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

JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

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.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9818
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Vayutuvan » 04 May 2015 03:30

Thanks. So the kickback is not what I am thinking it is. I was thinking that a kickback is something that gets deposited in a numbered "yes kaa aa" account.

I am a little less depressed now.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 04 May 2015 03:32

You can never prove or disprove anything such as this. They say the rafale deal is clean because its G2G. Anyone can say that it isn't (an accusation) and you, I or anyone else would not be able to prove him wrong.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6546
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mort Walker » 04 May 2015 07:13

Brar-ji,

As said before, the F-35 program is too big to fail. All sorts of money will be put into it to make it work. The question becomes can it be maintained effectively without breaking the bank? Time will tell by 2018.

Who knows what the IAF will do. The Dassault Rafale is a nice 4.5 gen fighter aircraft, but it is expensive and Dassault doesn't have the production capacity of a LM, Boeing or NG. If the 36 Rafale deal doesn't go through - even at $6 billion, then expect discussion about the F-35 to come back into play. Although more likely it will be more Su-30MKI and the LCA MkII. However, all it will take is Parrikar and Modi to make a strategic decision if LM says it can deliver at $85 million/each via FMS.

I really do hope you're right about the F-35 because I know a lot of good aerospace and electronics engineers who can get a clearance to work on defense projects. These are jobs which can't be outsourced.
Right now, there are NG support contractors licking their chops waiting for the LRS-B contract to be awarded. A hundred LRS-B at $650 million/each plus the development costs will probably be around $70 billion.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 04 May 2015 07:26

I don't think anyone even in there wildest dreams imagines an F-35 being a serious contendor for the IAF. Not sure what LMA think but that hardly matters. In the USAF circles, no one really thinks that the IAF will operate a frontline US made jet and most of them are fine with the current relationship and where it is heading. There is legitimate concerns for the IAF, and also a relationship with the French that has worked well int he past. Yes, cost is a problem and it is always going to be..I (along with others) have been saying this since a year that the Rafale will cost as much to acquire as a 5th generation fighter (T-50 and F-35A) and this is pretty much what is happening. French PGM's are also amazingly expensive..and so are their missiles. Qatar and Egypt are both paying fairly similar amounts to what early FMS customers paid for the F-35..Only difference is that the early FMS customers pay a lot more upfront in order to get the capability in time..A 2025 F-35 or PAKFA will likely be cheaper...

With the Rafale it isn't about whether they will buy 36 or not. They most certainly will (its a done deal)! The question is how many (follow on). 60? 90? or the full 126.

Right now, there are NG support contractors licking their chops waiting for the LRS-B contract to be awarded. A hundred LRS-B at $650 million/each plus the development costs will probably be around $70 billion.


Yeah thats how much they budget but a lot can change since they are hinting at a hybrid acquisition strategy that you will hear more about by the summer...But when the dust settles on it (October - September is when they'll announce..Plan is to select by the summer, and hold the announcement till the fall to give time for protest) don't be surprised if all three players come out as winners. Northrop Grumman can't even in their wildest dreams think about making it themselves (just look at their portfolio) and they are already expected to be the contractor behind the RQ-180 (Now confirmed by the USAF). Boeing is the king here..They win either way..Only thing to look out for is whether they will be the prime, or a principle ;)..Apparently, Lockheed gave up one they shifted to a subsonic platform..By 2008 they had the one up on the others for the NGB with a supersonic design (Lockheed, and Northrop both had developed supersonic proposals but LMA had to side with Boeing because they wanted subsonic...Northrop shifted to subsonic as well and we have seen the patent being released for the NGB - and that rules out that design just as the rotary launchers for the F-22 were ruled out when lockheed announced them mid-way between the ATF concept).

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6546
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mort Walker » 04 May 2015 08:48

Brar-ji.

The Rafale may not be a done deal. There may be 36 which will replace the Mirage 2000s down the road, as I don't see the IAF getting any more of them. It just depends on the revenue situation and threat assessment. The PAKFA may not materialize until well after 2025.

The LRS-B contract must be awarded by the end of this fiscal year at the end of Sep. 2015. A protest can tie up the acquisition for several months and you could have congress and DoD cancel the contract prior to then and redo it in FY2016.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 04 May 2015 08:55

Yes, they will wait for the contract award like I said. Down-select is slated for the summer, contract award in September. We will know at the time of contract award, as to which team has won it but as I said, there is a very likely possibility that in the LR-System, all three vendors have a share of the pie.

The Rafale may not be a done deal.


