should be accomplished early next year for the entire 100 odd aircraft that require it - The rest had them done during installation of the engines), and developing a long term fix for the production process. The ITF fleet is already flying full envelope with the fix installed since January as has been shown form media reports (AvWeek, AI Online etc).

The Engine fix still stands. The FLIGHT LIMIT post FIX has been lifted and at the moment each and every JET has the 2B software and is capable of the 50 Degrees AOA, and other top end flight requirements. The USMC has a leg up on the USAF in getting the fix installed and are going to have the first squadron IOC in July with the Fix, and a fully certified 2b(i) software. Full 2b capability for them is expected by October as there is one test point in 2b (4 ship MADL) that would have to be patched up (software) but they aren't holding IOC. The Quality Control and reliability issue has to do with the engine at the moment tracking behind where it was expected in one metric while it is ahead in 2 other metrics (Flight Global). The plan to make the necessary changes to improve mission reliability has been approved by the JPO, and will begin testing in combat aircraft this year. The GAO and the IG did not mention the plan or its approval because they have to wait for the testing to be complete before incorporating the results into their models (which is fine because they consistently operate in this way). Needless to say, as has been claimed a few times the overall mission reliability of the PW F-135 will be tracked till around 200,000 flight hours which is a point historically (previously US engine programs) when an in service engine is considered as fully mature. They are aiming for maturity a 220,000 fleet hours combined and at least 50,000 type hours (A,B,C) as a minimum. Much like the F-119, that continued to be developed, improved and refined post IOC so will the F135. They expect to reach the cumulative flight hour of 220K around the end of 2020 with the total US and international fleet.

NO F-35 will be declared operational that cannot meet its entire performance envelope that is presented in the 2B graphic a page or so back. and NO F-35 will be declared fully operational Post-SDD that cannot meet its envelope as described in 3F. The USN is unique (in the US) in that they IOC with full SDD, but their FOC is dependent on certain service unique weapons that show up (tentatively at the moment since they are still in development) in block 4i.




ZERO OPERATIONAL F-35's would be restricted to an AOA of 18, or 19 Degrees !

[UlanBatori]

The F-35 propaganda is gushing in full flow - this time from Turkey where they claim that it may be better than even the F-4 Phantom!

Israel's Ministry of Defense announced in February that it had signed an agreement with Lockheed Martin to purchase 14 F-35s at a cost of $100 million each. Israeli officials said their goal is to have two F-35 squadrons of 25 planes each by 2021.

Many NATO member countries and other close US allies will participate in the development of the F-35 project, which for many marks the beginning of a new era in air warfare. Only two Middle Eastern countries, Turkey and Israel, will participate.

Turkey will be the only other country in the region besides Israel to fly the F-35, and Turkey is just as involved in the project as Israel. The Turkish air force has deemed the Joint Strike Fighter program a "prestigious project" that is a "concrete step to space." Turkey plans on purchasing 100 F-35A planes in 2021 to replace its inventory of F-4E Phantom II aircraft.

The flying qualities of "Concrete" : they said it, not I. Perhaps that refers to the VL capability where the 'Concrete' can reach 90 deg. AOA and 500 Gs deceleration.

Mevlutoglu said gushed: "The F-35 is not an aircraft with just stealth technology. It is an aircraft that will perform real-time data exchanges with advanced sensors and communications, and with that feature will perform duties of command-control and intelligence that go beyond classical fighter aircraft. In short, F-35 is a multi-role warplane that will operate against the depth of the enemy lines with interdiction against well-protected targets, close air support and suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses simultaneously. With 2,400 F-35s planned [to be sold by] the US in 10 years, the plan is to have a total of more 3,000 aircraft in all countries involved in the project.”

OMG! An airplane with a SmartPhone attached to it! And the Stealth aspect of operating at low altitude and speed deep behind "enemy lines" against mud huts is especially interesting. Anyone who has heard it from 10 miles outside Eglin AFB can attest to the "stealth", yup!

If the cost issues are overcome, the F-35 is likely to become the main combat aircraft of NATO and other US allies. According to Mevlutoglu, this also means that all the countries flying the F-35 will possess a US-brand net-centric combat structure. As such, the F-35 project will not just boost the military capabilities of the countries using the aircraft, it will also profoundly affect their strategic military cultures as they standardize to a US-based system.

3000 F-35s at $100M each. That's only 300,000 million $ or a cheap 300 billion dollars. Chump change, but how will they have enough money to buy gas?

Now we get to the Ultimate Ideal: All nations possess F-35s, so they train jointly to kill each other.

F-35s will transform military cooperation among user countries by creating an "F-35 brotherhood." This "brotherhood" is apparent between Turkey and Israel, despite the prevailing political tensions between the two countries. Turkish pilots, headquarters and maintenance personnel are currently in Israel to ensure commonality between the Turkish and Israeli air forces in planning and operations. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries are also willing to join the brotherhood, which could very well pave the way for a joint warfare system in the Middle East under US sponsorship.

As high-tech weapons systems like the F-35 become operational, one question has gained more prominence in the defense realm: If technology is the answer, then what was the question?

..er.. one question may be how they can afford food for the pilots after paying 300 billion dollars for these "concretes".

[brar_w]

The 300 Billion dollar amount is for TURKEY?

The flying qualities of "Concrete" : they said it, not I. Perhaps that refers to the VL capability where the 'Concrete' can reach 90 deg. AOA and 500 Gs deceleration.

No they are not, and you know this (that turkey is not getting the B ). They have not signed up for the Beach and of course they can in the future if they so wish.

But continue on !

OMG! An airplane with a SmartPhone attached to it! And the Stealth aspect of operating at low altitude and speed deep behind "enemy lines" against mud huts is especially interesting. Anyone who has heard it from 10 miles outside Eglin AFB can attest to the "stealth", yup!

Of course, the IADS will target it based on sound, the PAKFA, and other stealth aircraft in the works, around the world will feature a silent technology. They F-35 would only have to do with inferior stealth But thats ok since most of them will wind up in the bone yard anyway starting what December 2015?

3000 F-35s at $100M each. That's only 300,000 million $ or a cheap 300 billion dollars. Chump change, but how will they have enough money to buy gas?

Why not take the US Cost to DEVELOP and FIELD (Acquire) 2400+ F-35's (Which you claim they'll never get, but they''ll still spend 391 billion which you have in the recent past inflated to 600 Billion out of love for the aircraft ) and convert it into Lira, and then find out of how many Turkish tax payers are there and calculate the cost to an individual tax payer of Turkey for the US acquisition and development? You did that for the IAF , F-35 question why not for Turkey?

[UlanBatori]

This thing about the Turkish Air Force and its F-4 Phantoms is a giveaway: Circa 1970 there was an article in Reader's Digest, International Editions, titled "Phlying Da Phabulous Phantom". They must have swallowed that whole, and in 45 years their economy hasn't recovered from that. So they had to miss the next Reader's Digest gush titled something-something about the F-16. The Israelis got that - must have been the part about how it was so effective against civilian apartment buildings in West Beirut, 1982 and Gaza more recently.

[UlanBatori]

I am working on a new Top Secret Engine Technology. Sound indistinguishable from rock music, so over urban areas it has total stealth as long as it does not rise above treetop level.

[brar_w]

This thing about the Turkish Air Force and its F-4 Phantoms is a giveaway: Circa 1970 there was an article in Reader's Digest, International Editions, titled "Phlying Da Phabulous Phantom". They must have swallowed that whole, and in 45 years their economy hasn't recovered from that. So they had to miss the next Reader's Digest gush titled something-something about the F-16. The Israelis got that - must have been the part about how it was so effective against civilian apartment buildings in West Beirut, 1982 and Gaza more recently.

Turkey operates 156 F-16's { The number is 242 }including 148 that they assembled in Akinci.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article21.html

I am working on a new Top Secret Engine Technology. Sound indistinguishable from rock music, so over urban areas it has total stealth as long as it does not rise above treetop level.

