JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

[NRao]

Aug 15, 2013 :: Eglin AFB F-35 fleet exceeds 2K sorties, training presses on

Airmen and Marines assigned to the F-35 Integrated Training Center at the 33rd Fighter Wing here have consistently flown successful training sorties and generated their 2,000th sortie Aug. 13 with an instructor pilot of the Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron-501 (VMFAT-501), at the controls.

Marine Maj. Adam Levine, who flew in a two-ship formation, said he was surprised with the news upon landing but said that is typical since the flightline members are focusing on safe and effective flying rather than keeping pace with data tracked by those in statistical analysis.

“Every sortie, every takeoff, every hour is a win for the F-35 enterprise,” he said. From his cockpit, Levine also witnessed the first taxi of the U.S. Navy’s F-35C carrier variant preparing for its maiden flight from Eglin AFB.

With the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy pressing forward to meet goals of initial operating capability in the next few years for their respective services, getting ample time in the air is crucial to meeting their timelines.

“Flying the 2,000th sortie highlights the accomplishments of the entire F-35 airpower team at Eglin AFB and moves us one step closer to the aircraft’s initial war fighting capability,” said Col. Todd Canterbury, the commander of the 33rd FW.

The Eglin AFB F-35A, B, and C variant joint training has been accomplished while operational and developmental test missions at flight test sites on the east and west coasts have been conducted simultaneously -- a process known as concurrency.

In these last couple weeks, Eglin AFB officials sent a handful of their pilots to Luke Air Force Base Ariz., to become the initial cadre of F-35A leaders at the 61st Fighter Squadron, 56th Fighter Wing, said Col. Stephen Jost, the commander of the 33rd Operations Group here. Luke AFB’s first joint strike fighters are scheduled to arrive in spring 2014 with plans to grow to 144 aircraft in the out years.

For now, the Eglin AFB-based flyers are expanding their training curriculum as they double up to full aircraft strength in the spring with all 24 Air Force F-35As expected to be on base. Jost will lead the group’s transition to the Block 2A aircraft, which carry upgraded computer software, in the first quarter of calendar year 2014 in order to accommodate more aircraft capabilities.

“We will increase the current syllabus from 6 student sorties to 8 and even 9 depending on when we will be cleared by the test community to fly at night,” Jost said.

Aside from flight operations, this also entails transitioning the ground school instruction such as flying more advanced scenarios in the full mission simulator.

“The primary capability of Block 2A is use of the plane’s multifunction advanced data link,” he said.

Currently, voice transmission is the primary means of communication.

While Air Force planners is busy seeding Luke AFB with an initial F-35 team, the Marines have been doing the same for Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz., just a short flight away.

Having trained up the initial cadre of U.S. and United Kingdom pilots and maintainers at VMFAT-501, Marines at Eglin AFB continue to train instructor pilots with a portion of the classes’ students being operational test pilots. These pilots are standing up MCAS Yuma’s operations at Marine Fighter Attack Squadron-121, Levine said.

In the near future, Eglin AFB’s VMFAT-501 is preparing to conduct its first local short take-off and vertical landing of the F-35B, an accomplishment realized at MCAS Yuma in March that the VMFAT-501 helped make possible. Meanwhile, the Navy's Strike Fighter Squadron 101 at Eglin AFB, has conducted its first maintenance check flight yesterday, is preparing for its first student flight this week.

In the upcoming years, when operating at full capacity, the Eglin AFB fleet will grow to 59 aircraft with about 100 pilots and 2,100 maintainers graduating yearly.

The F-35 joint strike fighter program is a joint, multi-national program. In addition to U.S. armed forces, the F-35 increases operational flexibility and interoperability with the eight other international partners participating in the development of the aircraft. They are the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, and Norway.

With so much history in the making, the F-35A, B and C fighter units at Eglin AFB are making strides for airpower for years to come, officials said.

“The versatile and high-tech aircraft will carry the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy into the next 50 years of air dominance, and the men and women here can reflect back knowing they were among the pioneers in its initial phases,” Canterbury said.