The current deal for 36, is absolutely done. I doubt that they'll completely turn around the MMRCA, and take an executive decision to do a G2G deal, announce it at the highest level and don't actually follow that through. There is absolutely no way that this is going backwards. I believe they'll look to buy a few more but that would depend on what sort of ofset_make in india clause they negotiate. A pure offset is in no way a guarantee to develop Rafale_parts as that offset..but if they work out a hybrid deal where some of the rafale components can be made by HAL, or as is being rumored dassault teams up with a local OEM then there is a strong possibility for a further purchase. It makes a lot of sense if you are going to import..why not go for something that you have selected and that has completed all the requisite government approval process...Otherwise 50 Rafale's, for 10 or So Billion and they'll just buy more MKI's and up the LCA.

----

Anyways...High AOA on a LII..

Image
Last edited by brar_w on 04 May 2015 20:19, edited 3 times in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5049
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 04 May 2015 09:13

vayu tuvan wrote:Thanks. So the kickback is not what I am thinking it is. I was thinking that a kickback is something that gets deposited in a numbered "yes kaa aa" account.

I am a little less depressed now.


The way the kickback story usually works is that the company pays off the decision-makers in a country to place an order and then uses that assurance to jack up prices and expand its profit margin.

That doesn't work so well in an FMS system for three reasons -

1. The prices are fixed and negotiated by the US DoD. The company's profits will increase but much more moderately.

2. US contractors usually deal in huge volumes and aren't dependent on a handful of big export deals to remain competitive, unlike their European counterparts.

3. The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was enacted the wake of several scandals in the 70s and has been fairly effective in clamping down on corruption.


The trouble with a govt-to-govt with France for the Rafale is that the French govt all but controls Dassault not just legislatively, but also through shareholding exercised through holding companies like SOGEPA. Everything Dassault does, it does with the connivance of the French govt.

And its same for most other French defence contractors because all means and purposes they are akin to Indian PSUs (albeit far better managed). For example, when Taiwan successfully sued Thomson-CSF for $861 million for kickbacks in the Lafayette sale, the French state retaliated by closing down its military liaison office in Taipei.

_____________________________________________________________________


This is Transparency International's Defence Companies Anti-Corruption Index:

Lockheed Martin: Grade A

Dassault Aviation: Grade F

[Only French contractor in the top half of that list is Thales (which has a substantial civilian business) while the only major US contractors in the bottom half is Huntington-Ingalls (which doesn't do a lot of exporting) and General Atomics.]
Last edited by Viv S on 04 May 2015 09:54, edited 2 times in total.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9818
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Vayutuvan » 04 May 2015 09:43

Viv S: Interesting. Thanks.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6546
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mort Walker » 04 May 2015 19:36

As far as corruption goes, certainly LM and US defense contractors are better than Dassault, but note that Mig and Sukhoi are really bad too.

The way LM or Boeing would do kickbacks would be like Enron when they did the Dabhol power plant in Maharashtra. Establish a fund for the education of parliamentarians.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 04 May 2015 20:12

This is Transparency International's Defence Companies Anti-Corruption Index:
[Only French contractor in the top half of that list is Thales (which has a substantial civilian business) while the only major US contractors in the bottom half is Huntington-Ingalls (which doesn't do a lot of exporting) and General Atomics.]

BTW, The worst conversionist charities rank at the top of Charity Navigator. The smart briber bribes the Anti-Corruption/Reporting Sarbhij first. Baksheesh 101 onlee.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 05 May 2015 00:27

F-35 Engine Fire Was Clearly Due To Pilot Error
Sep 3, 2014

The microcracks in the third stage of the integrally bladed rotor that caused a catastrophic F135 engine fire in an F-35A on June 23 began forming three weeks earlier when a pilot conducted a fairly benign maneuver with a unique combination of yaw, roll and g stresses, according to the F-35’s program executive officer.
(NOTHING would have happened if she had gone in a straight line!)

That 2-sec. maneuver prompted a "hard rub" on the titanium of the blade against the abradable strip lining the engine casing, and the engine saw temperatures of a 1,900F, well over the expected 1,000F, U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan told the ComDef 2014 conference Sept. 3.

The microcracks that formed that day grew over the subsequent three weeks and eventually caused the blade to break up and puncture the fuel tank.

The F-35 Joint Program Office is taking a two-pronged approach to fixing the F135 blade rubbing that caused the catastrophic fire and subsequent fleet grounding. F135 engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney is designing a prototype of a new front section with an abradable strip that would eliminate the likelihood of the blade rubbing experienced in June. It is slated to begin testing in October, Bogdan says.