Good to know. Perhaps it would be ready by the AMCA or future versions of the PAKFA or Rock_Music playing UCAV's

[UlanBatori]

Gee! These F-35 fans (no pun intended) sure are touchy!

House indulges in STOVL Stealth Combat

The GOP-controlled House Armed Services Committee killed a proposed Democratic amendment to its annual policy bill that would have shifted money away from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) wanted to move roughly $589 million from an authorized $1 billion funding increase proposed by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas).
The money, meant for six additional F-35 aircraft,

would have gone into an equipment account for the National Guard and Reserves.

(See? Now the NG in Baltimore and Ferguson will have to make do with mere Humvees rather than Strykers and Tactical Response Vehicles) Plus maybe one or two aging aircraft carriers and the Battle Ship New Jersey to shell East Baltimore.

Debate over the measure was marked by a contentious exchange between Speier and Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces subpanel.

Speaking for her proposal, Speier noted recent reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and others voicing concerns with the fighter jet program and its development. Turner, though, forcefully rejected Speier’s arguments against the F-35, saying she would see the progress the aircraft had made “if she had attended” hearings on the jet, a charge he repeated several times.

“Your misreading of the GAO report” is “probably where we have the disconnect,” he later added.
(touchee, touchee!!) Which is all the more support for the report that a lot is hidden from this report, but there is a lot making the insiders VERY antsy.

Speier thanked Turner for his “obnoxious comments.”

The exchange between the two lawmakers left many of their fellow panel member's visibly shaken. 'visibly shaken, but not stirred' is how area residents describe the F-35 in flight, too...
The amendment's defeat came amid a lobbying effort by the aircraft’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. The defense giant delivered fliers to committee members that urged them to vote against the California Democrat’s amendment and touted the F-35’s recent testing and operational accomplishments.
Rep. Jeff Miller (R), whose state is home to Eglin Air Force Base, an F-35 hub, quoted several of the document’s talking points almost verbatim while speaking against Speier’s proposal.
“The bottom line is that this amendment is the wrong way to support the National Guard and Reserve and puts at risk one of the USAF’s [U.S. Air Force's] top three acquisition programs,” the Lockheed Martin flier stated.
Thornberry brought debate to a close by reminding panel members that “it’s going to be a long day” and suggesting lawmakers “focus on the issues, not each other.”
The Tactical Air and Land Forces portion of the NDAA was approved by voice vote.

[hnair]

brar_w, stop reporting posts, since you are replying in kind. If UlanBatori says F35 program has issues, we sit up and listen very carefully, since he has a certain "disreputable past" that has earned the respect of this forum. He might be using quaint language and compact lines, but his posts are an interesting interlude to your prolific posts that talks about positives and progression of this program.

So do carry on with the debate, with a tinge of sarcasm and calls of trolling. But name calling against each other is to be avoided

[brar_w]

brar_w, stop reporting posts

I only report posts that have absolutely no bearing on the discussion. Any conspiracy theory that is totally unsubstantiated is fine by me and members here are smart enough to use google and look things up. But if that is the mod. team's position i guess thats how its is ! But I fail to see the relevence of this post to the topic -

I am working on a new Top Secret Engine Technology. Sound indistinguishable from rock music, so over urban areas it has total stealth as long as it does not rise above treetop level.

As far as posting only "Positive" things on the topic, I was the first to post on the fire last year before any mainstream media outlet reported it. I have also posted negatives and challenges that would be substantial over the next year. If there is nonsense being written about this program that I clearly know is wrong, false or biased I'll rebut it and fellow members here can obviously counter that as has been done in the past. Thats what we are hear for aren't we?

[TSJones]

brar_w, stop reporting posts

I only report posts that have absolutely no bearing on the discussion. Any conspiracy theory that is totally unsubstantiated is fine by me and members here are smart enough to use google and look things up. But if that is the mod. team's position i guess thats how its is ! But I fail to see the relevence of this post to the topic -

I am working on a new Top Secret Engine Technology. Sound indistinguishable from rock music, so over urban areas it has total stealth as long as it does not rise above treetop level.

As far as posting only "Positive" things on the topic, I was the first to post on the fire last year before any mainstream media outlet reported it. I have also posted negatives and challenges that would be substantial over the next year. If there is nonsense being written about this program that I clearly know is wrong, false or biased I'll rebut it and fellow members here can obviously counter that as has been done in the past. Thats what we are hear for aren't we?

brar-_w, please email me at tsjones99 @ aol . com

thanks!

[hnair]

brar_w, once again, "No name calling" and carry on.

[brar_w]

I did not use any foul language or call anyone any name

[UlanBatori]

Gee! Touchee, touchee! I don't feel any names called, no problem...
As Perry Mason said in The Case of the Missing Bikini,

Yuwar Honner, I intend to connect the evidence up.

AFAIK, UBC News NEVER sells any CTs but the very best, and no CT theories b4 their time. Ignore them at ur peril, dig deep, dig wide or stay ignorant and happy. Not all the truth comes out in company Official Press Releases. For instance on the F-22, so why would the F-35 be any different?

I gave clear enough pointers on what the scientific evidence shows as reported already in the open media. Just posting company PR literature and Official Press Releases is not terribly useful or intelligent: one might just as well post just the links. If you have Classified Clearance then you MAY be able to find out the truth if you look and ask hard, but I hope to ***** that you don't post anything of the sort here. Otherwise you need to be quite sharp to find out the real issues. If ur paycheck happens to come with anything associated with the program, wisdom is on the side of inaction and silence, sorry.

Lockheed is not going to post admissions of problems - the stock price might take a hit. The USAF SPO (Special Program Office) is not going to post those - their necks are on the line because they 'signed off' on the program as having satisfied the Requirements Definition. The GAO will (and have done so) eventually post some things, but in certain words that one has to be smart enough to catch. Lockheed employees would not dare post anything, Air Force employees won't dare post anything. Boeing is much happier to sit back and laugh saying:

There but 4 da grace of ATM go I.

The real knowledge is elsewhere, and takes a bit of thinking (NOT Classified anything!), with all due respect. It may never come 'out'. The planes will keep flying, and the squadrons will report

Our squadron is at 100 percent readiness, SSIRR!! Only 97 percent have the XXXX about to break off/ about to blow up/ not working/ failing every 10 hours.

The tragedy is when the company and USAF special interests prefer to bury the truth rather than bite the bullet and fix the problem when it can be fixed. But the aforesaid interests often preclude that unless some tough general like Admiral Hyman Rickover who cares must more about the truth than his 'career' stomps hard on some musharrafs.

To go any deeper one must have some knowledge of certain things and be able to think, sorry. We don't want Drones coming over Ulan Bator, not 2 mention People in Dark Glasses.

As for the House debate, that is one of many to come until the F-35 program costs are contained at some level. 2400 planes is wildly optimistic.
Just consider: How many wars have been won using STOVL? It was designed for WWIII Oirope where the runways would be gone on Day 1. The Harrier was useful in the Falklands war because the British had no real aircraft carriers that could handle CTOL aircraft. The Yak-xx did not see combat, AFAIK.
May be time for me to say: Go back and read my hajaar-hajaar posts on this over the past hajaar pages. You MAY be able to figure it out 4 urself. Or you can just continue to

let ur fingers do the thinking (and the )

I am going to get a stopwatch to time the delay for the response.

Whatever, the relevance here is that desis need to get some technical ppl (some here will know what that means) into the loop b4 going for the Readers Digest propaganda on buying gleaming phoren weapon systems. Look at the force of the propaganda, compared to the reports on say, the LCA, to understand the immense forces and money at work here. And if you think a little, you see that even after 150 years of weapon system development, these companies and militaries have all sorts of problems in their systems at development time until they refine many cycles based on actual operational experience. Hundreds of thousands of combat aircraft, and they still have to "dig trenches in their engine casings to keep the thing from wobbling and shaking itself to death!!! And they don't find this until flight tests, because their so-called Computational Predictions are pure pakistan.

