Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

International Aerospace Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 118
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Chinmay » 14 Nov 2017 17:44

Brar_w, you cant change the mind of the willfully ignorant. Save your energy and put him on the ignore list :)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6006
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 14 Nov 2017 19:16

Exclusive: Japan to delay multi-billion dollar fighter jet development - sources


Japan will delay a decision to develop a new advanced fighter jet, four sources said, as military planners struggle to settle on a design and officials splash out on new U.S. equipment such as ballistic missile interceptors and F-35 stealth planes.

Faced with a growing military threat from North Korea and increased activity by Chinese air force jets over the East China Sea, Japan is under pressure to improve its defenses on two fronts.Any delay to the new fighter, known as the F-3, will raise a question mark over the future of what could be one of the world’s most lucrative upcoming military contracts, estimated at more than $40 billion to develop and deploy.

A decision after the first half of 2018 would be too late for it to be included as a core program in a new five-year defense equipment plan beginning April 2019 that Japan will reveal at the end of next year.

“The direction is for the F-3 decision to be put back,” said one the sources who have knowledge of the discussion. The people who spoke to Reuters asked not to be identified because they are not authorized to talk to the media.

They said the decision, on whether to forge ahead as a domestic program or seek international collaboration, would now likely come after 2018.

“Regarding the F-3 decision, including whether we will delay a choice, we have haven’t come to any conclusion,” a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defence Acquisition Technology & Logistics Agency saidAnalysts estimate developing the F-3 could cost $40 billion, a figure described another source as an “initial cost.”

With a defense budget of around $50 billion that has increased in the past few years at just under an annual 1 percent, that outlay, even spread out over years of development, represents a major undertaking.

It would come at a time when Japan is spending a record amounts on U.S. equipment, including Lockheed Martin Corp’s F-35 jet, Raytheon defense missiles and Boeing Co and Textron Inc’s tilt-rotor Osprey troop aircraft.

In 2013, Japan procured 118 billion yen ($1 billion) of equipment through the U.S. government’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) system. By last year, that outlay had quadrupled to 486 billion yen.

President Donald Trump in Tokyo last week called on Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to purchase additional U.S.-made weapons as his administration pushes Washington’s allies to contribute more to their joint defense.For now, that defense is focused on countering the threat posed by North Korean ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.

Japan’s defense forces, however, want the F-3 to counter growing Chinese air power in the skies over the western Pacific and East China Sea where Tokyo and Beijing are locked in a territorial dispute.

Japanese fighters scrambled a record 806 times to intercept Chinese planes in the year that ended March 31.

A second role for the yet-to-be-built fighter is to reinforce Japan’s defense industry by giving Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and its suppliers their first fighter jet program since Japan built its F-2 fighter two decades ago.

Mitsubishi Heavy, the maker of the World War Two-era Zero fighter, in January 2016 tested a prototype jet, the ATD-X. Developed for around $350 million, it was seen as the first step toward a new homegrown frontline stealth fighter.

While support for a domestic-only program is strong among some government officials, other bureaucrats are worried about the potentially enormous expense of developing components from scratch. They support international collaboration to share costs with overseas partners and tap their technology.

“What we have now is a flying box” without all the systems that constitute a fighter such as weapons and sensors, said another of the sources.

Possible overseas partners include BAE Systems, a leading designer of the high-altitude Eurofighter interceptor backed by the British government, F-35 builder Lockheed Martin and Boeing, maker of the F-18 strike fighter. All have responded to initial requests for information from Ministry of Defence overseeing F-3 plans.


I had predicted that they will take a longer pause after the scaled tech demonstrator was put out. It is expensive for them and partnering doesn't get them all that they are looking for. There is a strong possibility that what comes out of it would be something similar to the F-2 via a heavily modified or F-35 influenced design produced locally by their industry in partnership with LMA and JSF developmental partners. The dynamics vis-a-vis Japan-Soko relationship will likely still prohibit the US for offering something on its PCA program which will also likely size itself out of contention.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Nov 2017 04:38

China’s UAVs Proliferate in Middle East

Chinese gains could make it difficult for the U.S. to break back into Middle East UAV market.

Reluctance on the part of the U.S. to deliver armed unmanned air systems (UAS) to some of its key allies in the Middle East has resulted in a significant win for China.

Chinese UAS manufacturers have been rewarded handsomely with major contracts from several Middle East and Central Asian governments.

And China’s successes in those geographic areas have prompted it to explore other markets further afield.

In April, Avic demonstrated a model of its Wing Loong II, an MQ-9 Reaper-size air system at an exhibition in Mexico—right in the U.S.’s backyard. In June, it debuted at the Paris Air Show, displayed with an array of Chinese-produced weaponry.

It is hard to determine the actual number of Chinese-made armed UAVs now in service with countries in the Middle East, but the platforms are operational with the air forces of Iraq, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and reports suggest they have found their way into Egypt and Jordan as well.

Some of these countries have also used them in combat. Saudi Arabia has employed the systems during the air campaign over Yemen, while Iraq has flown them in its ongoing campaign against the Islamic State group.

The UAE has gone further and deployed several to Libya’s Marj District to support the Libyan National Army against Islamic fighters there.

All these nations had requested to purchase armed versions of the General Atomics MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper, but were denied by the Obama administration due to concerns that selling into the region would break the international Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) rules, which attempt to prevent proliferation of technologies that enable the creation of delivery systems for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

The UAE was granted permission to purchase unarmed exportable versions of the Predator, known as the Predator XP.

Beijing’s success in the region revolves around two almost identical air systems, both virtual copies of the MQ-1 Predator. These are the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corp. (CASC) CH-4, known as Rainbow, and the Chengdu or Avic Wing Loong I, designated GJ-1 in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force service. One analysis puts the price of a CH-4 system at one-fifth that of an MQ-1.

In October, it emerged that the Trump administration had begun exploring the loosening of the MTCR and other arms protocols in order to facilitate the export of U.S.-manufactured UAS, but China’s stranglehold could be difficult to break.

In March, it was announced that CASC could open a factory to build as many as 300 CH-4 systems for the Saudi armed forces over the coming years.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Nov 2017 04:44

Britain Faces Calls To Consider Future Fighter Project

July’s announcement by French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel that their countries will produce a new European fighter has not gone unnoticed across the English Channel.

Despite the looming juggernaut of Brexit and an upcoming reassessment of its 2015 Strategic Defense and Security Review, British defense ministers are facing more and more questions about the future of Britain’s next-generation fighter capability.

The issue was brought into sharp focus in October, when Britain’s biggest defense and aerospace company, BAE Systems, announced it will shed 1,400 jobs from its aerospace business due to the uncertainty over future orders of both the Hawk jet trainer and the Eurofighter Typhoon. Some of the jobs will be secured if a contract with Qatar for 24 Typhoons and six Hawks is signed before year-end. If it is not signed, Typhoon production will be slowed further.

............................................................

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15869
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby NRao » 15 Nov 2017 04:47

Cross-Border Research Increases Missile Technology Options

Technologies developed through an Anglo-French research program to enhance the next generation of missiles are beginning to bear fruit.

Several projects funded through the biennial Materials and Components for Missiles Innovation and Technology Partnership (MCM-ITP) are either ready for production or in development for future programs.

The program, now in its 10th year, has brought together some of Europe’s big defense players and representatives from academia, small businesses and startups to experiment with technologies to improve missile components ranging from propulsion systems to warheads and seekers, with the goal of bringing them to technology readiness levels (TRL) of 3-4.

Advances from the project will soon find their way onto rear control fins of the new Mica NG and the advanced short-range air-to-air missile (Asraam) Block 6 produced using additive laser manufacturing. Formal development work on the Mica NG will begin in 2018 and is expected to form the primary weapon of a mid-life update version of the Dassault Rafale.

MISSILE REVOLUTION
MBDA’s new missile products are reaping the benefits of MCM-ITP research
Work will assist in concept phase for new Anglo-French anti-ship and cruise missile
Focus on missile power distribution could result in more modular weapons
Reactive materials could improve lethality of current-generation air-to-air missiles
So-called aim-point refinement, a technology developed to help small missiles deal with large targets by focusing on their weak points, will feature prominently on the new Sea Venom anti-ship missile being developed for the British and French navies.

And Guidance in Uncertain Shooting Domains (GUS-D) (AW&ST June 03, 2013, p. 33), an algorithm written to give fighter pilots a better idea of when an air-to-air missile can be allowed to “go autonomous,” freeing the launch aircraft to take full evasive action, had become the subject of a technology demonstration program for the Rafale as well.

“Ten years is not that long for coming from low TRLs and into production,” says Olivier Lucas, the director of future systems at MBDA.

Much of the focus of the MCM-ITP is around making missiles more capable but at much lower cost.

Today’s weapons are becoming increasingly complex as they tackle more sophisticated and fleeting targets, which means the technologies they rely on must be more reliable and able to work the first time out. But they also need to withstand being stored without maintenance for many years without degrading.

Lucas says the company has held discussions about widening the scope of MCM-ITP into directed-energy weapons, but notes there are national security interests surrounding such work that must be considered.

MBDA’s UK division is heading a consortium called DragonFire to demonstrate the potential of laser weapons to the British government. Lucas says there was keen interest from France about the use of directed energy to provide an anti-mini-UAV capability.

“Every day in Syria and Iraq, forces are being attacked by mini-UAVs carrying grenades, and we cannot stop them,” Lucas says.

The Anglo-French Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) is one of the projects in which many of the technologies featured in this year’s MCM-ITP could find a home. The FC/ASW is the subject of a concept study to deliver a weapon to eventually replace both the Scalp and Storm Shadow cruise missiles, as well as the Harpoon and Exocet anti-ship missiles in use with the British and French navies, respectively.

The aim is to develop a common weapon, although the anti-ship version will likely be supersonic while the cruise missile will be subsonic.

Attention will be focused on speeding up mission planning and improving target recognition using machine learning and neural networks. Also being pursued will be more advanced materials for high-temperature environments.

“Every domain in the ITP has a project that is now being considered further in FC/ASW,” says Nick Gooch, the head of MCM-ITP.

Silent Running

Signals from communications satellites could help the next generation of anti-ship missiles find their targets without providing early warning of its presence.

Many anti-ship missiles use on-board radars or data links to provide mid-course corrections as they skim over the water toward their targets. However, these signals can inadvertently give the target ship an early warning of attack.

A team from the University of Birmingham and MBDA have been exploring the potential of a passive seeker using what the team refers to as transmitters of opportunity. The Passive Missile-borne Radar (PAMIR II) study—currently between TRL 3-4—builds on bi-static research using TV transmitters as a means of detecting low-observable aircraft. The aim is to use the reflection of communications satellite signals to detect surface ships and confirm their position.


A bi-static radar using transmitters of opportunity could provide anti-ship missiles with a greater element of surprise against targets. Credit: MBDA

“The communication systems on communications satellites are really high-powered...and these are naturally reflected,” said Iain Cade, the Pamir II project lead at MBDA.

The development team has already conducted proof-of-concept work using a prototype sensor in the Bristol Channel and in Liverpool. The next step is to take the sensor airborne to prove whether the reflected signals can be detected from around 30 km (18 mi.), roughly the distance from the target at which the missile would perform its mid-course guidance correction.

MBDA sees the potential of the PAMIR II technology to help create a dual-mode seeker for the next generation of anti-ship missiles; it will likely be considered as part of the concept phase for the FC/ASW missile. The next step would be to develop the bi-static radar with the size and volume constraints required for the high-speed anti-ship missile.

Wireless Missiles

Power distribution can be one of the biggest headaches in missile development. Cabling takes up considerable volume and adds weight, so engineers are exploring whether wires can be eliminated.

Using lessons from the consumer electronics and automotive industries, missile developers are exploring distributed power systems, printing using electrically conductive inks, and wireless transmission of electrical power and data.

As part of the MCM-ITP demonstration, the MBDA, along with students from several British universities, have been involved in building new architectures for powering the onboard components. At the moment, missile component power is delivered via a power supply; voltages and currents are then adjusted to meet the needs of the various sensitive components.

But this approach can lead to development delays, says Edwin Bowden-Peters, principal research engineer for electronic engineering at MBDA. “Engineers often find they need more power or additional connectors. . .this had an impact on development times.”