Meanwhile, program officials also are devising a separate "burn in" procedure to properly, methodically wear down that strip by executing a sequence of maneuvers in controlled flight. The hope with this latter procedure is to get the test aircraft now operating under severely restricted flight envelopes back into more rigorous flight testing without undergoing the full modification. Program officials also are exploring the metallurgy of the titanium in the blade.

The test program includes 21 aircraft. Engines also are subject to a borescope inspection for every 3 hr. of flight, another requirement hindering expeditious testing.
Last edited by UlanBatori on 05 May 2015 02:22, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 05 May 2015 01:29

Already posted on this thread (check date). The current status has been also posted here. The inspections are no longer there on the ITF/ITT and flight test aircraft, they were first relaxed and ultimately the entire flight flight envelope was opened up (as was posted by you after you ignored the same link a couple of times in the past). Its a well established fact that the fixes were rolled out to the test fleet in Late October-Early November of 2014. By the end of November they had already installed them on 6 of 18 aircraft and those aircraft had subsequently had their restrictions lifted. All 17 aircraft have had them installed (and restrictions lifted) by the end of Feb.. As of early april the FS aircraft were already doing the full envelope in support of 2b testing which they need to complete for the Marine IOC later in July (15)..

Those operating limitations have since been incrementally revised to allow flight testing to continue, but while aircraft in what is known as the “flight sciences” series of each variant had been cleared to continue testing without engine restrictions, the rest of the test fleet continues to conduct flight testing with the restrictions in place.

The program plans to remove all engine‑imposed restrictions from the developmental test fleet by the end of February 2015, after modifications to the engines of each aircraft are complete.


http://www.standard.net/Military/2015/0 ... ngine-fire

As has been reported, all but one aircraft in the ITF fleet have had the fix installed. The one aircraft that hasn't, couldn't because it wasn't flying since it was at Mckinley conducting climatic testing. It too will get it if it hasn't already.

Note that the fleet fix implementation plan is service dependent. The Marines are going to get them faster because they need all concurrency changes by July 2015 on the first squadron..(Depot changes are expected by Mid June) while the air-force which had the largest share of the first 100 aircraft (those that require depot level fix) will get it done slower but the current expectation is that they'll get the fixes for the entire fleet that required it by early next year well before they declare Initial Operational capability in July.

I eagerly await your RCA on whether the PAKFA Fire was also pilot error, or just bad luck...
Last edited by brar_w on 05 May 2015 02:26, edited 5 times in total.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6546
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mort Walker » 05 May 2015 01:55

Talking about corruption:

F-35 Contractors, Under Fire, Spent Record Amounts in 2014

All together, United Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and BAE Systems donate millions of dollars every couple of years to lawmakers in the Capitol. Following slightly differing time frames, their individual giving has grown enormously since the JSF program started in 1997. The main contractor, Lockheed, and Northrop Grumman led the pack in 2014, each contributing $4.1 million to campaigns. UT spent $2.1 million, and BAE gave $1.4 million. For all four, 2014 was a record year.

Contributions from LM:
Image

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 05 May 2015 02:29

The trouble is, this is a case of Total Transparency. A bit tooo transparent. Question is, are we seeing the real picture, or a mirror?

Does this statement make sense to you?
when a pilot conducted a fairly benign maneuver with a unique combination of yaw, roll and g stresses,

2-sec. maneuver prompted a "hard rub"


I see! Not when the plane landed in a cross-wind (which puts a pretty tough combo of yaw, roll and g)
I bet it is NOT a lie - American corporate execs and military jarnails NEVER LIE :eek: :shock: - Perish the thought!
If dragged b4 a Congressional Committee the person who gave the statement will point to the word(s) containing the door to the truth. Trouble is, it takes someone who knows where to look, to knock and find that door.
I can guess which word(s) opens that door. Maybe you can too but prefer to pretend not to see it. Same question still remains: Why would a benign maneuver cause the blades to not just casually rub, but pretty-much slam into the casing, generating 1900 F temperatures and cracking the blade root? And the answer is not pretty.

Also
eventually caused the blade to break up and puncture the fuel tank

IOW. "Uncontained Engine Failure" Could just as easily have shredded the pilot.

The speed at which P&W responded by just moving the engine casing far away from the blade tip circle, says it all - they knew that the real problem was never going to get fixed, and they wanted to get as far away as possible from it and the ensuing COTUS Hearings. Q.E.D.
Last edited by UlanBatori on 05 May 2015 02:38, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 05 May 2015 02:38

The problem is that you are entering a world of conspiracy theory..They conduct the RCA, independent air-worthiness authority puts restrictions and has the sole authority to lift it. The Director, Operational Test does the report and reports to the Congress that the restrictions have been lifted on the aircraft that have had the fix, and that all the flight test aircraft will have restrictions removed in feb 2015. He even puts that into his report. Fast forward a few months, it is reported that those FTA have had the fix installed and restrictions removed. These aircraft are now flying sorties at an accelerated pace (especially the Alpha test fleet) in order to make up test-points delayed due to restrictions and the general slowdown in testing due to inspections etc. They are going through test points as we speak, flying 110 degree AOA (your own link) and exploring the entire flight envelope for 2b testing.