BTW, what's with the shiny metal upper surface of these aircraft, I wonder. Is it coincidence that they look exactly like the desktop paperweight cast-nickel models available on Amazon.com I wonder, along the lines of the PAF/PLAF's Hypersonic Amphibious V/STOL Bandaar-35 Stealth Aircraft that we see posted from time to time. Usually fighter planes during the Congressional and Foreign Sales phase have really pretty color schemes.

Time for me to leave this thread anyway.. I see some NATO Interventions occurring already.

[TSJones]

deeeeleeteee!

[hnair]

Moderators, can you delete my post above? I cannot edit it or delete and it contains no topics relevant to the thread. Many thanks.

TSJones, if it contains nothing relevant, why post here? Desist in future

[brar_w]

Just posting company PR literature and Official Press Releases

Haven't been doing JUST that. You can go over the last couple of dozen pages and see the sources I have used. They have included both the OEM's, Program Management, Program Oversight and Media reports and analysis on the matter. If there was a red flag raised (such as the fire) I have tried to find out all open source data on the matter, testimony from those that are part of running the program, claims based on the Flight worthiness authorities, ultimate conclusion reporting on the RCA and the plans going forward which were obviously developed by the OEM (in partnership with the program) and approved by he program before the individual services draw up their plans on incorporating the changes into their fleet as and when they wish to IOC.

Lockheed is not going to post admissions of problems - the stock price might take a hit.

No one expects to receive "news on the problems" from them. There are plenty of other ways to find stuff out.

The USAF SPO (Special Program Office) is not going to post those - their necks are on the line because they 'signed off' on the program as having satisfied the Requirements Definition.

Yet they have still done so, issued plenty of material that points to clearly negatives on the program. You can search this thread for some of them or google it up.

The GAO will (and have done so) eventually post some things, but in certain words that one has to be smart enough to catch. Lockheed employees would not dare post anything, Air Force employees won't dare post anything. Boeing is much happier to sit back and laugh saying:

The GAO, DOT&E reports are for all to see. They have to be balanced with what the "Program plans to do in order to rectify the errors that are pointed out in the reports". The First two reports only highlight ISSUES. The services, the JPO and international customers come up with plans on how to make up the changes in the concurrency model. If the GAO says the Tail Hook is faulty, it is stating something discovered during testing and reported first by the JPO. Its up to the JPO to design (sanctioning it) and approve a fix and then test and implement it. They did precisely that and went 124 for 124 on the carrier. They go back on the carrier later in the year and then again next year.

No one report on the program (or others) is sufficient by itself. They have to be combined to get a good idea on What is going on ----> What the problems are in development (the phase when problems are EXPECTED and the norm) and what the plans are to fix those problems.

Boeing is much happier to sit back and laugh saying

After a back door entry into the competition (against much better designs in BaE/NG), and still loosing out on the last 5th generation program that the US is going to pursue I am sure Boeing is anything but happy.

The real knowledge is elsewhere, and takes a bit of thinking (NOT Classified anything!), with all due respect. It may never come 'out'. The planes will keep flying, and the squadrons will report

Your thinking is coming up with Conspiracy theories and claiming the RCA was WRONG because certainly you know more. How can they be right? There is no chance that they are right...Its all a BIG COVER UP ! Your data is factually incorrect. Your cost figures are all over the place and in a post you even said it was $600 Billion. You also claim that they won't buy the number they intend on but they'll still end up spending (actually doubling) what they intend to for those 2400 aircraft.

It may never come 'out'.

Its already "come out". I guess they'll just have to read this thread and the entire thing would be exposed. Its one big conspiracy!

You have also tried converting the total JSF cost to the US DOD, into INR and dividing it per Indian taxpayer. I am yet to hear why that is relevant ?

Keep in mind that the US Cost of $391 Billion is the total development and acquisition cost and is spread over a period from 2001 to 2038 and for 2443 aircraft.

As for the House debate, that is one of many to come until the F-35 program costs are contained at some level. 2400 planes is wildly optimistic.

The Program cost is being contained. The Cost of the F-35 from LRIP 1 to LRIP 8 is well known, and published in the SAR. That it now costs $108 Million URF is also well known. The Next contracts are due next year and is a block buy. Cost reduction is going to be increasingly a function of the ramp rate and the ramp rate plans are holding. Bulk buy contracts for the next LRIP (2 blocks) are currently under negotiations...Expect cost to be significantly less. The plan is to get down to $85 Million URF by Full rate of production. The current cost of $108 Million URF is at a production rate that is in the 30's and 40's per annum. The ramp rate for the next 5 years is well known and communicated in the various reports. The FRP cost of $85 Million (A) URF is at the US procurement rate of 120 per year (80 - USAF, and 40 - USN/MC).

2400 doesn't matter. What matters is the URF price target that is connected to the ramp rate. They won't reach the URF targets ONLY IF THEY BUY 2400 aircraft. They'll reach those targets (or aim to reach them) when they hit their ramp targets. As described earlier, if you reach your peak procurement (which you need to since otherwise you start retiring more aircraft than the number that are incoming and therefore loose squadron strength) you reach your URF Targets (thats the aim). The current plans call for that RAMP_Peak to last for around 12-14 years before the Ramp_Down begins. You could shave 600 aircraft out of the 2400 and the only difference that that would make is reduce the 12-14 years down to 8 years or so. It would bring the WINDING UP Costs earlier into the program but would not affect the URF targets or the eventual URF cost paid.

URF cost is important, because that is what you will pay every year and if it is significantly higher than the $85 Million for the CTOL, you will have to re-look at the procurement and balance with other procurement priorities. But keep in mind if they do not buy the per annum budgeted aircraft (120 for the USAF USMC and USN) they would have to live with a greatly reduced force. The USN will continue to buy Super Hornets since their fleet_management has shown that utilization is resulting in faster aircraft fatigue (combat ops does that to you) and they need 30+ aircraft (NEW) per year just to keep up with Hornet retirements. But don't expect the Super Hornet to be in production around the time the Navy begins procuring 40 Aircraft per year (B and C). The F-15, and F-16 lines would also be on the verge of shutting down by the early 20's (if not out by then) and the USAF has not bought an F-16 in many years. There is only one way for them to replace the retiring F-16's and that is to make sure the F-35A is developed, and tested as per the BASELINE schedule (SDD Phase completion by 2018 - threshold) and FRP to kick in soon thereafter - Thats the reason why the BASELINE plan both in the short, and the long term has been left untouched despite of the BCA and why the program is no. 1 on the USAF procurement priority.

Unfortunately its a classic POGO like argument. Some of their ardent fans will first ridicule the fact that 2400 aircraft would not be purchased, yet the cost estimate they use is $391 Billion in claiming the acquisition is unaffordable. Furthermore, they even compare the CAPE data and present that O&S is unaffordable even though in the same breath they claim that 2400 number would never materialize. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You CANNOT in one breath say that the $391 Billion is the development and acquisition cost (OR INFLATE IT RANDOMLY TO $600 BILLION without any merit) and then say that you don't expect 2400 for the USAF, USMC and USN. Is the DOD going to pay for aircraft it doesn't buy? and keep on sustaining the GHOST aircraft over 55 years? Because that is the data that the CAPE uses (55 years of ESTIMATES on everything from cost of flight, how much "After burner is used" and fuel costs including fuel cost and general inflation).

Also as per your argument the O&S data should be worthless, since they aren't going to retain these aircraft beyond a few years since they'll fail and they even won't have room at the boneyards so will end up making them as FANS...I guess they are preparing to give BIG A$$ FANS a run for their money.

Hundreds of thousands of combat aircraft, and they still have to "dig trenches in their engine casings to keep the thing from wobbling and shaking itself to death!!! And they don't find this until flight tests, because their so-called Computational Predictions are pure pakistan.

You are still required testing and in the case of the F-35. The PAKFA is also experiencing growing pains (Engine incident, plus an aircraft catching fire) its part and parcel of development and testing. I guess thats why you test the stuff.

[UlanBatori]

This is why I said this was such a profitable enterprise. A few happy sentences on my part, and look at the Gain applied! Plus all those to Teacher!!
But 43 minutes of delay to respond! My my, v R slipping, r v not?
Just a small pin-prick in that great balloon of rants above, since I can't resist:

Your cost figures are all over the place and in a post you even said it was $600 Billion. ..