[NRao]

A U.S. Marine Corps plane captain, known as a crew chief in the Air Force, marshals out an F-35B Lightning II short takeoff and vertical landing variant of the aircraft May 22, 2013, at Eglin Air Force Base. The maintainer orchestrated a "hot pit" ground refueling, running the engine while receiving fuel, allowing it to take off immediately afterward for another training sortie. Assigned to the Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron-501, the plane captain helped train up 24 U.S. and United Kingdom pilots flying the B variant to date by having aircraft ready for the daily flight operations. (Photo by Maj Karen Roganov)

HiRes: http://media.dma.mil/2013/Aug/15/200070 ... 49-014.JPG


Navy Lt. Cmdr. Christopher Tabert returns from the first local flight of the carrier variant of the F-35C Lightning II, Joint Strike Fighter, Aug. 14, 2013, at Eglin Air Force Base's 33rd Fighter Wing. The unit, co-located at the wing, serves as the F-35C Fleet Replacement Squadron, training F-35C aircrew and maintenance personnel alongside Air Force, Marine and coalition partners in the joint strike fighter program. Tabert is an F-35 instructor pilot with the U.S. Navy Strike Fighter Squadron VFA-101. (Photo by Staff Sgt. Nicholas Egebrecht )

HiRes: http://media.dma.mil/2013/Aug/15/200070 ... 01-001.JPG

[NRao]

Wonder what is that bubble under the chin for.

[NRao]

Aug 13, 2013 :: Lockheed Martin Wins $852 Million F-35 Defense Contract

Starting the week off at a brisk pace, the U.S. Department of Defense awarded a dozen defense contracts Monday, worth a combined $1.375 billion. Just one single company claimed the bulk of the funds: Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT ) .

The contract in question, characterized as a modification to an existing contract, will pay Lockheed Martin $852.3 million to supply special tooling and test equipment that buyers of "Low Rate Initial Production Lot 6" F-35 fighter jets will require after purchasing the aircraft. Buyers of planes included in this LRIP production lot include the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and international partners the United Kingdom and Italy.

In total, eight countries count as partners to the U.S. in building (and buying) the F-35: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, and the U.K. The plane is currently in service with the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy, as well as with the militaries of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

Monday's contract is expected to be completed in December 2016.

[NRao]

Don’t Ask ALIS, Yet; F-35 Wing Drop Issue Fixed

The F-35′s highly-touted system designed to monitor and predict maintenance needs known as ALIS (pronounced alice) faces “really challenging issues” in the military’s biggest conventional arms program ever.

The Autonomic Logistics Information System is not really capable of sharing data from the airplane yet — as is the goal. Also, the hardware required to download and service the plane must be made smaller and the software be made both more useful and more secure, an authoritative source here told us. The Marines are most closely watching the size of the hardware since they have the earliest Initial Operating Capability in July 2015 and require the ability to service the plane in the most remote locations.

A key goal of the ALIS system is to allow F-35s to share data with the ship or base they are flying back to so crews can have parts and tools ready to fix the plane as quickly and as close to combat as possible. That requires a wireless modem, something that drone programs are keenly aware can be highly vulnerable to hacking.

I asked Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle about this in a Friday interview and his cautious answer made clear just how closely the Marines are watching this.

“I think conceptually it makes a lot of sense, but we have to be very mindful of someone wanting to do nefarious things inside the networks,” Schmidle said. He and our other authoritative source said shrinking the hardware for ALIS shouldn’t be too hard. But ensuring the security of the network and providing robust and useful software will be a serious challenge.

On the other hand, wing drop is no longer a performance issue for the F-35, contrary to claims in some quarters, our authoritative source at the Pentagon tells us. The issue is, as almost always, much more complex than that simple statement indicates, but it’s been 18 months since the issue surfaced and software fixes leave the Joint Strike Fighter in fine shape, this source says.