Why did the PAKFA catch fire even though it wasn't performing any maneuver what so ever? Why did the F-16's crash all over the place during testing even though they weren't performing any significant maneuvers? Why did the Gripen test aircraft crash even though it was just landing? The aircraft is in the DEVELOPMENT phase...and issues will come up..just as they have come up in the past and just as they continue to come up in other developmental products. If they were so SOLID/CONFIDENT about NO ISSUES because they have designed a perfect plane and engine they wouldn't bother testing the damn thing for years through an 18 strong test fleet. From a JPO perspective they'd rather err on the side of caution as you saw with them waiting for a few months to get restrictions relaxed or lifted..Compare F-35 Class A incidents in development to those on the F-16 it replaces..They aren't going to take a risk with safety and if that means grounding the fleet, putting restrictions on it until the RCA is conducted and operating the test fleet (and service fleet) in a restricted flight envelope till the fix is installed - so be it.

IOW. "Uncontained Engine Failure" Could just as easily have shredded the pilot.

The speed at which P&W responded by just moving the engine casing far away from the blade tip circle, says it all - they knew that the real problem was never going to get fixed, and they wanted to get as far away as possible from it and the ensuing COTUS Hearings. Q.E.D.


I think the developers, the testers and the companies in question here are more interested in responding to the developmental test team, the air-worthiness authorities and getting their fixes and long term production plans verified, tested and approved from the technical folks within their customers. I don't think they will bother much what some conspiracy theory seeking RCA has to do..Same goes for Saturn, and Sukhoi or SAAB. These organizations work with their services and developmental folks to get to the bottom of the issue, to fix it and implement the fix. If someone somewhere on some forum thinks there is a conspiracy, I'm not sure they are worried..For them whats important is to get the flight restrictions lifted (ACHIEVED) and covering the full 2b flight envelope (ACHIEVED) and continue to demonstrate to their customers both in the test aircraft, and in the test-setups they have that they are headed on a path towards meeting the SDD deadlines...At times the DOT&E and GAO data lags the real stuff on the ground. This problem isn't unique to the F-35 but extends to the entire phase..If they have 12 changes ID'd, tested to the customer's satisfaction and plans developed to implement them, and have a plan to roll them into the fleet over say 12-15 months then the program management and the customers (USAF, USMC, USN and international customers) aren't bothered as much as the GAO or the director testing, IG etc. The 3 organizations RIGHTLY only reflect those changes once they are incorporated and this is fine and understood by all those that monitor every organization that monitors and opines on systems. It was the same thing with the Tail Hook, the USN, pilots and program management continued to say that they have found the issue, fixed it, and are doing well on testing at PAX. Yet the other 3 reports continued to highlight this as a major issue because they don't book it until it is demonstrated (which is fine)...Once the F-35C went 124 for 124 on the CVN these organizations reported that this issue could be put to rest. There is usually a 12-15 month lag because of the concurrency issue..The program may id' a problem, find and test a fix but not implement it in time for it to be reflected in the reports that usually conclude late September or early october (GAO) because they leave the program to write their report and submit it (a known fact to anyone that has ever worked on these issues for any time whatsoever).

BTW, just out of curiosity how many cumulative flight hours of incident free complete envelope flying would it take to convince you? 10,000 hours? 100,000 hours? 1 Million hours? Or NEVER??? Keep in mind that the program management, the customers for it may have standards of their own are likely to adhere to them rather than go searching for NEW STANDARDS on internet forums!!
Last edited by brar_w on 05 May 2015 03:15, edited 3 times in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 05 May 2015 02:58

Or NEVER???

uhhh... let's get back to that F-15E question that you did not answer, hain?
Airframe guaranteed for 16,000 hours

:rotfl:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 05 May 2015 03:08

uhhh... let's get back to that F-15E question that you did not answer, hain?


What about it? Is it being retired early because it can't keep up for 16K hours? It is a well known fact that as airframes mature your cost to keep them flying goes up gradually and this is the case with all aircraft of all kinds...If an aircraft is an 8000 hour airframe structural issues can come up before that, and they are usually addressed and the fleet gets back in the air.