(OR INFLATE IT RANDOMLY TO $600 BILLION without any merit)...

Oh! My bad!
The actual figure was NOT 600 Billion: c b lo:

Program cost
$59.2B for development, $261B for procurement, $590B for operations & sustainment in 2012

590B < 600B.... But 590B+261B+59.2B >> 600B. Still has to come from the taxpayer, AFAIK unless the electronics suite includes an P-ISI Mark666 Dollar Mint.
As for the relevance of converting to Indian rupees, perhaps one could take a small break from Rantistan and check out the name of this Forum??

Soo much less than my erroneous 'RANDOM" citing of $600B total program cost!
*****************************************
The obvious question still remains: Why was the shaking of the plane so much worse in flight that they had to dig trenches around the compressor blades? And the GAO report is pretty blunt in its wording on that as well as in "massaged the data.." But never mind, you can't figure it out, obviously. Neither could most CNN reporters, probably, and those are some of the smartest people in the world!

But I don't want to bother you with such things - they require a bit more depth than you may be able to handle. Thanks for the very detailed posts of all the propaganda - I would never have found all those since I don't go looking for those. Way too entertaining!

[brar_w]

590B << 600B.... But slightly larger than 590B+261B+59.2B. Still has to come from the taxpayer, AFAIK unless the electronics suite includes an P-ISI Mark666 Dollar Mint.

So you are moving away from development and acquisition cost to development+acquisition+Lifetime Sustainment Cost. How does this cost compare to other fighters in the same class? How much would it cost to DEVELOP, ACQUIRE, and SUSTAIN 2443 Dassault Rafale's? (including CV and STOVL versions but we'll ignore STOVL sustainment since there is no direct version for that aircraft)..

Cost without context is absolutely useless..Don't you think?? Unless one wants to to be dramatic just for the sake. What has been the rough percentage of the US DOD Annual O&S for the fighter fleet compared to the total budget? How does that change with a large F-35 fleet? What percentage of the annual acquisition dollar amount will the DOD spend to acquire the F-35? And how does that compare as a percentage to when the F-16 fleet was acquired? How does it compare to other air-forces, Navy's upgrading their aircraft over the next decade to two decades (When the F-35 is going to be acquired). How much (as a percentage of the annual budget) are other western nations spending on their fighters recapitalization compared to what the USAF and the other 2 services planning as a percentage of theirs??

BTW, estimates for O&S are all over the place. WIKI is hardly accurate, the estimates have been in $1.5 Trillion, brought down to $1.2 Trillion and are still being adjusted down. Cape will continue to adjust them down until they get a better understanding how the USAF, USMC (In particular) and the USN will deploy their aircraft, will train on their aircraft, and will maintain their aircraft over the next 5 and a half decades (21544000 flight hours over 55 years, including all maintain, fuel, inflation and estimating the inflation in each of these things over the course of 5 and a half decades (2001 and beyond)).

The Number is High because of the number of aircraft involved.

BTW, How much do you think the O&S cost would be for a mixed fleet of F-15E's, F-16C's, and F-18E/H's?? Spread over 55 years including the cost to upgrade them so that they can conduct the same missions that the F-35A, B and C is designed for in the 2020-2055 time-frame?

Why was the shaking of the plane so much worse in flight that they had to dig trenches around the compressor blades?

The bottom line is still that the Root Cause Analysis was conducted. The findings are in the report that is not going to be shared but the conclusion, the design fix, and how it is BEING IMPLEMENTED has been shared. Those plans are for all to see. Aircraft that have received those fixes, are already back doing what they are supposed to including 110 degree AOA, asymmetrical loads testing and other testing in support of full envelope 2B testing.

Bottom line still remains, that the aircraft that will declare IOC in July of this year, will A ) Have the fix, and B ) Have the full 2b mission envelope. They will not be limited to 18 or 19 degree AOA.

But I don't want to bother you with such things - they require a bit more depth than you may be able to handle. Thanks for the very detailed posts of all the propaganda - I would never have found all those since I don't go looking for those. Way too entertaining

Wait till July. As you KNOW (and has been reported but of course, as per your claims those reports can be falsified) the aircraft are already flying full envelope and this has been shown to you. You can continue to ignore the facts on the grounds and claim that "others may not know" what you know but until and unless there is any evidence of any "Cover up", you are just making stuff up to stay polite.

Wait till July but then again, you can always come back and say " They haven't IOC'd full 2b envelope, but are just claiming to have done so". Just like anyone can say, they haven't begun testing the jet to its maximum AOA, and opening it up to the full envelope and are just making that up to sound good"

Prior to Fleet release of 2B the envelope available to the non-developmental test fleet was 2a (you can see what they could do with it in the chart). Once 2b envelope was cleared it was released to the fleet and the fleet. After the incident certain restrictions were placed, that were lifted slowly until they were lifted completely on the aircraft that received the fix. Those aircraft are CURRENTLY flying without any flight restrictions and the individual services (USAF, USMC and USN) have a path to get those fixes and open up the envelope. It has been reported (and linked in the previous page) that the USMC has a head start on this since they IOC in a few months and would be getting all changes (All concurrency changes) incorporated prior to IOC. They take the aircraft back to the ship in a few weeks, after that the first squadron will receive all changes required for IOC and will IOC with full mission envelope for software version 2b.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-fl ... -maneuvers

At the moment there are only 2, 2b software testing parameters that are left. Those have to do with avionics. Weapons testing was nearly complete by early feb. (in support of 2b) and should be complete by now. Both these would be also complete before the USMC receives a certificate that allows them to declare IOC.

[Mort Walker]

By comparison the F-22 program, another LM product, was about $66 billion and $150 million (2009) each production costs. I remain skeptical about $85 million each F-35 production cost - even though it will be attempted to be amortized over 2400 aircraft. So much propaganda from LM & JPO, acronym throwing, and techno babble lends one to conclude that certain posters have a stake in the program. I have no problem with that.

The F-35 will be successful because there are 45 states and many politicians that have their fingers in the pie of this aircraft development and production. It is too big to fail like the big banksters like BoA, Citibank, and JPM. It will be successful, but more likely production costs will be twice of what has been quoted by LM. Around $170 million.

In another news, Turkey wants to make an indigenous fighter and have it flying by 2023. Now why would they do that when they've got F-16s and F-35s coming? Can someone say hedging their bets in case the European economies stay shaky?
Turkey Approves Regional Jet, Fighter Program

[brar_w]

By comparison the F-22 program, another LM product, was about $66 billion and $150 million (2009) each production costs. I remain skeptical about $85 million each F-35 production cost

As I said, $85 Million is an internal URF JPO target. Its not something SAR is bound by. SAR does not believe the JPO number either, to which the JPO replies that they have bettered each SAR estimate by 2-3% every year over the last 3-4 years. SAR Numbers estimates an approximate URF Of $100 Million (F-35) and this is what it uses to come to the $391 Billion Cost. Do keep in mind however that SAR is using PURE COST and PRODUCTION DATA from the LRIP 1 to LRIP6 contracts and factory production. The JPO bases its targets on a couple of measures it has initiated to bring cost down further. Google Blueprint for Affordability. JPO contends that based on the Learning curve cost-reduction, and economies of scale they can get further cost-reduction by making investments into the production process in order to make it leaner. Industry invests in these initiatives and gets reimbursed only if the cost-savings are realized. Regardless of whether the JPO achieves its internal targets or not, the SAR estimate does not assume them to be the case. It basically doesn't even take that into account and uses just two components - 1) The learning curve and the reduction in touch labor realized and the trends (until they plateau) and 2 ) The economies of scale provided in its annual report.

The $391 Billion dollar Estimate at the moment is a budget estimate and does not include the JPO URF target but what the bean counters think it will cost to acquire and develop the fleet.