Changes in power distribution could lead to modular weapons such as MBDA’s CVW102 Flexis concept, revealed at the 2015 Paris Air Show. Credit: MBDA

An alternative approach is what Bowden-Peters calls “voltage wild distribution,” where the subsystems themselves handle their voltage and current requirements. This, he says would increase efficiency of the power system as less energy would be lost through heat caused by making adjustments to electrical outputs. It could also allow the power supplies to be smaller, leaving more room for other components.

Another option is to look at alternatives to wires such as the use of conductive inks on the inside the of missile body, for example. Bowden-Peters notes, however, there are issues relating to the resistivity of the inks currently available and their ability to withstand long-term storage.

Another option is the use of wireless power transmission similar to that used on cellphones. MBDA believes the technology could be useful when rapid reloading of munitions, such as in a rocket pod, is needed, doing away with control wires that can slow down or hinder the loading or launch process. A misconnected wire could lead to a hung weapon, one that is unable to be launched. The company believes it could also help air forces to cheaply upgrade older aircraft to communicate with new digital weapons because the wireless systems will cost far less to install than rewiring the weapon systems.

Ultimately, new forms of electrical distribution could pave the way for a more modular, plug-and-play approach to missile manufacturing.

Reactive Modeling

MBDA has been exploring how the addition of reactive materials into warhead casings, fragments and charge liners could increase the lethality of its air-to-air missiles.

Despite popular belief, air-to-air missiles destroy their targets by exploding within close proximity of them. Colliding fragments of metal—usually tungsten—penetrate the aircraft, damaging its fragile systems. The level of damage depends on how near or far the missile explodes from the target, but a kill cannot always be guaranteed.

The use of reactive materials could enhance the energy within the warhead, better guaranteeing a kill. After the warhead has detonated, the fragments that come into contact with the target aircraft would react with the air and the materials in the aircraft to enhance the damage.

As part of MCM-ITP, MBDA has been modeling the lethality of such warheads through simulation. Six million permutations of detonation location, velocity, trajectory of the aircraft and weapon are measured to assess the probability of kill resulting from the increased energy from a reactive warhead.

“This could result in smaller warheads,” says Jack Mellor, a senior warhead engineer at MBDA who has been working on the studies with engineers from Qinetiq, Nexter, the University of Birmingham and French company Thiot Engineering.

The next step will be to look at the use of reactive material in warheads on ground targets and small fixed structures.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17835
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 15 Nov 2017 11:45

Unfortunately those touts of the Big Lie cannot refute the Pentagon reports and those directly associated /heading the programme. These snake-oil salesmen simply know better!
Pentagon Tester: F-35 Still Has Serious Problems
Memo warns the plane likely faces more delays.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... ng-delays/

They cannot also answer the innumerable points about flaws ,costs,etc. but resort to generalsiation about ""cherry picking".
The truth of the JSF has been outed and it is most unlilkely that it will ever come India's way at anytime now or in the future ,so they can dream on.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... e-fighter/
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
What Went Wrong with the F-35, Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter?
The F-35 was billed as a fighter jet that could do almost everything the U.S. military desired but has turned out to be one of the greatest boondoggles in recent military purchasing history
By Michael P. Hughes, The Conversation US on June 14, 2017

What Went Wrong with the F-35, Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter?

The following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research.
The F-35 was billed as a fighter jet that could do almost everything the U.S. military desired, serving the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy – and even Britain’s Royal Air Force and Royal Navy – all in one aircraft design. It’s supposed to replace and improve upon several current – and aging – aircraft types with widely different missions. It’s marketed as a cost-effective, powerful multi-role fighter airplane significantly better than anything potential adversaries could build in the next two decades. But it’s turned out to be none of those things.The Conversation
Officially begun in 2001, with roots extending back to the late 1980s, the F-35 program is nearly a decade behind schedule, and has failed to meet many of its original design requirements. It’s also become the most expensive defense program in world history, at around US$1.5 trillion before the fighter is phased out in 2070.
The unit cost per airplane, above $100 million, is roughly twice what was promised early on. Even after President Trump lambasted the cost of the program in February, the price per plane dropped just $7 million – less than 7 percent.
And yet, the U.S. is still throwing huge sums of money at the project. Essentially, the Pentagon has declared the F-35 “too big to fail.” As a retired member of the U.S. Air Force and current university professor of finance who has been involved in and studied military aviation and acquisitions, I find the F-35 to be one of the greatest boondoggles in recent military purchasing history.
*(No cherrypicking here,but an ex-USAF veteran and Prof. of Finance ,a mil,.aviation acquisition expert.)
FORGET WHAT’S ALREADY SPENT

The Pentagon is trying to argue that just because taxpayers have flushed more than $100 billion down the proverbial toilet so far, we must continue to throw billions more down that same toilet. That violates the most elementary financial principles of capital budgeting, which is the method companies and governments use to decide on investments. So-called sunk costs, the money already paid on a project, should never be a factor in investment decisions. Rather, spending should be based on how it will add value in the future.
Keeping the F-35 program alive is not only a gross waste in itself: Its funding could be spent on defense programs that are really useful and needed for national defense, such as anti-drone systems to defend U.S. troops.
Part of the enormous cost has come as a result of an effort to share aircraft design and replacement parts across different branches of the military. In 2013, a study by the RAND Corporation found that it would have been cheaper if the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy had simply designed and developed separate and more specialized aircraft to meet their specific operational requirements.

NOT LIVING UP TO TOP BILLING

The company building the F-35 has made grand claims. Lockheed Martin said the plane would be far better than current aircraft – “four times more effective” in air-to-air combat, “eight times more effective” in air-to-ground combat and “three times more effective” in recognizing and suppressing an enemy’s air defenses. It would, in fact, be “second only to the F-22 in air superiority.” In addition, the F-35 was to have better range and require less logistics support than current military aircraft. The Pentagon is still calling the F-35 “the most affordable, lethal, supportable, and survivable aircraft ever to be used.”
But that’s not how the plane has turned out.
In January 2015, mock combat testing pitted the F-35 against an F-16, one of the fighters it is slated to replace. The F-35A was flown “clean” with empty weapon bays and without any drag-inducing and heavy externally mounted weapons or fuel tanks. The F-16D, a heavier and somewhat less capable training version of the mainstay F-16C, was further encumbered with two 370-gallon external wing-mounted fuel tanks.
In spite of its significant advantages, the F-35A’s test pilot noted that the F-35A was less maneuverable and markedly inferior to the F-16D in a visual-range dogfight.

STEALTH OVER POWER

One key reason the F-35 doesn’t possess the world-beating air-to-air prowess promised, and is likely not even adequate when compared with its current potential adversaries, is that it was designed first and foremost to be a stealthy airplane. This requirement has taken precedence over maneuverability, and likely above its overall air-to-air lethality. The Pentagon and especially the Air Force seem to be relying almost exclusively on the F-35’s stealth capabilities to succeed at its missions.
Like the F-117 and F-22, the F-35’s stealth capability greatly reduces, but does not eliminate, its radar cross-section, the signal that radar receivers see bouncing back off an airplane. The plane looks smaller on radar – perhaps like a bird rather than a plane – but is not invisible. The F-35 is designed to be stealthy primarily in the X-band, the radar frequency range most commonly used for targeting in air-to-air combat.
In other radar frequencies, the F-35 is not so stealthy, making it vulnerable to being tracked and shot down using current – and even obsolete – weapons. As far back as 1999 the same type of stealth technology was not able to prevent a U.S. Air Force F-117 flying over Kosovo from being located, tracked and shot down using an out-of-date Soviet radar and surface-to-air missile system. In the nearly two decades since, that incident has been studied in depth not only by the U.S., but also by potential adversaries seeking weaknesses in passive radar stealth aircraft.
Of course, radar is not the only way to locate and target an aircraft. One can also use an aircraft’s infrared emissions, which are created by friction-generated heat as it flies through the air, along with its hot engines. Several nations, particularly the Russians, have excellent passive infrared search and tracking systems, that can locate and target enemy aircraft with great precision – sometimes using lasers to measure exact distances, but without needing radar.
It’s also very common in air-to-air battles for opposing planes to come close enough that their pilots can see each other. The F-35 is as visible as any other aircraft its size.

ANALYSTS WEIGH IN

Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon say the F-35’s superiority over its rivals lies in its ability to remain undetected, giving it “first look, first shot, first kill.” Hugh Harkins, a highly respected author on military combat aircraft, called that claim “a marketing and publicity gimmick” in his book on Russia’s Sukhoi Su-35S, a potential opponent of the F-35. He also wrote, “In real terms an aircraft in the class of the F-35 cannot compete with the Su-35S for out and out performance such as speed, climb, altitude, and maneuverability.” :rotfl:

*(And they're not even comparing it with the SU-57!)

Other critics have been even harsher. Pierre Sprey, a cofounding member of the so-called “fighter mafia” at the Pentagon and a co-designer of the F-16, calls the F-35 an “inherently a terrible airplane” that is the product of “an exceptionally dumb piece of Air Force PR spin.” He has said the F-35 would likely lose a close-in combat encounter to a well-flown MiG-21, a 1950s Soviet fighter design. Robert Dorr, an Air Force veteran, career diplomat and military air combat historian, wrote in his book “Air Power Abandoned,” “The F-35 demonstrates repeatedly that it can’t live up to promises made for it. … It’s that bad.”
:rotfl:
*(3 cheers for the MIG-21 Bison!)

HOW DID WE GET HERE?


How did the F-35 go from its conception as the most technologically advanced, do-it-all military aircraft in the world to a virtual turkey?

*(SC's own words not mine,but remember I said it first!) :rotfl:

Over the decades-long effort to meet a real military need for better aircraft, the F-35 program is the result of the merging or combination of several other separate and diverse projects into a set of requirements for an airplane that is trying to be everything to everybody.
In combat the difference between winning and losing is often not very great. With second place all too often meaning death, the Pentagon seeks to provide warriors with the best possible equipment. The best tools are those that are tailor-made to address specific missions and types of combat. Seeking to accomplish more tasks with less money, defense planners looked for ways to economize.
For a fighter airplane, funding decisions become a balancing act of procuring not just the best aircraft possible, but enough of them to make an effective force. This has lead to the creation of so-called “multi-role” fighter aircraft, capable both in air-to-air combat and against ground targets. Where trade-offs have to happen, designers of most multi-role fighters emphasize aerial combat strength, reducing air-to-ground capabilities. With the F-35, it appears designers created an airplane that doesn’t do either mission exceptionally well. They have made the plane an inelegant jack-of-all-trades, but master of none – at great expense, both in the past and, apparently, well into the future.
I believe the F-35 program should be immediately cancelled; the technologies and systems developed for it should be used in more up-to-date and cost-effective aircraft designs. Specifically, the F-35 should be replaced with a series of new designs targeted toward the specific mission requirements of the individual branches of the armed forces, in lieu of a single aircraft design trying to be everything to everyone.


And this is a concise account of the Pentagon report earlier in the yr. But then according to Brar and co. the Pentagon too by my posting their report must be liars too!
F-35 has 276 deficiencies and counting, unfit for combat operations – Pentagon report
Published time: 16 Jan, 2017 23:23

F-35 has 276 deficiencies and counting, unfit for combat operations – Pentagon report
US Marine Corps F-35B © Jeff J Mitchell / Getty Images / AFP
2.7K74
The F-35 stealth fighter jet suffers from hundreds of problems and won’t be fully combat-capable before 2020, says a scathing report from the Pentagon’s top evaluator. New issues keep cropping up, and fixing them all may cost over $1 billion.
Dr. Michael Gilmore’s damning assessment is part of the massive annual report for fiscal year 2016, and his 62-page dossier devoted to the F-35 paints a grim picture of America’s much touted,futuristic Joint Strike Fighter. The program, which began in 2001, was supposed to deliver a fifth-generation jet serving the needs of the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps, achieving savings through a modular design. Instead, it is 70 percent over initial cost estimates and years behind schedule.

Read more
Lockheed CEO promises cheaper F-35 & 1,800 jobs after meeting with Trump
Dr. Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of operational test & evaluation (OTE) under President Barack Obama, is leaving the Department of Defense as part of the regular change in politically appointed officials. Though F-35 officials have continued to insist the jet is doing just fine and that the problems found in operational testing were being fixed rapidly, Gilmore’s final report makes it clear that he doesn’t believe their reassurances.