What happened? Basically, new algorithms were written, tested in the trans-sonic envelope where most of the problems occurred and the services found a solution that didn’t completely eliminate all drop at all times but left the plane performing to the highest standards achievable. In short, they found a problem and fixed it to a standard all three services could live with.

[NRao]

Lockheed Martin Hosts First Tweet Chat with F-35 Test Pilot Billie Flynn

Lockheed Martin recently hosted its first #LMchat on Aug. 8, 2013, with Billie Flynn (@BillieFlynn), a senior experimental test pilot for the F-35 and F-16 programs.

Interacting with participants through Twitter, Billie Flynn answered several questions regarding the F-35 program. During the chat, Flynn described how a STOVL conversion is performed on the F-35B, distinguished how the F-35 compares to other fighters he has tested and discussed the Lockheed Martin radio callsigns for test pilots.

Read a full transcript of the #LMChat here

[NRao]

Aug 14, 2013 :: Navy’s F-35 soars for the first time

A Navy F-35C takes off for the first time Wednesday at Eglin Air Force Base.

For the first time Wednesday morning, the Navy’s version of the F-35 took to the sky.

The Navy is the last branch of the military to begin flying operations at the F-35 schoolhouse at Eglin Air Force Base, where the Air Force and Marines have been certifying new pilots since last year.

Many people in the Navy’s VFA 101 squadron had been waiting for Wednesday’s flight since they arrived at the base two years ago.

“If you walk around the squadron today you’ll see smiles on a lot of faces,” said the squadron’s commander, Capt. John Enfield.

The Navy’s first F-35 arrived at Eglin in late June. Enfield said maintainers have been busy since then preparing the jet for flight, and the entire squadron was excited when they got the final go-ahead to take off.

“Seeing that come to fruition and getting it airborne is a great milestone — for the maintainers and for the entire squadron,” he said. “Now we can begin training in earnest.”

Lt. Cmdr. Chris Tabert, the only Navy pilot at Eglin qualified to fly the F-35, was the controls for the first flight.

Enfield hopes to take his first flight soon, and in the coming weeks the squadron will try to get more pilots to begin their qualification process.

It will be a “slow roll,” as Enfield says, because the squadron has only two jets. However, three to five more are expected to arrive by the end of the year.

With planes on the ground and now in the sky, the Navy’s program is ready to ramp up at Eglin. The squadron has grown to nearly 100 people in recent months.

The Navy’s version of the aircraft is designed to land on aircraft carriers on the ocean. Its wingspan is a little wider than the other variants and it is built to carry more fuel for longer flights. It is also a little slower so it can land in tighter spaces.

Eventually, the squadron will practice takeoffs and landings at Choctaw Field at the west end of Eglin’s reservation. The Navy’s F-35s must circle lower than other variants to practice landing on carriers, and the noise would be too great at Eglin.

Tabert’s flight lasted about an hour Wednesday. Back on ground, he said it was an honor.

“It felt great to see all the hard work from the sailors and the squadron that led to a jet getting to take off from here and land back here,” he said.

[Christopher Sidor]

^^^
That is good news. I hope we get this for IAC-II, i.e. F-35C variant.

[NRao]

This turkey has some wings !!!!

Part of IOC on the USN Wasp:



Wonder how the got that photo. From a helo?

[Philip]

An article in a prof. journal,by a USN graduate reg. the crisis in the USN's tactical aircraft inventory.What to buy? More F-18SHs or the JSF F-35C.
Pros and cons:

F-35,cheapest version is the F-35A,the USAF version @ around $107. (PL. check these numbers with the latest AWST costs posted earlier).USN version,F-35C @ $186.5M.SH cost @ $66.9."2.8 SHs for just one F-35C.The crucial Q,does the JSF deliver the amount of capability that it costs?

Assumption that production costs will drop when full scale production starts "far from the truth".This is based upon the premise that there will be much "commonality" with sister variants ,about "80%"."That plan has already failed at the design stage."
Each one has been extensively modified and amazingly,they share a commonality of guess how much?......20-30% only! So actually,each aircraft is almost a different one.