The $400 Billion figure ($391 in 2013 but fluctuates between $390 and $395) Is in the Select Acquisition report, outside of the JPO. JPO has its own targets that it aims for and those are not taken as "assumptions" in the SAR. SAR deals with the trends in cost, projected savings due to economies of scale and the model gets better every year as more data is added after each production batch. Keep in mind that minus concurrency (which is split 50:50 in some cases and borne 100% by the OEM in others) the production contracts have been FIXED PRICE since LRIP5.

The estimated price tag to develop and build 2,457 F-35 Lightning II fighter jets includes $326.9 billion for air frames and $64.3 billion for engines, according to newly released figures from the Pentagon. The combined amount is $4.5 billion, or 1.1 percent, less than an estimate of $395.7 billion released in March 2012.

even though it will be attempted to be amortized over 2400 aircraft.

As I have mentioned before $85 Million URF target is for FRP. Its a URF and not a total program cost. URF essentially is what the USAF will pay every year to procure the aircraft as a bare bone aircraft. Its your basic fly-way cost.

So much propaganda from LM & JPO, acronym throwing, and techno babble lends one to conclude that certain posters have a stake in the program. I have no problem with that.

None of the acronym's here are JPO created. URF is a standard DOD term and is used for all systems acquired by it.

The F-35 will be successful because there are 45 states and many politicians that have their fingers in the pie of this aircraft development and production.

Which weapons system currently being developed or acquired isn't?

In another news, Turkey wants to make an indigenous fighter and have it flying by 2023

Hardly news, since they have been planning on this for many many years. Their long term plans to replace F-4's and F-16s with a mix of F-35's and TF-X has been known for close to 6 years or so if not earlier.

Now why would they do that when they've got F-16s and F-35s coming?

They are going to switch to a 2 fighter force and that would be a mix of F-35 and TF-X. Similarly, Korea is planning on shifting to a 3 fighter force with the F-15K, F-35A and KF-X. The F-35A replaces some F-16's, while the KF-X replaces other F-16's and F/A-50's. Even their plans have been known.

Currently both Turkey and South Korea is seeking Foreign engine makers to do a JV with them and the engines are offered are largely similar (GE F414, EJ2000).

Can someone say hedging their bets in case the European economies stay shaky?

Their fighter force is going to be split with the indigenous fighter making up around 60% of he force and the F-35A around 40%. Of course a lot of it depends upon how well the program progresses as its just getting started. The 100 aircraft procurement plans that they reaffirmed just late last year, is something they are buying as a first wave. If their are delays to the TF-X they could move more F-35A's to fill the gap. As is in the US, their plans are based on outgoing fighters (retirements) being replaced by incoming acquisitions. As the IAF MRCA experience shows, you can only keep delaying till a point. There comes a point where your outgoing capability cannot hold on until you overcome the "pains" of a developmental project. This is happening to the US Navy, that is going to see a huge depot_wave show up in the mid 2020's if they do not procure a couple of squadrons of Super Hornets NOW to account for the ones that will be piling up at the depots a decade from now (as a result of greater combat utilization then modeled resulting in faster fatigue and utilization and faster retirement of the conventional F/A-18 fleet due to similar reasons).

http://wire.seenews.com/news/turkey-to- ... ets-418771

[Viv S]

I remain skeptical about $85 million each F-35 production cost - even though it will be attempted to be amortized over 2400 aircraft.

The current flyaway cost of the F-35 is $108 million at a production rate of 35-40 per year (down from $250 mil each for the initial units).

Why is it such a stretch to believe that it would fall to $85 million when the production rate ramps up to over 150/yr? Its just a cost reduction of 20%, for a 200-300% increase in production.

In another news, Turkey wants to make an indigenous fighter and have it flying by 2023. Now why would they do that when they've got F-16s and F-35s coming? Can someone say hedging their bets in case the European economies stay shaky?

I'd imagine its the same reason they want their own MBT, UAV, missiles, warships etc.

[NRao]

The F-35 will be successful because there are 45 states and many politicians that have their fingers in the pie of this aircraft development and production. It is too big to fail like the big banksters like BoA, Citibank, and JPM. It will be successful, but more likely production costs will be twice of what has been quoted by LM. Around $170 million.

You do realize that any thing above the $85 - agreed upon - price is the responsibility of the vendors? So, $170 - 85 = $85 mil will have to be borne by LM and other vendors.

lends one to conclude that certain posters have a stake in the program

true for all posters. everyone would like what they post to be considered to be the truth.

[UlanBatori]

attempted to be amortized over 2400 aircraft.

Best explanation I've seen for this hugely nonsensical number. IOW, the program cost is so out of control that it will look ludicrous without spreading it over a huge production run and assuming the aerospace Learning Curve etc.
If they did this with LCA and assumed a run of 100,000 units, the per unit cost should be down to that of an Ambassador Mark 8. U learn something every din!
LM-PW are betting that they are the only game in town. Perhaps one can expect an announcement of an "export-only" Boeing-GE STOVL. I forget - that Boeing version - did it have a lift fan, or just vectored lo-pr compressor jets? Or did it just do VTOL by repulsion due to its sheer guppy-like ugliness? Whatever- I think the GE engine was just as good as the PW135.

45 states or not, I would be surprised if the production run goes to 500. Remember the Commanche attack helicopter? That was the outcome from 'LH-X' a one-size-fits-all Light Helicopter for Army-Navy-AF-Marines-CoastGuard. Back in the 1980s it was the Largest-Ever Joint Services Acquisition Project - a Sure Thing, Only Game In Town etc.
I think about 6 were built, all told.
To sell 1000, a war over Ukraine might be needed. Or maybe one over Taiwan. Something to ponder.

[brar_w]

You do realize that any thing above the $85 - agreed upon - price is the responsibility of the vendors? So, $170 - 85 = $85 mil will have to be borne by LM and other vendors

No thats for the CONTRACT that is signed. As per the LRIP 8 contract, all production (concurrency aside since that is an added cost after production) cost is FIXED PRICE. Lockheed and United Technologies agreed to $108 Million and if the exceed they pay out of pocket. For the BFA, the programs initiated (some not all) are booked by the JPO earlier so if Lockheed says they can save 2 Million per aircraft because of XYZ, the JPO will book that for the bulk buy forcing lockheed or northrop, or pratt, or BaE or Terma etc to live up or loose 2 Million per aircraft. It was laid out at Farnborough last year.

Best explanation I've seen for this hugely nonsensical number.

Once again. The URF Target is based on the production ramp. Even if they do not achieve their URF Target, whatever LOWEST number they reach is Production ramp dependent. If they reduce the ramp from 14 years to 8 years it still costs the same during those 8 years. Say they miss the $85 Million dollar URF Target. Lets say that by Full Rate they achieve 90 Million or 95 Million (its 108 in LRIP 8 ), that number will be $95 Million regardless of whether they buy 1500 or 2400 aircraft. It is tied to the economies of scale that is based on ramping up production gradually till they reach Full Rate of production post SDD. The ramp rate is reflected in the SAR. <--- So far, despite the Budget Control Act/Sequester and developmental challenges they have MET each RAMP RATE target since the baseline and the 5 Year plan reflects the same.

If they did this with LCA and assumed a run of 100,000 units, the per unit cost should be down to that of an Ambassador Mark 8

If only they did that to the F-35/JSF but they do not. The Unit Recurring Flyaway cost is essentially what each jet coming out of Fort Worth Costs. Given a $50 Billion developmental cost your OVERALL program cost will vary with the number procured. So instead of $50 Billion being divided over 2400 aircraft, it may only get divided over 1500 aircraft if you buy 900 fewer aircraft.

The Development cost however is largely PAID FOR (Only 3 years to go) so what the URF allows them to estimate is HOW MUCH they will pay each year to recapitalize the F-16 and A-10 fleets (USAF) and F/A-18, Harrier and Prowler fleets (USN/USMC). That is WHAT PORTION OF THE FUTURE BUDGETS should they keep aside to procure 120 F-35's (80 A's for the USAF and 40 B's and C's for the USN/MC).