“The Services have designated 276 deficiencies in combat performance as ‘critical to correct’ in Block 3F, but less than half of the critical deficiencies were addressed with attempted corrections,” says Gilmore’s report, referring to problems in the F-35’s software. “Deficiencies continue to be discovered at a rate of about 20 per month,” the report added. :mrgreen:

“Much more testing is needed to assess the cybersecurity structure of the air vehicle and supporting logistics infrastructure system,” the report says, “and to determine whether, and to what extent, vulnerabilities may have led to compromises of F-35 data.”

Worse yet, the program is trying to skip many of the tests and declare the systems development phase over early, shifting the testing to the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) process starting in August 2017, the report noted. Rushing the tests means shifting the risks onto operational testing, follow-on modernization, and to the pilots intended to fly the planes into combat.

The F-35 program office "has no plan to adequately fix and verify hundreds of these deficiencies using flight testing within its currently planned schedule and resources," Gilmore wrote.

“Multiple problems and delays make it clear that the program will not be able to start IOT&E with full combat capability until late CY18 or early CY19, at the soonest,” meaning 2018 and 2019, respectively. Finalizing the systems development phase would cost around $500 million, Gilmore noted, adding that the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office’s estimate ranged up to $1.125 billion.

Read more
Plagued by problems, F-35 nowhere near ready to fly
In addition to software trouble, the jet is plagued by structural problems. For example, the connection between the vertical tail and the airframe is wearing out much faster than expected, while arresting hooks are fraying after only one use. Engine nacelles are overheating under certain flight tests, horizontal tail continues to suffer heat damage, and the “excessive, violent” oscillations during catapult launches of the naval F-35C version present a safety concern for pilots.

Tests of the pilot escape system showed a risk of serious neck injury or death for pilots weighing less than 136 pounds (61kg), who remain restricted from flying the F-35.

On the maintenance side, technicians are required to physically connect the Portable Maintenance Aid (PMA) laptops to the aircraft in order to conduct most activities. If the PMA fails to connect to the aircraft properly and technicians unplug it prematurely, the laptop cannot connect to another aircraft until it is reset by an Automatic Logistics Information System (ALIS) administrator, “which can be a lengthy process.”


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17835
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 15 Nov 2017 12:15

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -f-35-jets
Pentagon Discloses New Quality Glitch on Lockheed's F-35 Jets
By Anthony Capaccio
November 1, 2017,
Deliveries halted a month through Oct. 20 as fixes reviewed
Pentagon says fastener flaw poses no safety hazard to pilots

F-35C Lightning II carrier variant joint strike fighter Source: U.S. Navy
The Pentagon’s F-35 program office is weighing how to fix to a newly discovered glitch in the fighter -- the military’s most expensive program -- that halted deliveries of the Lockheed Martin Corp. plane for 30 days.

The problem was linked to a primer that’s supposed to be applied as a protective layer on aluminum fasteners to prevent corrosion. The Defense Department temporarily stopped deliveries of the next-generation jet for the month ending Oct. 20 to assess the issue.

“After a thorough government and industry investigation, it was discovered that Lockheed Martin had not applied the required primer in fastener holes on F-35 substructures during the aircraft production process,” Pentagon spokesman Joe DellaVedova said in an email. “This is a production quality escape issue and, though it needs be corrected to prevent potential future corrosion, it does not pose a safety of flight risk to the F-35 fleet or affect current operations.”

Discovery of the flaw came after the Pentagon already has taken delivery of about 250 F-35s to date and plans to accelerate production to include a block purchase by U.S. allies of as many as 211 jets starting with the 12th production lot.

A Lockheed Meeting

The fastener glitch has been flagged to Pentagon officials preparing Ellen Lord, the undersecretary for acquisition, for a meeting scheduled Nov. 6 with top Lockheed officials, including Chief Executive Officer Marillyn Hewson, according to an official who asked not to be identified because the meeting hasn’t been publicly announced.

Lord will be reviewing all major Lockheed programs with company representatives, including the F-35, according to the official. Lockheed spokeswoman Maureen Schumann declined to comment when asked about the meeting.

Upkeep of the F-35 fleet will become more challenging as the Pentagon prepares for what the manager of the program has called a “tsunami” of new production toward an eventual planned U.S. fleet of 2,456 planes plus more than 700 additional planes to be sold to allies. The fastener example is another instance of the potential maintenance burden on the program.

Read More: F-35 Program Costs Jump to $406.5 Billion in Latest Estimate

“We are taking a holistic fleet-wide approach to plan and implement corrective action on aircraft in production and fielded jets, which allowed deliveries to resume,” Lockheed spokeswoman Carolyn Nelson said in an email. “We continue to be on track to meet our delivery goal of 66 F-35s by the end of 2017 and have delivered 54 aircraft year-to-date.”

The disclosure also comes a week after Deputy Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan, Navy Secretary Richard Spencer and Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson visited the Lockheed facility in Fort Worth, Texas. It’s not known whether they were informed of the glitch.

“The F-35 Joint Program Office is leading the effort with the U.S. services, international allies and Lockheed Martin on a comprehensive engineering assessment and corrective action maintenance plan to implement the necessary repairs” to all deployed aircraft “while minimizing impact to operations,” DellaVedova said.

In the interim, “primer will be applied to fastener holes of fielded aircraft as panels are removed during routine F-35 maintenance operations.,” he said. “Lockheed Martin has taken action to correct the production line work order error to ensure primer is applied to all fastener holes on future aircraft.”


PS:Remember that the JSF is being produced without the major flaws amounting to approx. 270+ (Pentagon) being rectified and even testing hasn't yet started on the rectifications for many items.Read earlier posts.This makes the aircraft already built useless unless a huge amt. of money is spent on rectifying all the defects.This cannot be done as there is no money for both rectification and current production.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17835
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 15 Nov 2017 12:52

To be fair to those trying to fix the problems,and understand their complexity,here is a new report on how V.Adm. Winter,the new boss of the progrmme is trying to fix a few of the 270+ problems.

https://breakingdefense.com/2017/09/jpo ... dm-winter/
JPO Fixing F-35 Oxygen, Carrier Landing, Software Glitches: VADM Winter
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.
on September 07, 2017 at 2:02 PM

CORRECTED number of hypoxia incidents ARLINGTON: As the F-35 prepares for a massive ramp-up in production, the program is fixing the costly, controversial plane’s last technical glitches, Vice Adm. Mat Winter said in his first press conference since becoming program director. Winter expressed confidence about three problems in particular: air supply for pilots, carrier landings, and – the 800-pound gorilla of the F-35 program – software.

The issue with air supply is simple: Are pilots getting the right amount of oxygen, at the right pressure, without contaminants? Getting dizzy in a fighter cockpit, let alone passing out, is a recipe for disaster.

CORRECTED F-35 pilots have reported 27 “physiological episodes” since 2011 – 22 of them in the air and five on the ground – with a recent rash of six incidents at Luke Air Force Base. Painstaking investigations are still underway, looking at the state of the aircraft, pilot, and environmental conditions in every incident, but there seem to be two causes, both solvable.

First, the cockpit warning light for the On-Board Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS) goes off too often, making pilots think they had a problem with their air supply when there really wasn’t one, Winter said at the DefenseNews conference here yesterday. Since the warning signs of hypoxia are the same as the signs of getting anxious about hypoxia – you have trouble breathing and concentrating – a false alarm can easily send a pilot into psychosomatic symptoms. The program has tweaked the warning light to reduce false positives, Winter said. It’s also improving filtration and pressure.

Second, in this summer’s incidents at Luke in particular, the problem was a combination of brutal temperatures and inexperienced pilots. While pilots who know an aircraft well can jump in the cockpit, run through their checklists, and get in the air ASAP, the F-35 is a new plane and most of its pilots are still mastering it. The result was pilots spending half an hour on the runway in the baking Arizona sun and 100-plus degree heat, all the while sitting in the carbon monoxide from their own jet exhaust. That’s enough to make anyone woozy. Fixing this problem requires new training and procedures rather than modifications to the aircraft.

While Air Force pilots were baking in the desert, Navy pilots were shaking at sea. Catapult launches off the deck of an aircraft carrier are hard on any aircraft ,but F-35C pilots were shaking so hard they couldn’t see or reach key controls, sometimes even banging their high-tech helmets on the canopy. Pilots also complained the cockpit displays were too bright, creating so much “green glow” in their night-vision systems that they couldn’t always see clearly during night landings on the carrier – an operation traditionally considered even more stressful than combat.

The program’s adjusted the helmet display, Winter said. It’s also retrained pilots and made minor adjustments to fix the intense vibration during catapult take-offs (“cat stroke”). There’s no need for a costly and time-consuming redesign of the aircraft’s nose landing gear, as some had thought.

Two Navy F-35C squadrons (VFA-101 and VFA-125) now have both sets of fixes and are going through carrier qualifications with them aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, Winter said. This isn’t a test specially arranged for the F-35 program, he emphasized. It’s pilots going through their routine training, using the improved gear and providing feedback on it.

An Air Force pilot, Lt. Col. Chris Pitts, in the cockpit of his F-35A.
Whether on the sea, on land, or in the air, software underlies everything the F-35 does. While both the Marines and Air Force have declared their F-35s Initially Operationally Capable (IOC), the plane won’t be fully capable until it gets a software update designated Block 3F. “We are meeting or exceeding all the warfighers’ ORD (Operational Requirements Documents) requirements right now” for the 3F software, Winter said. That 3F software is already going on aircraft coming off the Lockheed Martin assembly line in Fort Worth, Texas, Winter said. It’s not the absolute final version of 3F, he acknowledged, because additional testing must be done before the software is fully “verified and validated.” The program is already compiling a database of deficiencies it must correct, he said. Most of them are minor issues, such as indicators moving too much on displays or radar screen refresh rates being a few seconds too slow.

Flight testing of Block III will be done “by the end of this calendar year,” Winter said, which is well ahead of where the program expected to be this time last year. Operational testing – run by the Pentagon’s notoriously tough and independent Director of Operational Test & Evaluation – will start in February. Winter doesn’t expect DOT&E to find new software problems, but the program stands ready to fix 3F if necessary.

After Block 3F will come Block 4, a package of future upgrades whose content and schedule are still being defined. Winter said he’s taking a “strategic pause” to reassess how to move to Block 4. In the near term, he wants to smooth the transition between blocks, with work on 3F fixes overlapping with development of Block 4’s new features. His ultimate goal is a flexible process that accepts software upgrades from a wide variety of vendors – without the laborious process of issuing new contracts every time – and then transmits the upgrades automatically across the fleet, the way Apple pushes out new iPhone software.

All this work to fine-tune the technology of the F-35 lays the groundwork for full-rate production. Winter is asking Congress to approval a block buy arrangement under which the program could order key components two years in advance instead of the normal 12 months, which would reduce costs by buying in bulk. Lockheed Martin currently builds 60 F-35s a year (five a month) for both US and foreign customers. That’s already a higher rate than most defense programs in this cash-strapped era, but the goal is to more than quadruple production to 260 a year (between 21 and 22 a month). The number of F-35s in service requiring spare parts, software upgrades, repairs, and other ground support will go from 250 to almost 1,000 within five years. By that point, the F-35 program needs to have fixed all the airplanes’ teething troubles so it can concentrate on the massive industrial challenge of building and sustaining almost 2,500 aircraft around the world.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1002
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby rkhanna » 15 Nov 2017 13:03

Spanish EuroFighters (P1Eb upgrade) impress at Red Flag

n pure number terms the Spanish Unit’s efforts were impressive — it dropped the most live ordance of any of the participants of this particular Red Flag and did so under real pressure. Maj Barranco says: “We dropped a total of 48 GBU​-16s, which was a decent number for two weeks of flying. In fact, we were the only unit dropping live weapons (others were using inert weapons).

“It was a very congested environment where we were constantly facing a lot of air-to-air and surface-to-air threats. In the sorties you were in a sort of ‘funnel’ and by the time you dropped your bomb there were aggressor aircraft coming toward you. But, despite that, most of the sorties we flew were right over the bullseye.”