Did Sukhoi guarantee that the ejection seats would fail on the Su-30MKI even before half of its service life? Why did they then even though the russians are regarded as the best when it comes to Ejection seats? Why was the fleet grounded? Issues come up, they are dealt with and fixed. This happens in operational fleets (Su-30, Mig-29, F-16, F-15, F-18, F-22, all have shown things that can come up and require corrective measures) and happens rather more frequently in in-development projects such as the F-35, SAAB Gripen (FCS), F-16 (engine, FCS among other issues), PAKFA (Engine flameout, plus second fire) among others!...

So if an airframe stayed perfect for 8000 hours I would be impressed. But does it? 5,000 hours? 1,000 hours? What if the answer is not even 100 hours? (I DO NOT have any data on the F-15E!).


Then you are likely not to be "impressed" on any aircraft anywhere in the world because issues do come up despite the best planning. Perhaps the $5 Million supersonic (mach 1.6) UAV will be different! But then again, it needs to be a program of record which it isn't.

But I do know that the first F-15 showed structural cracks 50 hours into service. From all indications, I think it was built a lot sturdier than the F-35 (no engine fires in the first X,000 hours, X>>1).


Structural testing has revealed structural issues in a lot many programs (F-15, F-18 etc) and those are dealt with. The F-16 structural testing did not reveal much (later on anyhow) but still the Deltas were grounded due to structural issues. It happens and isn't something that is unheard of.

But it does take a bit of intelligence to figure out.
So maybe it is time for you to ease off on the personal attacks. Of course, it's great entertainment, don't get me wrong. With the occasional rush into the wall by our resident Protector of America.


Personal attacks? Like saying " Don't go there before you hurt yourself", and categorizing fellow members?

I am not interested in making this personal or attacking you or any other person on here in any way. If you feel that way, I can apologize but you have said stuff that can be construed as personal as well and it doesn't matter much to me.

I do not think anyone is bothering about your concerns (or mine for that matter), or about convincing you on any matter..The engine maker, the operators and the program managers are more concerned about lifting the restrictions (That have already been lifted but then again that must be PROPAGANDA even though everyone out there has reported on it, the Director testing reported on it etc etc) and completing the 2b testing and finally completing the SDD phase and entering full rate production. Just imagine if they had to actually get conspiracy theorists on board and give them personal tours and a chance to conduct a RCA of their own!!

I have my own list of concerns on the program that I have listed..Yet I don't care if you, Viv or anyone else disagrees with those and I don't think there is a big conspiracy because the program office and OEM doesn't regard the concerns I have as high (although they do see those areas as concerning they do not regard them as important or critical that I do). If there is a MAJOR COVER up on the engine and there is more to be seen...then we'll see this appear given the amount of cumulative flight hours planned on the fleet over the next 3-5 years (close to 190,000 hours), especially as entire squadrons waiting in the wings IOC starting July of next year and as pilots begin going through the weapons school and the OT&E testing pits the aircraft again the F-16, F-18, F-22 and foreign aircraft. Or when it gets pushed to its limits at Red-Flag which may happen in the next 2 years or so. ..What if there is no engine incident in the next 5 years? Would it still be a conspiracy? What about 10 years? 20? 30?

Thats why I don't really want to discuss this further. I can go around in other forums crying CONSPIRACY and coming up with a problem which doesn't exist. What If i say that there is major avionics, engine and system fault with the PAKFA, and thats why it caught fire, and that there is a big conspiracy regarding that. The aircraft can be cleared for flight, and continue on its test phase and you or anyone else won't be able to prove to me that there isn't a fault because I'll keep saying that its a Conspiracy! There is no end to that!! Stick to the facts which are that the RCA was conducted, restrictions released ----> Restrictions lifted ----> Full envelope testing re-started ----> Entire ITF fleet cleared for full envelope -----> Squadron jets undergoing changes ------> 2b flight envelope fully cleared and its ready to be delivered as tested SOON. Plenty of other problems remain to be incorporated..Engine reliability is behind on one metric and ahead on 3..That one metric is very much still important and expect to find more on that matter in the 2015 DOT&E report due next year to see what progress has been made post September/October 2014 (1 year period between Oct 2014 and Oct 2015). Production ramp remains an issue of concern and this year they will deliver 45 aircraft compared to 35 last year. Can they deliver that many without significant delay (now measured in a few days). I think they may miss the 45 by year end deadline by a few weeks but the GAO seems to think they are on track of doing it. Thats an area of concern where we will have to wait and see if they can actually deliver 45 by year end. Will 2b software patch be delivered by October for MALD? that remains to be seen. Will SDD phase finally come to a close in 2018 or will be see a 4-6 month delay? That is an area of concern....Will the bulk contract for 477 aircraft be signed in Q4 2016 or early 2017 or will they push the second bulk order further down the road..Those are areas that are far more important...The Engine RCA has been cleared and approved by the air-worthiness authorities that relaxed and subsequently lifted the restrictions they had themselves placed. There are 17 (possibly 18) aircraft performing testing missions at high AOA, high speed including speed and payload limits (That flight occurred only a couple of days ago as per the test pilot who flew it)..