What Mort (and perhaps you) may be confusing with is what happened to the F-22A, where they pegged their development cost for 700+ Aircraft but amortized it over just 187 odd aircraft pushing the OVERALL PER CAPITA price. That however is only half the story. The F-22A's URF price was also higher than they planned because in addition to its overall production being capped, its Annual production number was also adjusted downwards to a point where it could never achieve the economies.

In case of the F-35, the developmental cost is being divided over a huge number of aircraft, regardless of whether you buy 2400 or 1500. So to recap once again,

The total cost of the F-35 acquisition (JET acquisition) is roughly the URF+Development cost. Development cost is paid for in the time period between 2001 (Start of SDD) and 2018 (End of SDD). URF Cost is what the Pentagon pays each year to procure the aircraft. The $85 Million jet target is ramp rate dependent. If they reach their ramp targets they achieve their lowest URF cost (whatever it may be, 85 Million, 90 Million or 95 Million). How long they sustain that Ramp has no bearing on this.

However, when you add everything together you will get a higher cost for 1500 then you would for 2400 for obvious reasons. But you still divide 50 Billion over 1500 so the per capita "development cost" is reasonable and also it has no impact on the FY budget costs since it is paid in the 2001-2018 period. If you are a 2025 CSAF, you are interested in how much you have to set aside to buy your 80 aircraft. Similarly the CNO needs to know what it would cost him to replace the 20 odd F/A-18's retiring in 2024 (for example) and he needs to put that money aside in his FY24 budget.

Having said this, there is no other way to replace retiring aircraft i the case of the USAF and USMC and the USN is not going to keep on buying Super Hornet's indefinitely. So the question boils down to, how will you replace 80 aircraft being lost to retirement starting the early 2020's (USAF) and 40 being retired in the same time frame for the USN/USMC. THIS is the reason why despite of the Budget Control Act, a democrat in the White House they have not revised the plan to procure 120 Aircraft (DOD annual purchase) because they have to replace the legacy-cold-war fleet. BTW the 120 per annum isn't replacing the fleet 1 for 1, it is as per the re-baselined post-cold war squadron strength for all three services.

Now one can look at what highly upgraded 4+ generation aircraft are costing. You can see what the French pay for the Rafale, what the export customers pay for the Rafale, what the Brits paid for the Phoon, what the export customers paid for other aircrafts such as the F-15SG, F-15K, F-15SA and Blk 60 F-16. Even @ 100 Million URF, the F-35 is by far a better product. A hypothetical alternative that is inferior to the F-35A is still not going to hypothetically cost significantly less. Why stop producing something that you want, and begin designing an inferior version of legacy aircraft that is going to end up costing you about as much especially if you have to buy more of them because they can't replace F-35 1. for 1.

I would be surprised if the production run goes to 500.

You expect the USAF, USN and the USMC to buy just 500 fighters for the 2020-2050 time period? How will they replace the F-16's, A-10's, F-18C/Ds, USMC Harriers and Prowlers?

Back in the 1980s it was the Largest-Ever Joint Services Acquisition Project - a Sure Thing, Only Game In Town etc.

You need to get up to date on the JSF program, what it replaces and what the procurement plan is. The Comanche was a US Army PROJECT.

[Viv S]

No thats for the CONTRACT that is signed. As per the LRIP 8 contract, all production (concurrency aside since that is an added cost after production) cost is FIXED PRICE. Lockheed and United Technologies agreed to $108 Million and if the exceed they pay out of pocket. For the BFA, the programs initiated (some not all) are booked by the JPO earlier so if Lockheed says they can save 2 Million per aircraft because of XYZ, the JPO will book that for the bulk buy forcing lockheed or northrop, or pratt, or BaE or Terma etc to live up or loose 2 Million per aircraft. It was laid out at Farnborough last year.

He was referring to the contract obviously. According to Gen Bogdan at full rate production, the flyaway cost to every customer will be $85 mil ("and not a penny more") and any over-spill will be borne by the contractor.

[brar_w]

^ Yes that is what he is aiming for as a TARGET. If the blueprint of affordability pans out he will hit that number. I say UNLESS because Mort doesn't trust the man or anything he says. Not sure if he (or UB) trust anyone else but SAR is not JPO, so they do not account for the $85 Million units it is realized. Their $390+ Billion acquisition and development estimate does not reflect the $85 Million URF at FRP. If that is achieved, SAR will have to adjust accordingly as they have done plenty of times before (both up and down).

[Viv S]

^ Yes that is what he is aiming for as a TARGET. If the blueprint of affordability pans out he will hit that number. I say UNLESS because Mort doesn't trust the man or anything he says. Not sure if he (or UB) trust anyone else but SAR is not JPO, so they do not account for the $85 Million units it is realized. Their $390+ Billion acquisition and development estimate does not reflect the $85 Million URF at FRP. If that is achieved, SAR will have to adjust accordingly as they have done plenty of times before (both up and down).

The aim under the initiative is to hit (and exceed) $80 mil by 2019 according to Bogdan. There don't appear to be many doubts about hitting the $85 mil figure at this point.

[brar_w]

The aim under the initiative is to hit (and exceed) $80 mil by 2019 according to Bogdan. There don't appear to be many doubts about hitting the $85 mil figure at this point

Well in this case he (Mort) doesn't trust Bogdan, because he will work for Lockheed one day. So to avoid any controversy, lets just assume that he doesn't end up meeting his targets and the SAR estimate is the lowest they go. The $391 number cited in the 2013 SAR still holds true. As I said, if the BFA targets are met the number would have to be reduced considerably but for the sake of the conversation I am willing to assume that it would never be MET. Even then, the F-35's development and acquisition estimates (SAR) can be compared to 4.5 Gen aircraft such as the Rafale and Typhoon.

[brar_w]

Mort, To put it in even simpler terms consider this -

I need a new widget and I need a few thousand of them. I begin designing the widget. Lets assume it costs me $1000 and 3 years to design the widget, $5000 to setup my production line and hire my staff, train them etc. I pay my engineers to design the widget, and I setup my production line and scale it to match roughly the production rate I aim to achieve (with some flexibility to move up and down). After 3 years, I have already spent $6000 dollars and when I switch the factory floor ON, i have to pay out of my pocket the COST of PRODUCTION of that widget. Lets say is $2 and I need 20,000 widgets per year. I have to set aside $40,000 per year and that $40,000 (other than adjusting for inflation) doesn't change whether I produce 20,000 widgets /year for 1 year, 5 years , 10 years or 20 years.

So the URF price target is ramp rate dependent, that is why the JPO Boss, CSAF, CNO and all other stakeholders take the production plan VERY VERY seriously and why I regard this as one of the top 4 areas of concern (Not so much because they won't get there which they most certainly should but because its not easy producing that many high quality 5th generation aircraft per year - its an uphill climb for Lockheed and P&W). They need to keep hitting their ramp targets (Double every other year from now on to FRP) if they want to hit their URF price targets. Once the FRP rates are acheived, they can scale FRP from 14 years, to 10 years and it wouldnt make a difference on the URF although POGO and Wheeler'ites can keep on dividing the development cost and claiming a different number but to those in the acquisition of the program it would make little difference - To the guy that has to budget for these aircraft in 2025 or 2030, or to the guy who has to pay for them then what was paid a decade ago for development doesn't matter. That cost is SUNK. They are only concerned with HOW MUCH THEY HAVE TO SPEND FOR THEM.

The Pentagon does not pay-out development cost of a system over the entire procurement time-span (Although POGO and others may choose to present the numbers as such because they usually aim for the highest cost per jet for maximum affect - The last F-22A did not cost 300 Million or whatever number they came up with...). When the F-16 was developed its development was paid for in the R&D and testing phase. Same for each and every military piece of hardware they design and develop. You develop something, and you then begin acquiring it.

So when Bogdan aims for $85 Million what he has at the back of his mind is the Production Ramp Rate the Program created at the baseline around 2010. The production ramp rate is reflected in the 5 year DOD plan, and the long term ramp rate is reflected in the SAR. Till now despite all the issues with development, budget sequestration, they have yet to deviate from the ramp rate since they baselined the program. In fact, they are starting to get a little more aggressive with the International customers moving towards BLOCK buy while the US customers cannot (due to it requiring congressional approval). Furthermore, it was reported that the Pentagon may seek congressional approval for moving to Block buys prior to Milestone C (it needs special congressional approval to do so ) so that further cost reductions can be realized much earlier in the ramp up effort.