Captain (OF-2) Joaquín Ducay, who helped plan the Unit’s tactical approach to Red Flag, says: “The overall picture was impressive. Our standard was a little bit higher than conventional aircraft, we survived through most of the bombing sorties and we had a high air-to-air kill ratio. I can’t say the exact numbers but, for example, I know that on one of my missions there were a total of 32 kills and my wingman and I had 12 of them between us.

...

Capt Ducay says the P1Eb enhancement is transformative. “It’s like flying a whole different aircraft. Air-to-air-wise there are a number of small improvements that allow you to find information quicker. This in turn gives you more reaction time and that means you can move on to another task quickly.

But it’s in air-to-ground operations that it enters a whole new level of sophistication. There is a great deal of logic behind it and it’s now much more intuitive for the pilot. In previous software configurations air-to-ground took quite a while to get used to. Once you pick up the P1Eb software for air-to-ground work you can’t go back.”


https://world.eurofighter.com/articles/ ... the-target

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6006
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 15 Nov 2017 15:53

Philip wrote:Pentagon Tester: F-35 Still Has Serious Problems
Memo warns the plane likely faces more delays.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... ng-delays/


Man, going back to August of 2016 when even reports submitted in early 2017 are no longer relevant given advances and developments since? What next?

Philip wrote: Big Lie


Your lie on cost that you had been perpetrating for years was recently exposed and is there for all to see. Furthermore, just in the last page you were trying to push yet another lie that the aircraft can neither fly at night, nor in the rain. Again, simple youtube search shows a ton of videos of it doing that.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5098&start=4640#p2230049

At least wait a few days before accusing others of lying.

Philip wrote:They cannot also answer the innumerable points about flaws


Each of those points has been rebutted and elaborated upon. Again, as I said in my previous post, name it and we can discuss. One at a time if you must.

Philip wrote:They cannot also answer the innumerable points about flaws ,costs,etc. but resort to generalsiation about ""cherry picking".
The truth of the JSF has been outed and it is most unlilkely that it will ever come India's way at anytime now or in the future ,so they can dream on.


The very report cited above this, in the PopMech article is from 2016 and those points have been discussed or elaborated upon. What else can one do but rebut them?

Philip wrote:But then according to Brar and co. the Pentagon too by my posting their report must be liars too!


Phillip, all your posts go back to the same report from the DOTE that as I have said multiple times now covers mid 2015 to mid 2016, was written in late 2016 and made public in early 2017. As I have said repeatedly now, most if not ALL of the points cited in it have been clarified by the testers, JPO and the services and are well understood. Most of the Hardware deficeinces cited in it have had fixes designed, flight tested, implemented (or are being implemented) and the software glitches have been and are being patched. As I am repeatedly saying, instead of posting a 1000 word article that sources the same report each and every time, why not discuss one issue at a time? Are you incapable of debating and must fall back on copy pasting a lengthy article that essentially goes into the same that the last one you posted does?

Philip wrote:But then according to Brar and co. the Pentagon too by my posting their report must be liars too!


No, the pentagon report is not lying and those that have written it are not liars. Since you are incapable of understanding how weapons testing (at least in the US) works, for the sake of others - there are discoveries made during the course of developmental testing which is conducted by the integrated test force jointly controlled by the JPO and the services/OEMs. The DOTE is an observer and has no control over this but is tasked with taking reports published by the JPO/Testers/Services/OEMs and condensing them down to a single report that lays out the discoveries over a period of one year. This is tabled to Congress. The JPO/Testers/Services/OEMs are then asked to reply as to "what has been done, or is being done" to rectify the problems discovered either in hardware and software, and UPDATE the congress and through them the public on when all those deff. will be overcome. This is how the system works. Taking a report that JUST LOOKS AT ONE ASPECT of it is cherrypicking and not how the system is designed to work. As I have described over my last many posts, even in early 2017, the JPO/Services and the testers were able to give a point by point explaination on where they were in the test program in terms of overcoming the issues cited in the report.

For example (I'm paraphrasing here) :

REPORT - Navy F-35Cs outer wing are not strong
Rebuttal - We are aware of that as we had discovered this during testing. New outer wings have been designed, and are in flight testing. OEMs has been asked to provide 32 ship-sets of the same as per the cost sharing arrangement in place since LRIP-5. The upgrades will be installed out in the field and this will not impact the Navy IOC window for the first squadron which currently in mid-late 2018.

REPORT - Helmet too heavy for Navy pilots plus they need other changes for smoother takeoffs and CAT launches -

Rebuttal - Light-weight variant of the helmet is in flight testing. It combined with other tweaks made will be flight tested in August-October, 2017 time-frame (This has occurred now as Phillip would know if he simply watched the video from a USN pilot that I had posted a few weeks back).

REPORT - Helmet has a "Green Glow Issue"

Rebuttal - Rockwell Collins and its partners have introduced Organic LED (OLED) into the next generation variant and the prototype of that is in testing and it looks like this will solve most if not all of the green glow issues..All issued helmets to USMC pilots will be upgraded with OLED which will also be cut into production for all future helmets.

REPORT - Software has four ship fusion issues

Rebuttal - Fix is being tested and as is, the 3I is an interim software and we hope to begin porting over 3F [In case Phillp, you don't know I stands for Interim, and F for final] software in late 2017 (BTW, they started doing this in October, 2017)

One can go on and on..but most of the points have been rebutted, explanations given and I have posted them in my earlier post so won't be going into them here despite Phillip's repeated attempts to push info from the same source over and over again.






Philip wrote:S:Remember that the JSF is being produced without the major flaws amounting to approx. 270+ (Pentagon) being rectified and even testing hasn't yet started on the rectifications for many items.


This is totally FALSE. Do you realize the fact that most of the deficiencies cited are mostly in "software" and are rectified by simply providing a patch and updated with the next version? Other more hardware focused ones pertain mostly to the Charlie variant which is only being bought in very tiny amounts (single digits per year) because the Navy does not declare IOC till late 2019. But you are stuck reading reports from 2016 you MAY NOT BE AWARE that developmental testing on the F-35 is now nearly complete. The process of discoveries in developmental testing is now pretty much over, little that remains pertains to final flight qualifications for some of the changes introduced to solve discoveries made over the last couple of years and debugging the 3F variant of the software. All major weapons testing is also now completed as one could read in the article cited on the previous page.

And please tell, which fix has not been designed or tested yet?

Philip wrote:To be fair to those trying to fix the problems,and understand their complexity,here is a new report on how V.Adm. Winter,the new boss of the progrmme is trying to fix a few of the 270+ problems.


Again, read the counter reports and testimony from those actual working on the aircraft to the DOTE points. They do it in person, LIVE (it is even televised), point by point. This was done earlier in the year by Gen. Bogdan, and the service leaders as is the case each and every year. Detail explanations were provided as to what has been done already with the issues cited by Gilmore, and what is being done over the next few months. The reason the media is not talking about Gilmore's report form 2016 NOW in November, 2017 is because its old news, and counter points and advances have been made that mitigate most if not all of those issues discussed in it. Simply put, the program even at the time of the tabling of the report was in working to rectify most of those since these discoveries were made months earlier by the program itself. Gilmore did nothing on his own..he was basicaly using reports that come out of Bogdan's shop and condensing them into one report for Congress.

The program doesn't wait for DOTE to table a report to begin working on fixing what they have themselves discovered. They are on the problem pretty much as soon as it is discovered. As I have said in the past, this is how the system of DISCOVERY ----> Solution is expected to work. What you see during "reporting season" (January-March each year) is just this being played out in front of Congress. It was the same with EMALS where you continued to reference the same point from a dated DOTE until you were shown an official report that all vibration and launch issues have been rectified and the solution involved 100% software based fix. This is how testing in the US is designed for programs where the Congress wants transparency and annual updated.

As I have tried to explain, most if not all of the issues already (at the time of the testimony in early 2017) had a fix either in advanced development or ACTUAL flight testing. Since then, most of those have flown extensively and are in some process of being put into production. Most of the new hardware discoveries as I cited apply to the F-35C, which as I have repeatedly said is/was the least mature aircraft back in 2016 with the most amount (relative to the other 2 variants) of test-points not touched on account of a small fleet, small test force and the last IOC date/window.


Since then the world has moved on..Its November, 2017 in case you did not notice and the USN has just recently concluded yet another at ship trial for the F-35C that took a lot of the changes that were being prototyped or flight tested at the time the report was published and tested them out at sea.

Taking DOTE reports that by their very nature are transient and dated (since they speak of developments over a fixed 12 month period usually of the year immediately preceding the year the report is made public) and constantly highlighting points is a classic Sputnik, and punk journalist tactic which you seem to have clearly adopted.

Most, even remotely familiar with US DOD Programs realize that the role the DOTE plays in developmental testing is that of a passive observer which the Congress uses as one side of the equation so that they can seek explanations and ask the right questions to the those developing the hardware and software. These reports capture a snapshot in time that always looks back into a fixed period of development testing involving discoveries which the program then begins to understand and design and implement fixes for. These issues are retired once fixes are demonstrated. This is not an aberration, but exactly how the system is supposed to work. The DOTE does not play an active role until post development-completion when his/her office embarks on a lengthy ( 23 aircraft, 12+ month phase for the JSF) OT&E phase using operational pilots and service supplied range infrastructure. Even that is only for Milestone decision as it pertains to Congress's decision to sanction full rate of production. The services, independently conduct an operational assessment of the aircraft prior to each internal milestone such as IOC and FOC.

The USAF's Air Combat Command which is the highest authority for all fast jets pitted the F-35A against Advanced F-15Es over two weeks in order to assess the first squadron's capability prior to sanctioning/approving IOC. The Marines likewise conducted an assessment of their own prior to declaring IOC a year earlier. The Navy will do the same in 2019 before declaring the first squadron operational.

Philip wrote:The number of F-35s in service requiring spare parts, software upgrades, repairs, and other ground support will go from 250 to almost 1,000 within five years. By that point, the F-35 program needs to have fixed all the airplanes’ teething troubles so it can concentrate on the massive industrial challenge of building and sustaining almost 2,500 aircraft around the world.


The program is designed to have a tic-tock hardware and software refresh cycle i.e. ALL aircraft delivered will be upgraded with software every sub-block and with hardware every other sub-block. This is a new model for practically all new advanced systems since it is no longer practical to wait for 20-25 years for a mid-life upgrade given the rapid advances in technology. There will be smaller bite sized hardware upgrades along the way and no REAL massive MLU. As an example, the mission computers on the F-35 have already been upgraded once, and will again be upgraded by 2020 and then probably again in the mid to late 2020s. This is called keeping up with technology!. As far as concurrency changes, again most of the Identified changes have been cut into production while others will be installed on air-force, marine corps, and navy jets as part of the internal service schedule. This has been provided to you in quite detail a few pages back. In fact, even the USAF has since come out and said that ALL of its aircraft will be to 3F standard regardless of whether their status is that of an operational aircraft or training, tactics and test aircraft.

-----

It will be so much easier if you just cited hardware deficiencies one by one/ point by point and I can provide you a status on them (with sources of course). It is better to do it this way instead of copy pasting lengthy articles that source the same damn report each and every time. Most of that information is dated so its better for you, and in the interest of others reading if you take each point separately....lay out what is your understanding of the problem and I can provide an explanation of what the solution is and at what stage of implementation it currently sits. I think this is fair!
Last edited by brar_w on 16 Nov 2017 00:47, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6006
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 15 Nov 2017 19:22

brar_w wrote:
Philip wrote:The number of F-35s in service requiring spare parts, software upgrades, repairs, and other ground support will go from 250 to almost 1,000 within five years. By that point, the F-35 program needs to have fixed all the airplanes’ teething troubles so it can concentrate on the massive industrial challenge of building and sustaining almost 2,500 aircraft around the world.


The program is designed to have a tic-tock hardware and software refresh cycle i.e. ALL aircraft delivered will be upgraded with software every sub-block and with hardware every other sub-block. This is a new model for practically all new advanced systems since it is no longer practical to wait for 20-25 years for a mid-life upgrade given the rapid advances in technology. There will be smaller bite sized hardware upgrades along the way and no REAL massive MLU. As an example, the mission computers on the F-35 have already been upgraded once, and will again be upgraded by 2020 and then probably again in the mid to late 2020s. This is called keeping up with technology!. As far as concurrency changes, again most of the Identified changes have been cut into production while others will be installed on air-force, marine corps, and navy jets as part of the internal service schedule. This has been provided to you in quite detail a few pages back. In fact, even the USAF has since come out and said that ALL of its aircraft will be to 3F standard regardless of whether their status is that of an operational aircraft or training, tactics and test aircraft.