I am however curious why your "conspiracy theories" only restrict to this program. What about the PAKFA I ask? It caught fire while landing..It had a rather famous engine flameout..Yet no armchair RCA is being conducted, or it being claimed that there is a COVER UP!! and everyone is IN ON IT...because well they almost have to !! Heck the Aircraft caught fire in front of the IAF contingent yet no detailed report so far other than a Press release from Sukhoi. What about coming up with a credible (or not) conspiracy theory on that? where there is actually NO RCA report, or conclusions shared or testing and evaluators to go by?

Airframe guaranteed for 16,000 hours


Its never a guarantee other than that you conduct your own structural testing to see whether it is OK for that time or not..If not you fix it..Also structural testing can result in a clearance for XXXX hours and your fleet fatigue may show something different given how you utilize it..If something like this occurs (As in F-16D's for example among others) you fix the issues and send the aircraft back to the fleet...Fleet groundings due to umpteen reasons occur worldwide and the solution usually is to fix this and get back..
Last edited by brar_w on 05 May 2015 05:23, edited 4 times in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 05 May 2015 04:14

I am however curious why your "conspiracy theories" only restrict to this program. What about the PAKFA I ask?

hint: look at the thread title? :roll:
not 2 mention..the majority of the stuff on the last 57 pages.. :mrgreen:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 05 May 2015 04:27

not 2 mention..the majority of the stuff on the last 57 pages


So discuss Russian Auditor reports, Developmental tester reports and IAF performance reports on the PAKFA. We can dedicate 50-100 pages to discussing those reports. Also, conspiracy theories don't really need to limit themselves to existing "threads", this forum gives the members an option to create a thread ;)

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 05 May 2015 05:24


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 05 May 2015 05:39

Its got nothing on the stealth fighter at Linkoping... :mrgreen:


UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 05 May 2015 06:47

Do you know where one could buy a realistic scale model - any model of the F-35, A, B or C - say between 1/16 and 1/32? I mean for about 6,000 rupees, not 18 crores please! It's so that we can put it in a shrine in Ulan Bator and worship it with incense smoke, lights, etc. The Pagoda of the Gold-Plated Flightless Yak. The one in Hobby Lobby costs 12,000 rupees, and has all sorts of stuff on it to make it actually fly - their 'airframe only' model is sold out, and I can't quite make out what model and scale that is, anyway. We don't worship flying models in our Pagodas in UB - we want things that are guaranteed not to fly. So Maybe F-35B is best?

All the one's I've seen on Amazon etc are 1/48 scale - too small to worship properly.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5049
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 05 May 2015 10:59

UlanBatori wrote:BTW, The worst conversionist charities rank at the top of Charity Navigator. The smart briber bribes the Anti-Corruption/Reporting Sarbhij first. Baksheesh 101 onlee.


So Transparency International itself is corrupt for giving out such ratings? BTW why wouldn't Dassault, Nexter or DCNS pay it off, if that were the case? Also, seeing as TI is based in Germany why do MTU and Krauss-Maffei get D & F grades respectively?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5049
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 05 May 2015 11:03

Mort Walker wrote:Talking about corruption:

F-35 Contractors, Under Fire, Spent Record Amounts in 2014


Its lobbying. Unethical perhaps but still legal. And conducted transparently rather than the brown envelope/under-the-table suitcase/numbered account type business we usually associate with kickbacks.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14449
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Karan M » 05 May 2015 12:08

LOL, transparent lobbying. He he he...bhest shore comes up with new definitions for bhat is illegal and bhat ijj not and munnas follow suit.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5049
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 05 May 2015 12:30

Karan M wrote:LOL, transparent lobbying. He he he...bhest shore comes up with new definitions for bhat is illegal and bhat ijj not and munnas follow suit.


You're mixing 'unethical' with 'illegal'. The law has always permitted lobbying (by registered groups) and political donations by stakeholders - including not just industrial conglomerates but also others like farming lobbies, environmental groups, worker unions and so on. The system is rotten, but it is not illegal.

Karan M
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 14449
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Karan M » 05 May 2015 13:01

Unethical vs illegal..LOL
The paymaster/s decide which is which!