The current ramp rate, is basically doubling the production every other year till they reach Full Rate of production. If you look at the current plan from current LRIP 7 production (happening NOW) to FRP1 in 2021 - 50% of the ramp rate is for INTERNATIONAL orders and the US only buys 50% till production ramps up. Once full rate of production kicks in the US DOD begins to buy 120 aircraft per year and around 70% of the total production (30% would then be export). Over the next 5 years, aprox. 50% F-35's will be for foreign customers who have communicated to the JPO their delivery timelines. The LRIP 9/10 Block buy contract for 150+ Aircraft is currently being negotiated between the JPO and the suppliers and there would be damn near 500 aircraft already by the time those aircraft are delivered.

The production rate TODAY, the production ramp rate FUNDED, LRIP 8 contract details, and LRIP 9 and 10 production runs (annual) have been provided by me as a graphic a few pages back. When you look at them do keep in mind that a LOT does not equal to annual production, as a LOT is spread over 2 years (they switch production lots mid-way in the year). At the moment they are producing LRIP 6 and LRIP 7, and LRIP 8 will begin its production in the second half of next year and the contract has already been signed for them (thats where the A price was $108 Million). Also note that once LRIP 9 and 10 contracts are signed (they are currently being negotiated with long lead contracts already having been signed) they will cover the next 2 ramp ups (One major ramp up next year, and then another ramp up between LRIP 9 and LRIP 10).

Read this :


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... uy-410939/

This is what is being negotiated at the moment. For this to happen they need international customers to agree to a block buy (which they have been working on since Farnborough) and need to seek congressional approval to allow the US to negotiate blocks (which they are doing at the moment). Once this is done they will basically fill out production slots for 2017, 2018 and 2019.

If you want to understand the program you have to understand why the USAF regards it as its NO 1 acquisition priority over the next 2 decades, and why it ranks as the top three acquisition and development programs for them. Without the JSF, they have NO fighter that is both capable of conducting what they demand from a NG fighter in the 2020-2050 timeframe, and that can help them retain their squadron strength (even at reduced post-cold-war numbers) as they begin to retire off the Cold_War legacy fleet of F-16's, A-10's and older F-15's. You CANNOT only buy 500, or 1000 F-35 for that will be the size of your air force (around 70% anyways - mostly, excluding the F-22A, F-15E and some F-15c). The USAF needs the F-35A for the frontline and reserve squadrons, and the National Guard. The USMC have absolutely NO way to replace the F/A-18 and Harrier fleet, and would have to basically stop operating from the Ships if they don't get enough F-35B's (ships that they have already) and they won't have a credible F/A-18 replacement for the mission set in the F-18E/F (STOVL capability inland). The USN will also wind up its Super Hornet procurement once they are done with heir special couple of squadrons for which they have made a last ditch effort. The only NEW aircraft they are currently acquiring is the Growler a type that the F-35 does not replace. At the moment the USN is retiring 30-40 Aircraft every year, and this number will continue on till the end of the decade so they need the 40 odd aircraft per year starting 2021 and Full Rate of Production.


This is the bed-down till 2018. Keep in mind that all but one production batch have already been ordered, and are in production or delivered -



Bottom Line: The developmental cost of the F-35 would be fully paid off by 2018 (SDD Completion). It has no bearing on whether 2400 aircraft are acquired or whether 1500 are acquired. That money isn't coming back to the DOD if they buy fewer aircraft. The 2400 number is a function of A ) NEED (How else will they modernize? ) and B ) Can they afford to buy 120 aircraft per year. This is a reason why everyone in the USAF, USMC, USN, US Congress and the JPO are concerned with the ramp rate, why the GAO spends a lot of time monitoring it, and giving its feedback and why international customers are closely watching how the production ramps up - The entire acquisition affordability hinges on them creating a production line for high rate of production (which they have already done) and hitting those production numbers (which they are on track of doing)

[UlanBatori]

Once again. The URF Target is based on the production ramp.

Are you sure you have your numbers copied right from the AF-MIL-SPEC2015-01-2033? What I have seen from DATCOM9x-21B. says that the PCT-4/2015 is for 1018 PLs placed at uniform intervals per MIL-J-2-2813s. You NEVER base the URF target off the IPX ramp, it's always inverted from the IPX timeline and overhead rates to the URF target, as any novice should know. Where did you get your training, anyway? MalCA or MaGA or FW? The 1018PL baselines were sent from Eglin way back in 9/13, they should have updated all your training folders by 03/15 at the latest. What's going on with such misinformation?

And..

The Comanche was a US Army PROJECT.

REALLY? U don't say? U mean, like, US ARMY buys HELICOPTERS? Thanks for the info - I would NEVER have guessed!
I always thought helicopters were under US Space Command.. u know, like, they go round and round, like, I mean, orbital and all?

[brar_w]

REALLY? U don't say? U mean, like, US ARMY buys HELICOPTERS? Thanks for the info - I would NEVER have guessed!

Before taking objection do try to comprehend what I was trying to say.

You said -

Back in the 1980s it was the Largest-Ever Joint Services Acquisition Project - a Sure Thing, Only Game In Town etc.

The Comanche was not a joint services program. It was a US Army project.

Are you sure you have your numbers

And..

I have the right numbers - See

To keep it short and sweet :

LRIP 6 - 36 Aircraft (Being delivered)
LRIP 7 - 35 Aircraft
LRIP 8 - 43 Aircraft (Already ordered/Contract Signed)
LRIP 9 - 59 Aircraft (Contract under Negotiation as a block buy)
LRIP 10 - 96 Aircraft (Contract under Negotiation as a block Buy along with LRIP 9 - Proposal from LMA/UT submitted in Feb/15, Contract should be signed later in the year; Long lead items had been ordered for LRIP 9 earlier)

LOT: 11, 12,13 - Block buy for 477 Aircraft has been reported, expect a decision to be made in the second half of 2016 at the earliest - http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... uy-410939/

MalCA or MaGA or FW? The 1018PL baselines were sent from Eglin way back in 9/13, they should have updated all your training folders by 03/15 at the latest. What's going on with such misinformation?

Desperation ! Keep at it..

[UlanBatori]

Just found this article: Very TTP (to the point):

(A few standard acronyms known to all of us insiders have been used... )

I think this is from A15 (that would be April 2015 to the Buzzword-Illiterate)

"TRO “has evolved into a N-Fr”..... I don't think so.

The DOT&E reported that every F-35 VNT struggled with UNCO “WI-DP” when maneuvering hard at H SB/SP speeds. This is P.D. because UNCO —which is to say, uncontrolled—WD (wing drop) can result in CR and an IY to OM APOMC. The report published in J-15 noted that all three variants needed “MOD-CL-CETF" [wing drop] and buffet maneuvering.”

Unfortunately, the RCLM will reduce the MY of the F-35, only exacerbating the plane’s PP in this area. The F-35C’s WDP is “worse than other variants” and future testing will incorporate spoilers installed in the wings to address the problem. Lockheed Martin publicly reported designing add-on spoilers in 2009, and DOT&E described plans to consider how to incorporate these new spoilers in the test plan in its 2012 report. However, AOS, such as those added to the F-18E/F to A-A similar problem, ACWD A-A-S AWA IW&D, thereby further decreasing maneuverability, acceleration, and range. Moreover, much of the extensive maneuver testing needed to validate fixes to the wing-drop problem is currently impossible due to the speed and g limits imposed by the continuing engine fan-rubbing problem (aka Diaper Rash)

Heavy buffeting during high angle of attack maneuvers (such as during dogfighting, outmaneuvering threat missiles, and flying close support) has been reported as a serious ongoing problem with the F-35 since at least 2009. Such buffeting can cause fatigue cracks that lead to structural failure and can degrade weapons aiming, missile evasion, and dogfighting ability. Testing to investigate the impact of buffet and transonic roll-off (TRO or “wing drop”) on the helmet-mounted display and offensive and defensive maneuvering found that "buffet affected display symbology, and would have the greatest impact in scenarios where a pilot was maneuvering to defeat a missile shot.” Buffeting also degrades the gyroscopes in the inertial platforms which are essential for flight control, navigation, and weapons aiming. DOT&E explained that this was an ongoing issue: “In heavy buffet conditions, which occur between 20 and 26 degrees angle of attack, faults occurred in the inertial measurement units (IMUs) in the aircraft that degraded the flight control system (two of three flight control channels become disabled), requiring a flight abort.”