This is a point worth elaborating on. The program is being run and managed by the Joint Program Office because it is a multi-nation, and multi-US service program so no one service owns the program. The program is structured for massive production rates with deliveries already above 60 per year by the end of this year. With the design and development phase of the program now months away from completion the the program is focused on finding areas of technology advancement and mitigating risk so that they can be rapidly introduced as soon as possible given the production rates. This is a natural transition from EMD/SSD ( basic development of baseline capability) to FOD (Follow on Development - i.e. upgrades and modernization). Advances in sensors, mission computer and other hardware is funded with the aim of cutting it into production as soon as possible from a budget and risk perspective.

The mission computers are just one example but this is seen in other areas as well. The EOTS which is one of the IR targeting hardware is getting a next-generation insert in block 4 with new hardware slated to begin flight testing next year. I am aware of radar and Communication/Data-link apertures getting better, and more SWaP optimized. The cockpit displays are changing with them moving to OLED technology just like the Helmet. There are more but these are the more important ones. As far as the program is concerned their aim is to develop them and cut them into production as soon as possible so as to avoid leaving the services with costs of retrofit later. in the Post 2020 environment, every year saved in cutting things into production potentially impacts 150 or more aircraft. This trend will continue till the end of the life of the aircraft and the program.

Now, having said that not all of these upgrades will be retrofitted. Internal program management within a service, or foreign customer is not controlled by the JPO so services are free to choose which of these advances to retrofit and when. Some are ESSENTIAL to unlocking future capability so those decisions are easy. For example, the mission computer upgrades planned for early block 4 are essential to support the software features that follow so they will go to all previous aircraft delivered that each service/customer plans on bringing to block 4 standard. Same will happen when they begin working on block 5 sometime in the mid to end of next decade. Other features such as new targeting sensors etc won't likely be retrofitted and just be cut into future deliveries massive amounts of which will happen in the coming years as the program EO highlights.

This is the way all modern programs in the USDOD will be made future proof knowing that there is competitive advantage in refreshing technology in shorter cycles than the traditional Mid-Life-Upgrade which for most part was the prevalent practice with 4th generation and older aircraft.

This is regarding modernization and keeping pace with technology.

------

The other point on concurrency, and the cost is something Phillip continues to bring over and over again and all I can do to provide context (for others since its unlikely to effect him in any sort of way) is share the data on concurrency cost by DOD lot delivery and how it is now extremely low given no major hardware discoveries have taken place on the bulk of the delivered variants (A and B ). In fact Concurrency cost per unit fell to such low levels that the Congress no longer mandates that the data be updated every other year as was the case from 2010-2015. Now, only major changes are reported.

Needless to say, this graph or a prior version of (relevant at the time) has been presented here on numerous other occasions such as THIS.

Image

The 66 aircraft the DOD will receive as part of LOT-10 will have a total concurrency bill of $50 Million. That is around $750,000 per aircraft and given a combined APUC of roughly $100 Million (balancing with A, B and C variant costs) it adds an eye-popping 0.75% to the per unit cost of the aircraft :roll:

As I had mentioned in my previous posts, and repeatedly every time this has come up in the past (via usual posters who selectively forget data when it is presented to them) ever since LRIP-5 the JPO has negotiated concurrency cost sharing arrangements for all type/class-1 changes which are the most expensive. This incentivizes industry to develop fixes and introduce them into production as soon as possible. The bright side for the services and foreign customers is that the faster they are cut into production the less they have to spend to retrofit later. As the graph shows, bulk of the concurrency cost was incurred via earlier production blocks where production was low but when a lot of hardware deficiencies were being discovered which is reasonable since they weren't far along into testing at the time.

Fast forward to 2017 (and even earlier as the trend shows), most of the airframe and engine testing is now complete and even the F-35C which has trailed the A and C variant in terms of test-point completion (because they started late) is towards the fag end of its test program. The entire test program as far as hardware testing is concerned is months if not weeks from concluding. Only thing left is a tiny supersonic envelope for the F-35B, software maturity and debugging testing and other issues and fixes designed for prior discoveries (most of which pertain to the F-35C). By the middile of next year the development portion of SDD will be complete (this is conservative it will likely be completed earlier).

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19927
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 15 Nov 2017 21:04

DUBAI: USAF general sceptical of mixed F-35 and Russian fleet for UAE

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-usaf-general-sceptical-of-mixed-f-35-and-rus-443179/

Garooda
BRFite
Posts: 544
Joined: 13 Jul 2011 00:00

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Garooda » 16 Nov 2017 00:22

Chinmay wrote:Brar_w, you cant change the mind of the willfully ignorant. Save your energy and put him on the ignore list :)
Agree completely. Copy paste armchair warriors seems to be using brar to enlighten themselves with any possible FOUO on JSF as brar continues immacutely, patiently to explain in details.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6006
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 16 Nov 2017 02:42

^ The irony here is that none if this is even remotely FOUO..its all publicly available information and much of it has been presented here to the same poster multiple times.

Garooda
BRFite
Posts: 544
Joined: 13 Jul 2011 00:00

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Garooda » 16 Nov 2017 23:14

brar_w wrote:^ The irony here is that none if this is even remotely FOUO..its all publicly available information and much of it has been presented here to the same poster multiple times.
I hear you :) Though at times it feels some of the posters perhaps are trying to 'Aggregate' to a CUI ? :lol: Who knows. Hats off to your level of patience :)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17835
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 17 Nov 2017 14:28

Worth repeating for a better udnerstandingof the crisis in the JSF programme.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/01/the- ... e-thought/
The F-35 Amazingly Has Even More Problems Than We Thought
Michael Nunez
Jan 18, 2017,

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the most expensive military program in the world with a total cost of more than $US1 trillion ($1.3 trillion). Now, a new Pentagon report suggests that the futuristic fighter jet still has hundreds of deficiencies and won't be ready for full combat testing until 2019.

The Pentagon's latest brutal assessment of this high-priced aircraft was part of an annual report from the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation Michael Gilmore. The dossier includes a five-page evaluation of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the results of which are damning -- emphasis ours:

*(Now this is what touts of the turkey claim to know better,the Pentagon's own Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.Micheal Gilmore!)

The Services have designated 276 deficiencies in combat performance as "critical to correct" in Block 3F, but less than half of the critical deficiencies were addressed with attempted corrections in 3FR6.

*(Critical).The Pentagon's own words.


That's not all. In addition to the hundreds of flaws that have already been found in the aircraft, the Pentagon expects to keep finding more. The report specifically states that deficiencies are popping up at a steady rate -- emphasis ours:

*(Then there are the new problems,cropping up at 20 a month)

Deficiencies continue to be discovered at a rate of about 20 per month, and many more will undoubtedly be discovered before and during IOT&E.
The operational performance of the aircraft is a complete joke. :rotfl:
The plane's "objectionable or unacceptable flying qualities" while breaking the sound barrier are just some of the many flaws plaguing the aircraft, including overheating problems and cybersecurity vulnerabilities that could lead to compromises of F-35 data.

The most telling sign in the Pentagon's report is that the agency admits to ignoring many of the upcoming development tests, instead shifting focus to the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) process that begins in August. By rushing through the development tests, the agency will place more emphasis on the operational testing process, which could end up causing even longer delays.

The report appears to admit that there is no clear path to resolving the ballooning cost of the F-35 program -- emphasis ours:
*(Costs going UP not DOWN!)

Significant, well-documented deficiencies; for hundreds of these, the program has no plan to adequately fix and verify with flight test within SDD; although it is common for programs to have unresolved deficiencies after development, the program must assess and mitigate the cumulative effects of these remaining deficiencies on F-35 effectiveness and suitability prior to finalising and fielding Block 3F.
With all of these lingering issues, it's no wonder President-elect Donald Trump recently lashed out against the F-35 program, saying the "cost is out of control" and "billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th".

Despite the F-35's incomplete state, the first Marine Corp squadron deployed to Japan last week from a military base in Yuma, Arizona. The partially operational F-35 squadron is the first permanent international deployment of the joint strike fighter and will be used for operations throughout the Pacific. The Air Force had also declared F-35 fighters "combat ready" before grounding many of those jets only one month later.

Lead defence contractor working on the plane, Lockheed Martin, refuses to acknowledge the issues plaguing the fighter jet program.


PS: Now what Lockheed are trying to do is to force through production of hundreds of aircraft before rectifying the hundreds of defects.The most important defects are with the software,where unless a previous level is perfected and de-bugged,the next level cannot work.Each level allows the aircraft to perform better and be combat capable.The Pentagon's own estimates that this is going to take at least a few years to debug! Thus all the aircraft already built and to be built will have to yet again go back to the hangars for rectification for which no money has been budgeted.These costs are going to work out to millions/aircraft depending upon what bugs have to be rectified with each.It's going to be a maintenance nightmare and the super-duper ALIS maintenance software,billed as the one-stop solution to detecting and solving defects,is nowhere from complete and whose problems seem to be multiplying.Those working in this dept.,,have said that it will take a few months for some parts /spares to even arrive .The aircraft has achieved not more than an av. of 50% availability (with unresolved flaws).

We aren't even talking about the poor combat performance of the JSF against legacy 4th-gen fighters and some experts even claim that the ancient MIG-21 could whup its ass! Leave alone that hype ,the hard cold fact remains that to any dispassionate objective observer,the JSF is still a work quite incomplete and the indecent haste with which its being rushed into production instead of patiently rectifying the key flaws,is going to cost the US taxpayer hundreds of billions more than what he originally envisioned.For a poor nation like India,struggling to get the LCA into the air in decent numbers,there are huge lessons from the JSF fiasco which we need not repeat in the future...as farce!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17835
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 17 Nov 2017 14:43

The IAF need to view the "big picture",why they can't "see the wood for the trees" as far as their leg of the strat. deterrent triad is concerned.If we want to expand our horizon and the means of delivering ordnance there,LR bombing capability is a must. If China is our greatest mil. threat then we need to equip ourselves with weapon systems to deal with china too,not just Pak.Backfires were once offered to the IAF,perhaps it should seriously look at what's happening around the world ,not behave like the proverbial ostrich.

https://www.rt.com/news/409947-six-russ ... ers-syria/
Six Russian long-range bombers strike ISIS targets in southeast Syria – military
Published time: 15 Nov, 2017 14:34

Six Russian long-range bombers strike ISIS targets in southeast Syria – military
FILE PHOTO Air strikes by Tupolev Tu-22M3 bombers of the Russian Air Force

Six Russian long-range bombers have carried out airstrikes targeting ISIS terrorist positions in an area located close to the recently liberated Syrian city of Abu Kamal in the southeast of the country, the Russian Defense Ministry said.
Read more
FILE PHOTO: Fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) stand guard at a checkpoint in the northern Iraq city of Mosul © ReutersPutin: One day weapons go to ‘moderate opposition,’ the next they are with terrorists
The strikes destroyed Islamic State (IS, former ISIS/ISIL) hideouts and military equipment in the area, the ministry said in a statement on Wednesday.The TU-22m3 bombers took off from an airfield in Russia and then flew over the territories of Iran and Iraq to carry out teh strikes, it added.

As the bombers entered Syrian airspace, they were joined by Su-30SM fighter jets based at Khmeimim Airbase in western Syria, which provided cover for the attack group, the ministry said. It added that the bombers successfully “hit all the designated targets” and returned to Russia.

Abu Kamal, a city in the Deir ez-Zor governorate located in the Euphrates valley close to the Syrian border with Iraq, was considered to be the last major stronghold of Islamic State. The city was liberated by the Syrian Army with the support of the Russian Air Forces in early November.

Prior to the city’s liberation, Russian forces conducted several “massive” missile and bomb strikes in the area to aid the Syrian Army’s offensive. Tu-22M3 bombers as well as the Russian submarine ‘Kolpino’ participated in the operation to support the advancing Syrian government troops.