The system is rotten, but it is not illegal.

:rotfl:

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5049
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 05 May 2015 13:42

Karan M wrote:Unethical vs illegal..LOL
The paymaster/s decide which is which!

The system is rotten, but it is not illegal.


There are plenty of things are perfectly legal but have the potential to be employed for unethical ends. Case in point: 'Middlemen/brokers' - recently legalized by the Indian MoD. I suppose that means corruption is now formally permitted here in India as well?

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 05 May 2015 17:13

From our "v'v got a few irons in da fire if the F-35 don't pan out" department.

First pic there is of the Desert Air Force. Almost enough to invade Nauru. While holding off the invading Haitian Air Force.

member_22605
BRFite
Posts: 160
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby member_22605 » 06 May 2015 16:05

UB ji, thanks to your intervention, all those long passages of bojitiv news about the how great the F-35 is and how performance in the traditional sense is irrelevant because the F-35 is beyond all those traditional metrics and because of the magical cloak and almost alien weapon systems, have come to a sudden halt. Can't thank you enough :)

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 06 May 2015 20:44

:shock: Far be it from me to hinder the paeans to the Jay Ess Eph and the EllEmmSee Sahasranama. My posts are 450% serious jay new whine onlee.

See here, what I mean*:
International multirole fighter
Jet Engine aircraft, single engine
Handcrafted, hand-painted resin construction
[size=50]Scale: 1/48th.
Operators: U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, many other nations Time in operation: scheduled induction 2011. Post-World War II era. Manufacturers: Lockheed Martin
Length: 12.75 inches[/size]


Rs. 9701 + 251.37 shipping. Outrageous! And I bet the Foreign Sales price is even higher!

This one is better*: Only Rs. 680. Free shipping on total orders above Rs. 4284. I guess that would take a fleet purchase of 7 aircraft.

* These are acquisitions price onlee. The Operation/Maintenance over 3 saal will be around INR2,47,50,000. for each unit. Anyone challenges me on those numbers at their peril.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 07 May 2015 01:31

SOM-J Mockup

Image

Image

Image

Thakur_B
BRFite
Posts: 954
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Thakur_B » 07 May 2015 07:14

I am actually surprised that Israel hasn't showcased an equivalent of NSM and SOM despite having developed the popeye family.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 07 May 2015 07:23

When the wing assembly was launched for the JSF in Israel, there were some comments made by the IDF contingent that they would exploit the UA Interface and develop weapons for all customers. Kongsberg has a head start even to some US weapons when it comes to adopting the interface and is actively marking the JSM. Australia will most likely be its first customer.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8594
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 07 May 2015 16:19

From our "y v need da F-35" series:

Air Force tries to mothball A-10 fleet: Savings may be as much as ONE PERCENT of what they can then spend on maintaining the F-35!! :eek:

"What you never hear from the appeals of the A-10 community (but often from the F-35 community) is what the trade-offs are -- and they are big." Moulton said during debate on the McSally amendment. The Iraq War veteran pointed to $682 million the committee had to carve out of this year's defense budget -- or $4 billion over four years.

"It is a good plane, and having some number of them might be a good idea, but it is not the only aircraft that does air support and it's definitely not the only thing our military needs," he said.

Moulton instead offered a substitute amendment that would fund ..(reduce number of A-10s and) shift dollars to other needs, including countering improvised explosive devices, which have devastated front-line infantry troops.

"IEDs were the No. 1 killer of Americans in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars." Molten said, "Far more than will die from (them than in) the rare scenarios where only an A-10 can provide close air support."

(IEDs are Stealth Weapons, F-35s are Stealth Weapons, so F-35s are very effective against IEDs...)

A fellow Marine officer and Iraq vet, California Republican Duncan Hunter, agreed with Moulton that Warthog funds would better be used against IEDs. Hunter said of the money in Moulton's plan: "Where he's putting it will save more lives. That's plain and simple."


Doesn't sound like he wants it going into VTOL jock-mobiles. This is ultimately the shape of debate. 'Cut this boondoggle, and we can save $$XXXXX THIS YEAR'. And the larger XXXX is, the more attractive it is. Just like Kabir ke Dohe.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17584
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 10 May 2015 12:19

New US fighter jet on course to becoming ‘one of history’s biggest white elephants’
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 38761.html

Criticism of the F-35 programme in the US has been mounting, with a damning report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) last month.“The F-35’s engine’s reliability is very poor,” it warned. And more technical problems were likely.