Now the F-35C carrier-based version is horrendously expensive.Why? "Terrible design flaws" that cannot be fixed without excessive amounts of money not available in the new fiscal environment.The 3 major problems:

1.Ripley's "believe it or not".The F-35C "cannot land on a carrier"! Why? The designers placed the tailhook too close to the rear landing gear.As a result,the gear presses down the wire instead of catching it.The JSF team has designed a sharper hook,but the new hook caught the wire only a few times,not satisfactory.To solve the problem,the airframe would have to be stretched,destroying any commonality it would have with its sister types and cause yet another drastic increase in price.No wonder the RN quickly changed their minds and plumped for the USMC version!

2.Second problem,maintenance of stealthy materials at sea.LM has "failed to prove that the stealth materials at sea will not corrode away" in the salty maritime environment.These materials are extremely expensive and difficult to maintain and if not fixed,dramatically drive up the costs of maintenance.Dear me!

3.Third problem,the most pressing and difficult,also found on the other two models.The F-35s have "24 million lines of software code"
that is extremely difficult to test and is as "complicated as anything on earth".Without these lines,the aircraft cannot perform the capabilities promised.In another post I mentioned how each "layer" of code is required for the next block to function from and the dev. of the codes are far from meeting their schedules .Without these codes an aircraft may be able to fly but not carry any munitions! In comparison,the F-18 has only 1.4M lines aboard.A few years ago I was in conversation with a US aircraft technician whose job it was to replace codes after each sortie of a specific type for each new mission.I couldn't understand the logic,as one would normally expect an aircraft to be ready in a fly-away condition for each sortie with on-board computers doing the business.The complicated manner in which some modern fighters are being developed with so much emphasis on software for delivering the "magic bullet" is making them an MRO nightmare.

Now for afficianados of the "turkey/talisman",4 things right:

Advantages over the SH.Longer unrefuelled range.IR cameras,IR sensor in the nose and stealth.Boeing is trying to develop an SH Block 3 with extra bells and whistles to even things out.Block-3 will have extra conformal fuel tanks to almost the capacity of the JSF.IR sensors will also give the SH almost the missile warning capabilities of the JSF.Uses the same helmet,providing info at high speed.Ah! Here it is.What I wrote of earlier in the FGFA td. Boeing is developing a stealthy underwing/fuselage weapons pod.
each can hold "two AMRAAMs plus two bombs",making it the equiv. of the JSF's capability in its internal weapons bays. The same has been tried out with the Stealth Eagle,where in the frontal RCS,it was close to matching a stealth aircraft.

The upgraded SH though with composites,etc. will have enough components to make it extra stealthy-not near JSF std. but far better,along with a 20% increase in engine power,a similar glass cockpit and it will be close to the JSF';s capabilities but at much lower cost.The advantage of Block-3 aircraft is that these upgrades can be retrofitted onto Block-2 aircraft too.

Enemy action:

New SAMs.Apart from Russian and Chinese 200mile ranged SAMs,"networked multi-band radar systems'" and LR IRST sensors are reducing the stealth advantage.The Block-3 SH reduces the detection range of an S-400 or HQ 19 by 100 miles.AGM-88 ASMs along with Block-3 SHs would be able to potentially defeat these SAM systems,"as opposed to buying a few expensive JSFs,F-35Cs of questionable capability"

The conclusion:The USN needs not the world's best aircraft or a stealth bird,but superior ordnance and an aircraft better than our potential enemies,good enough to get the job done,and made available in large numbers to be flexible in tactics.The SH fits the bill,"the F-35C does not even come close."

But stuck with the F-35! Why? The international partners,8 in number are getting increasingly impatient and becoming alarmed at the trends in the programme.Another article notes,that "the USN's budget spending is more important for the USAF than the USN,and Natl. Sec. Policy of the US for the F-35A to fly for its international partners than for the F-35C to fly off a USN carrier."