Over the first three days of November alone, Tu-22M3 long-range bombers carried out 18 strikes against IS terrorists in eastern Syria, according to Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Igor Konashenkov. In addition, the submarines ‘Veliky Novgorod’ and ‘Kolpino’ carried out nine strikes from the Mediterranean Sea.

Following the liberation of Abu Kamal, Islamic State lost all the major settlements it had controlled and was pinned down by the Syrian and Iraqi armies in the border region between the two countries. The terrorists also lost the ability to freely move between Syrian and Iraqi territory.

The Russian Air Force has been assisting the Syrian Army in its fight against terrorists for about two years. Russia launched its anti-terrorist operation in Syria at the request of the Syrian government in September 2015. In March 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the partial withdrawal of the Russian Air Force from Syria and said that the primary objective of the operation had been achieved. The remaining aircraft, however, continue to assist the Syrian Army in its fight against terrorists.


https://sputniknews.com/military/201711 ... ets-syria/
Russian Air Force's long-range aircraft hit ISIS targets in SyriaRussian Planes Wipe Out 1,250 Daesh Targets in SyriaMinistry of defence of the Russian Federation
MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE
05:20 17.11.2017
Russian warplanes reportedly destroyed more than 1,250 assets belonging to Daesh militants during a week of military operations in Syria.
MOSCOW (Sputnik) — A Russian newspaper affiliated with the Defense Ministry reported Friday that Russian warplanes destroyed over 1,250 assets belonging to Daesh militants during a week of military operations in Syria.

The planes made over 500 sorties to find and engage targets of the Daesh terror group (IS), an infographic published in the Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) newspaper has revealed.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6006
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 17 Nov 2017 15:57

Philip wrote:Worth repeating for a better udnerstandingof the crisis in the JSF programme.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/01/the- ... e-thought/
The F-35 Amazingly Has Even More Problems Than We Thought
Michael Nunez
Jan 18, 2017,


Oh Look, another "article" from the national security experts at "Gizmodo" dated January,2017 referencing the exact same report (like practically all the articles you have posted in the last couple of days) that is now dated and largely irrelevant given developments that have occurred since.

Philip wrote:Now what Lockheed are trying to do is to force through production of hundreds of aircraft before rectifying the hundreds of defects.


That is BS to put it mildly. Let's seperate hardware, and software defficiencies. Hardware deff. are now largely mitigated on the C but a vast majority of discoveries over the last couple of years have focused on that model because as I have mentioned on a numerous occasion now - it was the last to begin testing and had the most number of test points left in 2016 when the report you keep going back to was written. As I have also previously mentioned, most if not all of those findings have either had fixes designed, developed, tested or those fixes are in some advanced stage of testing.

Moreover, if you take a look at the production, the production of the F-35C is not really ramping up at all. The USN is buying the aircraft in single digits because its IOC is not till late next year and its actual production ramp up doesn't really begin till 2020 and beyond. Now, developmental testing on the entire F-35 SDD program is expected to be COMPLETED by early to mid next year and with that will end weapons qualifications, software development (though debugging will still happen) and hardware discoveries - with all test points having been met.

Philip wrote:The most important defects are with the software,where unless a previous level is perfected and de-bugged,the next level cannot work


And in case you aren't aware, software upgrades happen pretty easily. You don't need to send an aircraft to the depot to get a software upgrade. It doesn't take a 1000 man hours to install a software patch. And to your last absurd point, software maturity happens with time. 3I now is more mature than 3I that the USAF IOC'd with in 2016. Moreover, some 3I defects and deficiencies are now irrelevant since the USAF has now begun getting 3F software as the article you quoted just yesterday also states. Full 3F capability will come over the next couple of months. Debugging and stability improvement will continue to happen through 2018 as they transition to development of block 4. This is how all software intensive programs work. The F-22 was exactly the same with each increment IOC'ing and taking a few months to have stability and final niggles overcome. You operationalize with baseline stability and performance requirements and then improve your way to objective capability. Much like the F-22A, EMD --->IOTE --FOM period there will be a bridge period between 3F and 4I where they will debug the software and trouble shoot any software related matters and address maturity.

Philip wrote:thus all the aircraft already built and to be built will have to yet again go back to the hangars for rectification for which no money has been budgeted.


"hangers", debugged..these are great sounding words but SOFTWARE upgrades and patches don't require aircraft to go back to the "depots" or factory in order for them to be installed. They are done so out at the squadron level.

rectification for which no money has been budgeted.


At least make an attempt to make things hard to disprove. This entire claim can be easily <debunked> by simple google-fu.

Ogden ALC completes organic mods on first F-35


If you read it carefully you will realize that this occurred back in 2014. You realize why this occurred then? It was to support IOC for the AF since MODIFICATIONS were required by the USAF to be carried out prior to the first squadron being declared IOC. They were willing to delay IOC if their aircraft weren't modified with all concurrency changes and were up to 3I standard.

Let's carry on shall we?

By July, 2016, Ogden Air Logistics Complex had delivered its 12th modified F-35A that had concurrency changes applied to it, and was in USAF IOC configuration with block 3I hardware and software.

Hill's Ogden Air Logistics Complex delivers 12th F-35A


At the time, the goal was to have between 12 and 24 F-35As with the first Hill AFB squadron ready, modified, with support infrastructure and in 3I configuration. 12 were achieved by July, a full month ahead. As you may know, the USAF declared IOC on F-35 in early August of 2016 with the first squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.

But wait..there is more..

The ALC at Ogden is not only supporting upgrades and concurrency mods to the USAF's operational aircraft, it is also doing the same for the Marines and Navy jets that IOC'd back in 2015 (B) and which will IOC shortly with the first Navy squadron (F-35C). This is also publicly known and can be easily googled..but since you aren't capable of it here it is for your and other's consideration - Dated April, 2016

First F-35C arrives at Hill for depot modifications


Too busy to read these articles? How about watching a video of the civilian and DOD workforce at the 570th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron doing it at the depot level instead??



So Comrade, you are clearly WRONG in that no money has been budgeted for concurrency..in fact money has and is being SPENT with the first operational units having completed their depot mods.

There was some ambiguity about the training, and tactics fleet getting the same level of mods as the "operational" fleet but even that has now been laid to rest by the USAF's leadership. Again, this is about whether all early LOT aircaft need to be brought up to full combat capability. Some clearly are nice to have but not a need to have since they are being used for pilot training, tactics development and testing. Only about 60-70% of the USAF figther fleet by type is frontline combat coded..with a large number of aircraft (particularly for a 1700 fighter acquisition program) concentrating fully on training, tactics development and supporting follow on development testing.

Have you heard these points before? Perhaps because these were made just a few weeks ago -

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5098&start=4560#p2219150

TO refresh : See the presented graphic. I have pointed to which units are combat coded and operational and which are solely training, testing and tactics units...

>>>>> Now on the operational squadron portions. I'll stick to F-35A and USAF only since its the largest operator:-

First Hill AFB squadron (34 FS) required some of its aircraft to receive depot mods and they did 12 by IOC, others later. The second figther squadron at the base does not need depot mods for its jets..as the aircraft come with all concurrency changes built into them from the production line itself. The second operational USAF squadron has been getting 2 aircraft delivered per year since around September, 2017. Over the next months this squadron will get its full complement of aircraft and Hill will begin receiving aircraft (now at a much higher rate, closer to 3-4 per month) for its 3rd squadron. All in, by mid 2019 Hill Air Force base will have 3 fully kitted operational F-35A squadrons with 78 total operational F-35As. Deliveries at approximately 3-4 aircraft per month will then shift to new F-35A squadrons standing up in Alaska.

BTW, if you didn't know the first Operational F-35A squadron out of Hill AFB has aircraft now on a 6-month rotation in Japan. These aircraft just arrived a few weeks ago and are on top of the Marine unit that operates out of Iwakuni permanently.

Now we can move one to some other false, misleading or outright lie!

Regarding the larger fleet requiring upgrades (different form mods) it is not a binary yes or no. SOME not ALL would need hardware upgrades installed. For example, USAF's operational aircraft are all 3I i.e. they have HARDWARE for 3F already installed in them and for them 3F is just a software upgrade. The Marines with 2B IOC require 3I hardware and then a software upgrade to 3F so yeah they need a depot run but they will likely simply do it during their first scheduled depot level maintenance when the aircraft from Japan cycle back if the Japanese cannot build their depot networks in time. Keep in mind that not ALL USMC aircraft are in 2B..ALL of the F-35Bs that have been delivered in late 2015 and 2016 are 3I so they don't need hardware refresh to get to 3F. They are in the same bucket as the USAF's operational aircraft that a also came from the factory at 3I. The graphic I posted earlier which you hopefully had a chance to look at has the exact cost broken by production lot. Most "large lot" aircraft require minor hardware changes with are in the sub 1% range in terms of APUC.

But Hardware refresh cycles are built into the program as I have laid out in my earlier post. All 3F aircraft will receive another hardware refresh to get to full block 4 including new mission computers. That is just how the program is structures with each sub-block having a software upgrade and every other sub-block having hardware upgrades or new weapons.

I recommend you do a google search and attempt to learn the differences between the 2B, 3I and 3F variants and configurations. This will help!

Philip wrote:These costs are going to work out to millions/aircraft depending upon what bugs have to be rectified with each.


Just look up and you will see a graph with the cost. It is laid out in quite simple terms and is not hard to read or understand. Most here should be able to do it. Simply ask if you are unable to figure out what data the graph is showing.

Philip wrote:We aren't even talking about the poor combat performance of the JSF against legacy 4th-gen fighters and some experts even claim that the ancient MIG-21 could whup its ass!


I'd rather take the word of actual pilots, top gun instructors, and those that have exercised against the aircraft and it is pretty good and there is plenty of video and written evidence to them talking to that end. I don't see any air-force ditching the aircraft and looking to buy F-16s and F-18s because those are so much superior in combat capability. In fact air-forces in Germany, and the UAE along with a few other smaller European nations are considering it now that its development is practically 99% complete and it is transitioning to follow-on modernization.

JSF is still a work quite incomplete and the indecent haste with which its being rushed into production instead of patiently rectifying the key flaws,is going to cost the US taxpayer hundreds of billions


Oh look he's thrown yet another FAKE number out there. So as per you concurrency costs run into the "Hundreds of Billions"? Could you care to enlighten us on what the US taxpayer is paying to BUY 2500 F-35's? I just wanted to see if you are capable of even digging up that information. I have a feeling that this "hundreds of billions" in concurrency/rectify is another LIE that is taking shape and will be used from here on in since the "trillion dollars already spent" is no longer working.

--

Meanwhile, still waiting for a point by point comparison and debate !!
Last edited by brar_w on 18 Nov 2017 02:48, edited 18 times in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Viv S » 17 Nov 2017 15:57

Philip wrote:Worth repeating for a better udnerstandingof the crisis in the JSF programme.

The Pentagon's latest brutal assessment of this high-priced aircraft was part of an annual report from the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation Michael Gilmore. The dossier includes a five-page evaluation of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the results of which are damning -- emphasis ours:

Johnny Commissar-come-lately,

FYI Michael Gilmore retired almost a year ago. You can carry on posting out-of-date reports, but I assure you people are seeing through your schtick.

We aren't even talking about the poor combat performance of the JSF against legacy 4th-gen fighters and some experts even claim that the ancient MIG-21 could whup its ass!

Experts to you perhaps. Their credibility with most informed people is negligible.

Leave alone that hype ,the hard cold fact remains that to any dispassionate objective observer,the JSF is still a work quite incomplete and the indecent haste with which its being rushed into production instead of patiently rectifying the key flaws,is going to cost the US taxpayer hundreds of billions more than what he originally envisioned.For a poor nation like India,struggling to get the LCA into the air in decent numbers,there are huge lessons from the JSF fiasco which we need not repeat in the future...as farce!

Oh you're a dispassionate objective observer huh?

Commissar, what sets you apart from rest of BRF isn't passion or bias - most people have some bias or the other, its a natural human tendency. Its not even the hypocrisy*. Its the willingness to lie with a straight face (fyi, lie = to knowingly speak an untruth) that sets you apart.