This limitation to maneuverability is an obstacle that must be overcome and any remedy must be validated by additional testing before 2B release. It is implausible that any aircraft with these inherent problems in basic weapons delivery and dogfight maneuvering would be approved for deployment, and yet the Marines Corps and Air Force are pressing ahead with their dates for “initial operational capability” in 2015 and 2016, respectively. If internal Pentagon and external congressional oversight were operative, these problems would be show-stoppers.

In plain Pingrezi, the article about that indicates that in direct flyoffs against an old F-16, the F-35 Rattling Bus got its clock cleaned. All the comments area about "Ooh look! we recovered from a stall!' and "ooh look, the flight control laws CAN be tweaked!" Great. Now if they can have a flyoff against a Phabulous Phantom...

This unfortunately is the reality of "Stealth" fighters, esp. ones with massive lift fans inside them. And the Chinese have developed a counter to the Stealth, so much for that.

[brar_w]

Just found this article: Very TTP (to the point):

(A few standard acronyms known to all of us insiders have been used... )

I think this is from A15 (that would be April 2015 to the Buzzword-Illiterate)

Did you just find the article? After what Having been presented to you what 3? times? Perhaps more!

As it is what you have quotes has been posted as a comment, its not a part of the article. Furthermore, the DOT&E report that speaks of it speaks of what it had when it monitored the system in 2014. Its 2015, and what progress they have made since has not yet been reported. The article itself is citing the test-pilot from 2015. Wait till the next DOT&E report to find out what the current state of the program is when it comes to this.

With the full flight envelope now opened to an altitude of 50,000 ft., speeds of Mach 1.6/700 KCAS and loads of 9g, test pilots also say improvements to the flight control system have rendered the transonic roll-off (TRO) issue tactically irrelevant. Highlighted as a “program concern” in the Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) 2014 report, initial flight tests showed that all three F-35 variants experienced some form of wing drop in high-speed turns associated with asymmetrical movements of shock waves. However, TRO “has evolved into a non-factor,” says Nelson, who likens the effect to a momentary “tug” on one shoulder harness. “You have to pull high-g to even find it.” The roll-off phenomena exhibits itself as “less than 10 deg./sec. for a fraction of a second. We have been looking for a task it affects and we can’t find one.”

First of all the article rubbishes the claim that the F-35 can only fly 19 AOA. Now that we have put that to rest (but then again you could still claim its all a ONE BIG CONSPIRACY ) you can see that the article is from 2015. In fact April 2015. It cites the Test-Pilot who lays out the current status. He regards it as a non-issue. The DOT&E will reflect on it again in its 2014-2015 reflection of the testing on the program. Also do note, if the entire 2B envelope is not open the Marines CANNOT IOC. So how much of an issue is this issue (going by what the test pilot has to say - its a non issue at the moment) will be found out when they IOC.

In plain Pingrezi, the article about that indicates that in direct flyoffs against an old F-16, the F-35 Rattling Bus got its clock cleaned.

Oh really? It did? Where does the article state that??? Care to point out??? You know that the Flight Sciences Aircraft and test-pilots don't do DACT right? They are only concerned with developmental testing and accomplishing test points in support of development.

All the comments area about "Ooh look! we recovered from a stall!' and "ooh look, the flight control laws CAN be tweaked!" Great. Now if they can have a flyoff against a Phabulous Phantom...

Yeah how strange, a TEST PILOT flew the F-35 in an envelope expansion, Flight system validation and 2b clearance mission and he talked only about it. How strange. How dare he talk about basically what his mandate is with Developmental testing. You know that the F-16 are there in support of developmental test activity right? They aren't writing, validating or developing tactics on these missions. They are most certainly doing that separately but not with Flight Sciences Aircraft and not with developmental testing.

As the Article states :

and, based on the results of these and earlier flight-envelope evaluations

and

The operational maneuvers were flown by Nelson in AF-2, the primary Flight Sciences loads and flutter evaluation aircraft, and one of nine F-35s used by the Edwards AFB-based 412th Test Wing for developmental testing (DT).

This is what Flight Sciences Aircraft do -

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=117

On a Side Note;

DACT, tactics development is done here -

http://www.nellis.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123436539

[Mort Walker]

I remain skeptical about $85 million each F-35 production cost - even though it will be attempted to be amortized over 2400 aircraft.

The current flyaway cost of the F-35 is $108 million at a production rate of 35-40 per year (down from $250 mil each for the initial units).

Why is it such a stretch to believe that it would fall to $85 million when the production rate ramps up to over 150/yr? Its just a cost reduction of 20%, for a 200-300% increase in production.

If 2400 units are built. The reality is to maintain such an advanced platform by the services requires intense training, more skilled personnel, and of course hiring LM services for the transition period (several years) where the services can actually maintain it organically. After delivery there are going to be so many Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) and embedded system software work to keep the F-35 fully functional which will be mind boggling. Neither the USAF or USN can immediately take over the software work. Going by past modern weapon systems I've seen, there is a 3-5 year transition period from the contractor to organic software support. Maintenance costs will be very high compared to existing aircraft. Where will this money come from? The services will use their Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding. Historically, Congress has always targeted O&M budgets when there is a shortage of funds. We saw that with the sequester in October 2013. If you've spent all of your Fiscal Year (FY) money on the acquisition part and don't have enough to maintain the F-35 in the numbers envisioned, the aircraft will go to FMS and/or the bone yard in Arizona (UlanBatori is dead right on this). One of the reasons the USAF is getting rid of the A-10 is that there aren't enough skilled resources to maintain it effectively, but there is with the F-16 and it can do the same job with Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs).

I seriously doubt 2400 F-35s will be built or purchased. The final numbers will be half of that at best by 2030.

[brar_w]

If 2400 units are built.

That does not affect the URF. Only thing that has a negative effect on URF is if the ramp rate plans are altered i.e. if the US DOD reduces its firm number of 120 Aircraft per annum at FRP and the Program cannot make up the difference through export orders.

I've described the reason why this is on the previous page.

One of the reasons the USAF is getting rid of the A-10 is that there aren't enough skilled resources to maintain it effectively, but there is with the F-16 and it can do the same job with Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs).

No the reason is that there isn't enough skilled resources and maintainers to maintain it, the F-16, and the F-35. If the A-10 is not retired early, the USAF would either have to seek more funding to introduce the F-35A gradually into the fleet, or continue on with a hybrid model that they have at the moment. Remember, this is under the Budget Control Act. No one expects the BCA to continue for more than a couple of years.

Regarding the early retirement, it is very unlikely to happen. The point still is that the USAF has a fairly FIRM number of outgoing aircraft starting the early 2020's (Same with the USN, and both of them are nothing compared to the USMC) and there is no way to fill that gap but to buy the F-35. So if they do not buy the F-35, they would have to basically reduce the physical size of the USAF fighter fleet. This is despite of upgrading the youngest F-16's, prolonging the life of F-15C's, and using the F-22's in the air-ground role post increment 3.1/2.

The 80 number they have in their budget isn't something randomly pulled out of thin air. It is something that is matched with the capability they are expected to loose in about the same time.

[Mort Walker]

This unfortunately is the reality of "Stealth" fighters, esp. ones with massive lift fans inside them. And the Chinese have developed a counter to the Stealth, so much for that.

That's not possible as the F-35 has an RCS of 0.00016 square meters and has a reflectivey smaller than a gnat's ass. Didn't you learn that at yak herder college?