The report also reveals that the total cost of the programme is up from $233bn in 2001 to $391bn (£253bn) last year – making it the US Department of Defense’s “most costly and ambitious acquisition program”. Estimates that the F-35 fleet will cost $1 trillion to operate and support in its lifetime “poses significant long-term affordability challenges” to the US DoD.

A spokesperson for the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) insisted “affordability remains our number one priority”. But software problems mean that testing the F-35’s weapons systems is about eight months behind schedule and will not be finished until late 2017, assuming no other problems.

And Britain’s F-35 jets will be some way down the queue, with the US manufacturers prioritising jets bought by the US Marine Corps.

Talking about the engine fix, Pratt & Whitney said: “The process for the UK jets will certainly be complete by the beginning of next year.” The UK currently has three F-35s, but they will remain in the US to operate at test locations, according to the MoD.

Another jet ordered by Britain will not be ready until the start of next year. Four F-35s ordered last November will take around two years to be delivered, according to the JPO. :mrgreen:

Yet the US expects Britain to spend billions on the fighters, with sources close to the programme citing a “projected procurement” of 138 – some £12bn at current prices.

In a statement, MoD said: “The UK is ... planning to order a further 10 F-35B aircraft over the next three years. The UK’s aircraft are on schedule to have the warfighting capability required by the UK in 2018.”

Read more: • UK army could be reduced to 50,000 troops
• Top US general 'very concerned' about UK defence cuts
• Britain 'at mercy' of Putin in a war against Russia
• Defence contract for Apache helicopters reportedly delayed

At current prices, it would cost around £6bn to buy the 72 F-35s that Britain’s two aircraft carriers are designed to hold – which is roughly the cost of the carriers themselves.

The UK needs to order a “minimum” of 48 F-35s, according to Admiral Lord West, former security minister and First Sea Lord, a view shared by Sir Nick Harvey. This would cost some £4.1bn.

“I’d have thought the minimum order they’ve got to have by 2020 is about 48 aircraft, but I’m sure the RAF hope there will be more ordered than that because the F-35 is replacing the Tornado,” said Lord West.

Madeleine Moon, Labour MP for Bridgend and a former member of the Commons defence select committee, warned: “Our skies and seas are vulnerable. It is time to reassess our priorities for the defence and security of the UK.”

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9516
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby chaanakya » 10 May 2015 12:37

Is it Turkey or Talisman??

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17584
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 10 May 2015 13:05

Could it eventually be a "talismanic turkey?" The jury is still out.We'll know by 2020 whether it will end up on a Thanksgiving plate!

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5049
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 10 May 2015 16:28

Philip wrote:New US fighter jet on course to becoming ‘one of history’s biggest white elephants’
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 38761.html

At current prices, it would cost around £6bn to buy the 72 F-35s that Britain’s two aircraft carriers are designed to hold – which is roughly the cost of the carriers themselves.


£6bn or $9.25bn for 72 VSTOL F-35Bs.

So.. $4.6bn for 36 units. 'White elephant'. :lol:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5882
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 10 May 2015 17:54

Anyone care to find out what the UK paid for its Typhoons..How much would 72 Tranche II typhoons cost (not that they can operate from a carrier)? It may turn out that (actually there is a strong possibility that it will) that the UK would end up spending more to develop (its share) and procure its Typhoons (per unit) than its F-35B's with the former requiring even more cash to keep up to date. Its weapons development was similarly flawed, massive upfront development contribution on the radar and Missile with no money left to procure the weapon. I believe the meteor integration on the UK Typhoons has been pushed back to 2018 or so and the AESA IOC to beyond 2020 iirc. Compare this to the development of the SDD weapons (how long did the typhoon take to get its Multi Role weapons and targeting sensors integrated?) on the JSF and the fact that the Universal Armament Interface opens up each and every weapon to be designed to that specification and be integrated in weeks to months as opposed to years which is the nor with block weapons integration. The typhoon does not have a UAI equivalent and is therefore going to require specialized integration projects to integrated weapons from the various sources..That doesn't look all that promising especially when all in the West will look to add UAI compliance on to their existing weapons and develop UAI compliance from the start on new-starts. Be it the UK weapons, French weapons (some already UAI compliant iirc), Turkish weapons (SOM-J and I believe SOM as well), Norwegian weapons (JSM, JSM+ in the future) and Israeli weapons. Supporting the Typhoon upgrade path/roadmap is going to get cost-prohibitive while a lot of the most 2020 upgrades on UK's F-35's would be plug and play, developed by others that collectively do not have a budget crisis as severe as the UK or the other Typhoon partner nations.
Last edited by brar_w on 10 May 2015 23:17, edited 3 times in total.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, Rakesh, UlanBatori and 27 guests