Your above claim about 'rushing into production' costing 'hundreds of billions' is an apt example. The actual cost of concurrency (~$2 bn) has been posted umpteen times with sources and you've likely read it as many times. But the objective truth doesn't matter to you if it happens to oppose your agenda (which everybody understands as well).

Other people might overplay their point and underplay the other person's point but will avoid saying something that they not just believe but know to be objectively false. Because that's when the dialectic ends and propaganda begins.

(*)
Philip wrote:The second point,to maintain qualitaive superiority necessitates the acquisition asap of a 5th-gen fighter.Here,in whatever shape or form,the FGFA deal must be sealed.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3513
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 18 Nov 2017 01:16

Additional nations could join Italy for new attack helicopter AW249 program



Leonardo Helicopters is looking for additional partners on its new attack rotorcraft programme, which has now been designated the AW249.

In January 2017 Italy awarded the company a €487 million ($515 million) contract to develop a successor to its army's AW129 Mangusta fleet.

But speaking at a Dubai air show event, Leonardo's group chief commercial officer Lorenzo Mariani said the helicopter is "not only for Italy".
Ads by ZINC

"It is a basis for collaboration – we believe that other nations can join this project," says Mariani, confirming the AW249 designation.

"In agreement with our customer [Italy] we have adopted quite a bullish attitude: we have the contract, we have the design, we have the idea and we have started the development – we are open for other nations to join that."

Mariani's comments raise the possibility that Leonardo could once again partner with state-owned Turkish Aerospace Industries, which has already signalled an intention to develop a successor to the T129 ATAK, a helicopter derived from the Mangusta.

More details on the AW249's proposed specification have also emerged.

A presentation given by the Italian army at a recent conference in Kracow, Poland, indicates that the helicopter will have a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 7-8t, significantly higher than the 5t AW129.

The increase in MTOW is partly driven by a more than doubling of the weapons load, which grows from 800kg (1,760lb) to almost 2,000kg.

Cruise speed, ceiling and endurance figures on the AW249 would all increase compared with those of the Mangusta.

In addition, Leonardo proposes examining means of lowering the new helicopter's radar and heat signatures to give it more stealthy characteristics.

Under the manufacturer's previously disclosed proposals it will use dynamic system components from the current AW149 troop transport helicopter.

No decision has so far been made on the AW249's engines, but it is likely to be a two-way fight between the GE Aviation T700 and the Safran Helicopter Engines Aneto, which was recently selected to power the K-model variant of the commercial AW189.


The development contract runs until 2025 and will see Leonardo produce a total of five aircraft, the final one of which will be a serial example.

Italy projects an eventual requirement for 48 helicopters, with the Mangusta to be retired from 2025.


Meanwhile, TAI is pitching a higher MTOW variant of the ATAK T-129, the ATAK2. Seems like it'll go head to head against this AW249.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14621
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Karan M » 18 Nov 2017 01:52

Philip wrote:The second point,to maintain qualitaive superiority necessitates the acquisition asap of a 5th-gen fighter.Here,in whatever shape or form,the FGFA deal must be sealed.


Why? The JSF's test reports are public, its (many) warts are being fixed. The FGFA does not have a single flying prototype, and the IAF was not even given access to the PAK-FA testing. Given the huge issues with even fixing the Su-30, it stands to reason we should avoid the FGFA boondoggle and only pick up a PAK-FA once the Russians use their own money (for once) to fix it, mature it and put it in service. And even that only if, the PAK-FA is substantially superior to the JSF in facing Russia supplied IADS in service with the PLAAF and other stealth fighters.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6006
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Nov 2017 02:39

Karan M wrote:
Philip wrote:The second point,to maintain qualitaive superiority necessitates the acquisition asap of a 5th-gen fighter.Here,in whatever shape or form,the FGFA deal must be sealed.


Why?


Because Putin is a hire or fire gent?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14621
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Karan M » 18 Nov 2017 03:41

Groan. How many timelines has the PAK-FA even met? For the JSF we have huge transparency. For the PAK-FA, what exactly do we know about it, bar fanboy reports on forums?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3513
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Kartik » 18 Nov 2017 04:23

From AW&ST

Image

Dubai Debut For Brazilian-Emirati Light Attack Aircraft
Calidus believes its B-250 will bring new technology to the turboprop light-attack market

Abu Dhabi is taking its first steps into aircraft production with a contender for the already busy light-attack market. Developed in virtual secrecy in just over two years, the Calidus B-250 is the result of a distant collaboration between a United Arab Emirates (UAE) defense technology company and Brazilian light aircraft manufacturer Novaer.

“We see market potential for a light-attack, counterinsurgency and advanced training aircraft,” said Hamdan Abdulla al-Shkeili, a senior engineer and spokesman for Calidus, after unveiling of the aircraft at the Dubai Airshow. “Many of the competitors are old designs. . . . We felt we could bring new technologies and advanced capabilities to the market,” he said.

Al-Shkeili may have a point. The Embraer A-29 Super Tucano is based on the original EMB-312 Tucano that first flew in the 1980s, while the Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine has its roots in the Pilatus PC-9 that first flew in 1984.

On Falcon Wings

Calidus commissioned Brazilian light aircraft manufacturer Novaer to design and build the B-250 prototypes

The UAE-based company eventually wants to build the aircraft in a purpose-built facility in Al Ain

Calidus promising competitive pricing for the aircraft, and operational costs of less than $1,200 per flight hour

The various armed iterations of Ayres Thrush and Air Tractor agricultural aircraft were originally based on a design that dates back more than 50 years. But there are more recent entrants; Turkish Aerospace Industries is working on a light-attack version of its Hurkus trainer, for example.

“Worldwide, asymmetric warfare is changing,” explains Al-Shkeili. “It is too expensive to use fighter jets to attack these agile enemies; you need an advanced attack platform with low operating costs,” he adds.

Calidus says the 1,600-shp Pratt & Whitney PT6A-68-powered B-250 will be highly competitive in price, and company literature states the aircraft could be operated for less than $1,200 per flight hour. Moreover, Calidus asserts that the carbon-fiber composite aircraft will have an endurance of up to 12 hr. and maximum range of 2,400 nm. However, the company’s literature does not detail fuel capacity or empty weight for when the aircraft is carrying drop tanks. Such endurance would considerably exceed competitors’.

The B-250 bears a close resemblance to the Embraer Tucano, which was designed by Hungarian engineer Joseph Kovacs, now Novaer’s chief designer. With a wingspan of 12.08 m (39.65 ft.) and length of 10.98 m, it comes in slightly larger than the Super Tucano.

The aircraft features dual zero-zero ejection seats; rugged landing gear for rough airfields; seven weapons pylons, three under each wing and one on the centerline; as well as an electro-optical/infrared turret under the forward fuselage. In the cockpit, it makes use of Rockwell Collins’ Pro Line Fusion avionics suite, displaying its information on two wide-area multifunction displays fitted in each cockpit.

The aircraft on the static display at Dubai had a range of UAE-developed weaponry, although Al-Shkeili says the company would be willing to integrate a wide range of national weapons and sensors based on customer needs. The company also highlights the aircraft’s transportability, which may suggest it can be dismantled easily for airlifting. Al-Shkeili says more details on such capabilities would be detailed later in the program.

Calidus owns the intellectual property rights to the B-250 but has leaned heavily on Novaer for the platform’s development and commissioned it to produce the first two prototypes—both at the air show, one performing in the daily flying display. The aircraft are now beginning certification flying, potentially paving the way for the aircraft to enter the market around 2019, although the company would give no firm dates.

Both prototypes were assembled in Brazil, where the B-250 made first flight at Sao Jose de Campos in July. They were subsequently transferred for their Dubai debut just weeks before the show. The company is currently considering whether to keep one of the aircraft in the UAE for further development work and customer evaluation. Calidus plans to ultimately build the aircraft at a new plant in Al Ain. Both aircraft at the show wore UAE military markings, displayed to reflect the B-250’s parentage and not its customer, says Al-Shkeili.
..


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6006
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Nov 2017 06:54

This was not what the commander meant when he asked to maintain a racetrack pattern and be on a look out for emitters.

US Navy admits aircrew drew penis in the sky

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19927
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Austin » 18 Nov 2017 10:14

Purchase of Russian S-400 system creates issues for Turkey’s use of F-35 – top US Air Force official

https://www.rt.com/news/410197-turkey-s400-nato-f35/

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 958
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 18 Nov 2017 13:01

brar_w wrote:This was not what the commander meant when he asked to maintain a racetrack pattern and be on a look out for emitters.

US Navy admits aircrew drew penis in the sky


He should have been more subtle about it....

Cheeky RAF pilot shocks plane watchers as he appears to draw a 35-mile-long penis in the skies over Lincolnshire

An RAF fighter pilot left plane enthusiasts shocked after 'drawing' a 35-mile large penis on radars monitoring Britain's skies.

The Typhoon's flight path was tracked on the website FlightRadar24, showing them appearing to take some very deliberate turns to follow the phallic outline.

After completing the design, the pilot then embarked on a series of circular patterns in order to turn the 'penis' into something that more closely resembled a flower.


chola
BRFite
Posts: 1738
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby chola » 18 Nov 2017 16:48

Manish_P wrote:
brar_w wrote:This was not what the commander meant when he asked to maintain a racetrack pattern and be on a look out for emitters.

US Navy admits aircrew drew penis in the sky


He should have been more subtle about it....

Cheeky RAF pilot shocks plane watchers as he appears to draw a 35-mile-long penis in the skies over Lincolnshire

An RAF fighter pilot left plane enthusiasts shocked after 'drawing' a 35-mile large penis on radars monitoring Britain's skies.

The Typhoon's flight path was tracked on the website FlightRadar24, showing them appearing to take some very deliberate turns to follow the phallic outline.

After completing the design, the pilot then embarked on a series of circular patterns in order to turn the 'penis' into something that more closely resembled a flower.




LOL. You have to give this to the Anglos — they are at the top of their profession but still do not take things or themselves overly serious. It makes them flexible and irreverent to command if they need to be.

You would never see a desi do this. Obviously, never in the RuAF or PLAAF. Even among other gori AFs save the Canadian or OZ ones. Hard to see a German doing this.

Good show, chaps!

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17835
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 18 Nov 2017 17:46

FGFA.Last official reports had indicated that all technical matters reg. the project had been finalised between both sides and the final decision was awaited.That appears to be cost of the JV.Conf. report with the GOI and the HAL Chairman has fully endorsed going ahead with the programme.My views are based upon the above.

However, there isn't t money in the kitty for all the extra Rafales, SEFs , LCAs,etc.The axe has to fall on some of them.Hence the war going on in the media taking one side or the other ,merely the tip of the iceberg. Firang leaders from the top drawer are also descending like vultures ( from Europe,America and Siberia) migrating south upon the capital this Dec. for the kill! The little desi bird called Tejas may fall a victim to these more lethal visitors and the SPCA ( Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Aircraft) is trying its best to get the MOD to save little Tejas from extinction!

JSF: The writing is on the wall but spin doctors can't seem to read it.Let's wait for the next Pentagon report shall we.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6006
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Nov 2017 17:55

Philip wrote:Last official reports


Official report? Care to post one official report on the PAKFA/FGFA here.

Philip wrote:JSF: The writing is on the wall but spin doctors can't seem to read it.Let's wait for the next Pentagon report shall we.


Yeah would love to see the hundreds of billions spent on concurrency changes and you know the mods that haven't even been budgeted yet as you said (but they seem to have built depots and have been carrying out modifications for over 3 years now).

----

Meanwhile, still waiting for a point by point debate !!
Last edited by brar_w on 18 Nov 2017 18:11, edited 4 times in total.

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Vips » 18 Nov 2017 17:56

Any news on the 8th Generation aircraft that Russia is planning? :rotfl: :rotfl:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6006
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Nov 2017 18:02

Manish_P wrote:
brar_w wrote:This was not what the commander meant when he asked to maintain a racetrack pattern and be on a look out for emitters.

US Navy admits aircrew drew penis in the sky


He should have been more subtle about it....



:)

Navy’s new recruiting ad promises aviators adventure, ability to draw d***s in the sky



“In the 1980s, the movie Top Gun was one of our most successful recruiting efforts, and it really helped get us a new generation of pilots,” said Rear Adm. Pete Garvin, commander of Recruiting Command. “But we realized we were coming up short in recent years. And then we realized we just needed to promise what is every young man’s dream: To draw d***s for a living.”

Air Force officials are monitoring the Navy’s efforts, since the service has been dealing with its own crisis of trying to keep pilots in uniform. The service is hopeful that it can correct its pilot shortage by promising its own service members the ability to draw d***s in the sky.

“Delta isn’t going to let you do that,” one official said.


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17835
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 18 Nov 2017 18:18

Same here.Has the lethal helmet , which disqualifies those with certain physical dimensions barred from flying the aircraft been rectified as yet? What about the Pentagon's 270+ "critical" flaws.Would love to see a list of rectified flaws and timeframes for the same from you.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6006
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Nov 2017 18:38

Philip wrote:Has the lethal helmet , which disqualifies those with certain physical dimensions barred from flying the aircraft been rectified as yet?


The Helmet does not itself DQ anyone from flying the aircraft. It is the escape mechanism that forced the USAF to put restriction on the very left hand corner of their weight class requirement, which incidentally is a USAF specific thing only as you cannot be a fighter pilot and fly a Navy or USMC jet at those weights. The low end margin set for pilot weight by the USAF was 47 kg. (102 pounds) and the restrictions placed on pilots weighing b/w 46-60 kg earlier focused on the very left of this margin. As I had also mentioned at the time, the weight margin requirement for the US16E was the widest ever devised by any USAF or USN/MC program -47 kg to 111 kg. The ranges on the F-15, F-16 and F-18 escape mechanisms are much narrower.

The solution as devised was a combination of a lighter helmet (GEN III Light will be issued to all pilots that fall in the weight class), and minor changes introduced to the ejection seat. Martin-Baker has introduced changes to the US16E ejection seat to more precisely tailor it to light weight pilots (the extreme left of the requirements). Based on these changes the Safety boards and authorities concerned have removed all flight restrictions on pilots below 136 pounds (60 kgs) from being rotated through F-35 training. As I had mentioned earlier, this only applies to the USAF as Navy and Marines did not accept pilots through their rotation at those ranges.

Philip wrote:What about the Pentagon's 270+ "critical" flaws


Be more precise. Mention a discovery, and I will do my best to provide you with information on the solution and at which stage it is. Again, be careful in separating actual hardware deff. from software deff. since many of the software discoveries simply go away since 2B/3I are transient blocks and 3F is now being ported over and each aircraft that rolls out of the production line now is showing up with an early version of 3F.

Also, would love to read the official reports on the PAKFA/FGFA that you have had a chance to go over.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17835
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 18 Nov 2017 18:55

Unfortunately we're officially told that FGFA details between both partners are classified.We can only go by official statements.However better transparency would be welcome.Let's wait till Dec. when the Ru Def.Min.arrives for the annual meeting where a decision either way is expected.

Ps: Just recheck reports of USN pilots having info/ visibility problems with their helmets due to jarring cat launches.Data errors at the critical period of launch mentioned.

JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2718
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby JayS » 18 Nov 2017 19:09

brar_w wrote:
Also, would love to read the official reports on the PAKFA/FGFA that you have had a chance to go over.


:rotfl: :rotfl:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6006
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Nov 2017 19:11

Philip wrote:Last official reports


Philip wrote:Unfortunately we're officially told that FGFA details between both partners are classified.


Oh. But I thought you said there were official reports. Nvm.

Philip wrote:Ps: Just recheck reports of USN pilots having info/ visibility problems with their helmets due to jarring cat launches.Data errors at the critical period of launch mentioned.


You are confusing two entirely different matters. The first matter that you cited had to do with a USAF pilot weight restriction placed on all pilots entering the training program that weighed between 47 and 60 kgs. That was a problem they worked through in 2016 with Martin Baker and Rockwell Collins devising solutions focusing on the ejection seat, the escape mechanism, and light weight helmet. Based on these changes, and demonstrations conducted by Martin Baker, the safety boards that placed restrictions on this weight range (47-60kg) has decided to lift them. All perspective USAF pilots (like I said the USN and USMC wasn't concerned with that weight range) can now cycle through the program as there is a roster for incorporating seat changes on the training aircraft first to allow light weight pilots to cycle through.

The second matter that you now mention has to do with excessive vibrations upon catapult launch felt by the pilots which was not only uncomfortable from a ride quality perspective but also made it hard to go through the process in case of recovery requirements. This was not a unique F-35 problem as it also occurred during Super Hornet development when the JHMCS was introduced to the fleet. NAVAIR and Lockheed have made changes and these were tested by VMFA-101 and VMFA-125 this September on board USS Abraham Lincoln and so far they appear to have mitigated most of the problem. There were green-glow issues with the helmet displays with light leaking being a concern on pitch black nights and landings. This is solved by introducing Organic LED (OLED) technology into the helmet which was going to be happening anyways as part of the tech. refresh.

All this was provided earlier to most here a few weeks ago. I'll post the video again for your's and other's benefit ( from an actual pilot who was out at sea a couple of months ago testing fixes that had been implemented over the summer). Again, issues discovered in 2016 ----> fixes devised since then and ----> fixes being put through their paces and being cut into production. This is how the process is supposed to work and why transient reports that capture ONLY DISCOVERIES over a fixed 12-month period cannot be looked at, or reported on in isolation w/o looking into what has and/or is being done to retire those risks.

And again, why the F-35C featured so heavily in 2015 and 2016 reports is/was because, as I had mentioned earlier, it was the least mature of the three variants and was the last to fly and will be the last to IOC. Since it would be the last to finish testing and it won't be declaring IOC till late next year, it is also being acquired in the least amount annually and its production won't ramp up till 2020+ timeframe. Regardless, as I said, SDD program for all three variants is expected to wrap up with all developmental testing completed by early to mid next year. After development testing completion, 23 aircraft will undergo more than 12 months of IOT&E and the program team will in the interim move on to follow-on-development phase (block 4 and beyond) but has budgeted a few months as a "Bride Period" between SDD phase completion and IOT&E completion so that they have buffer space in case there are software debugging issues that crop up before or during IOT&E. This is normal as similar period was built in on the F-22 program.

Last edited by brar_w on 18 Nov 2017 19:27, edited 1 time in total.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17835
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby Philip » 18 Nov 2017 19:27

Pl list how many of the 270+ "critical" flaws have been rectified and in what expected timeframe.The problem is that no one knows when this will happen and the aircraft being with indecent haste rushed into production with development and rectification still going on, will have to be rectified at huge expense later on.Thus as the reports keep saying ,the hundreds of aircraft being built will NOT be fully combat capable and the first batch entirely useless as there's no money for both rectification and production. Lockheed is desperate to build aircraft well- knowing that they're flawed. The US taxpayer has to foot the astronomic bill and untill all 270+ flaws are rectified, with "20 new ones cropping up every month" , says the Pentagon, the ultimate cost/ per aircraft is still a mystery with so many hidden costs of rectification still unknown.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6006
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby brar_w » 18 Nov 2017 19:31

Philip wrote:Pl list how many of the 270+ "critical" flaws have been rectified and in what expected timeframe


As I said in my post above, list the discovery you wish to know more about and I will elaborate on it. You wanted to know about the escape mechanism, and excessive vibration on the F-35C and I provided you a detailed explanation and pointed you to an actual pilot who was out at sea this September. If you wish to know more about another issue, type it out and I will do my best to address it.

Philip wrote:The problem is that no one knows when this will happen and the aircraft being indecent haste rushed into production with development and rectification still going on, will have to be rectified at huge expense later on.


The timelines are quite clear for most of these things and so is the cost. As Viv, and I have told you on numerous occasions the entire Concurrency bill for the USDOD is $2 Billion, or <1% of the acquisition cost for the program. I've even provided you a detailed chart on how that cost is spread by lot. Concurrency on all Type-1 changes (the most expensive kinds) is being split 50:50 with the contractors.

Philip wrote:Thus as the reports keep saying ,the hundreds of aircraft being built will NOT be fully combat capable and the first batch entirely useless as there's no money for both rectification and production.


Nuances matter. There are not hundreds of aircraft built that were supposed to be combat coded with the US. I have done my best to provide you a good perspective on where the F-35s delivered till date have gone. I even annotated an image to make it easier for you to understand. There is a distinction to be drawn between operational squadrons, dedicated training squadrons, dedicated tactics development squadrons, weapons school squadrons, and dedicated development and operational testing squadrons. The graph I annotated shows exactly where each of these squadrons lie.

With the USAF, there are currently 2 operational squadrons with the second only receiving aircraft starting this September. Only the first squadron actually required its aircrafts to be modified (i.e. concurrency changes installed) and the depot that did those modifications is co-located with the squadron at Hill AFB and they finished these modifications on schedule. You have a video you can watch again if you like.

Then there are non operational/combat coded squadrons with some aircraft still 2B configuration that not only need concurrency changes incorporated to them but also technology refresh in order to get them to 3F. Those will be done as per the internal requirements of the USAF, but it is important to draw the distinction that these squadrons/units serve training, testing and tactics work and are not operational units.

This is a 1700 aircraft strong acquisition for the USAF, there will be hundreds of aircraft that will concentrate on non operational work. Even on the F-22 program, the USAF still maintains 34 F-22As that are not combat coded and not up to the same standard as the combat coded fleet. Those 34 aircraft are used for training, tactics, flight-testing etc. There is a proposal out there to bring them to combat-coded status but it remains to be seen whether that is followed through or not. Needless to say, there will be F-35As with the USAF that will focus 100% on training, tactics and testing and will never be cycled through operatioanl combat coded squadrons. Much like the 34 F-22As used for this very purpose, upgrading them to the same standard as operational aircraft is a luxury and not a d necessity and much like the F-22 will be based on budgets. Same applies to the USMC and even USN but their training, tactics and test fleet will be much smaller given that they don't intend on buying as many aircraft.

The USMC has to cycle its first squadron to get 3F since they IOC'd with 2B. Right now, the entire squadron is forward deployed in Iwakuni, Japan and given the heightened operational demand in the region they are likely to be asked to stay put and not cycle through a depot. I expect them to receive a depot overhaul that will take them to 3F probably during their scheduled depot run sometime between 2018 and 2021-22. Additional USMC F-35B squadrons coming online now are being received in either 3I or 3F configurations are up to the latest hardware standards and have concurrency changes applied to them.

The first USN F-35C squadron is currently undergoing its depot modifications (again read the article, and watch the video posted above which shows Navy jets receiving those modifications) and it will be ready in time for their IOC. In total, the Navy will cycle 32 F-35Cs through the depot.

Anyhow, as it pertains to the DON F-35s (F-35B and C) here is a panel from September of this year from the people that actually live and breath the aircraft. I would watch it If I were genuinely interested in knowing about these two variants as things stand in late 2017.




the ultimate cost/ per aircraft is still a mystery with so many hidden costs of rectification still unknown.


It is a mystery only to POGO who's job it is to bash defense spending in the US. For all others, audited financial reports (SAR) is provided each year and the concurrency bill by lot was updated every other year till the Congress asked that it not be done and only changes reported since majority of the life-cycle loads and mission testing had completed and no major structural discoveries were expected post 2016 (only weapons testing and software testing largely remained).

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: International Aerospace Discussion

Postby KrishnaK » 19 Nov 2017 03:48

brar_w wrote:
Philip wrote:Last official reports


Official report? Care to post one official report on the PAKFA/FGFA here.

Philip wrote:JSF: The writing is on the wall but spin doctors can't seem to read it.Let's wait for the next Pentagon report shall we.


Yeah would love to see the hundreds of billions spent on concurrency changes and you know the mods that haven't even been budgeted yet as you said (but they seem to have built depots and have been carrying out modifications for over 3 years now).

----

Meanwhile, still waiting for a point by point debate !!
Phillip isn't interested in that at all, it wouldn't suit his demagoguery. He has a visceral hatred for India buying American arms and moving away from the loving embrace of Mother Russia. At the end of your patient explanation, he'll go back to shrieking shrilly about hags with false teeth to the JSF turkey, while touting the no-nonsense gent's MIG-35 and PAKFA.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Akshay Kapoor, ashishvikas, Bala Vignesh, sgopal, Trikaal, VKumar and 43 guests