So the advice for the USN is to buy the F-35A ,USAF version ,much cheaper,plus one would get an SH-3 free with every F-35A,plus another $12+M in one's pocket! More F-35As bought would make it cheaper for the intl. partners too.But what purpose would it serve with the USN? "It does not really matter at this point",it the best answer to the USN's crisis.

PS:The ultra-expensive turkey sure has "wings",but can fly and bomb only with caveats!

PPS:Chris,$186.5M a pop for the F-35C! With the rupee in supersonic free fall,by the time the F-35C is in production it will be Rs.300 to the $ by conservative estimates!

[Singha]

whatever be their issues the F22 and F35 have the most katrina type smoooth skin finish of them all. the navy version does it have a wider set of wings?

[Philip]

Singha,I agree about the beautiful skin! But beauty is merely "skin deep" as the old proverb says! As for the differences in variants,I think that you need to go back and read a post a few weeks ago from AWST where the details of the JSF's woes were listed out.There are still some aerodynamic issues that cannot be ironed out with the current form and if redesigned would incur horrendous cost escalation.With so many variants in each type (1st,2nd, and turd class for allies),software nightmares,which if not resolved will allow the bird to fly but not shoot or bomb,is in truth a millstone round the US's neck right now.But the US has sanctioned a huge amount of money to burn fro its own acquisitions.They have to buy it in whatever state it arrives in...especially for the sake of the allies .Oh by the way,I forgot an important point.The JSF is stealthy only when seen from the front,unlike the F-22.When it is "viewed" from the sides and rear,it lights up on radar screens quite well for the enemy.

[Singha]

yes I expect that huge motor exhaust will attract IRST & AAM IIR seekers like moths to a flame...
but on the +ve side running away and presenting a big IR target is not an option
they have to stick around and fight.

[NRao]

Philip,

1. Please provide a URL and a date (here on out) for each of them. Some are way out of date.

2. On cost, as I have pointed out they are distorted. I was unable to post the table, while you did not even provide the article.

On iPod. Will catch up in my am.

[NRao]

Philip,

Please learn to provide URLs when you can. Your saying something in a post is not enough - especially in your case.

I had started a word document to address each and every accusation of yours, Philip. From what little investigation I have done, NONE of what you say counts. Most, if not all, are outdated accusations. However, here goes:

The costs are there to be seen:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 14.xml&p=2

F-35,cheapest version is the F-35A,the USAF version @ around $107. (PL. check these numbers with the latest AWST costs posted earlier).USN version,F-35C @ $186.5M.SH cost @ $66.9."2.8 SHs for just one F-35C.The crucial Q,does the JSF deliver the amount of capability that it costs?

* The cheapest version is the F-35A @ a cost of $124 Mil for LRIP 5 and $114 for LRIP 7 - as posted earlier this cost is expected to be at $85 million in 2020 ASSUMING they reach 100+ production per year. (Where did you get $107 (around) from I do not know.)

* USN F-35C (from that very table in AWST): LRIP 5: $144 mil, LRIP 7: $132 mil. This figure should also drop by 2020. (IOC is expected some time beyond 2015/16)

By 2020 I expect the F-35A to be around $85 Mil, F-35B around $110 Mil and the F-35C around $100 mil. The last two figures are MY extrapolation based on the figures in the table in that AWST article. The BIG assumption in all this is that the export market sticks with the F-35. IF they do not then the cost will escalate.

On two F-18s for one F-35, yes, that is the pitch of Boeing, which is adding on whatever it can tack on to the F-18 to make it a viable alternative. LM has stated that the F-35 project is at a very critical juncture and there have been rumblings to cancel the F-35 too, but I do not see it happening (yet?).

[NRao]

Assumption that production costs will drop when full scale production starts "far from the truth".This is based upon the premise that there will be much "commonality" with sister variants ,about "80%"."That plan has already failed at the design stage."
Each one has been extensively modified and amazingly,they share a commonality of guess how much?......20-30% only! So actually,each aircraft is almost a different one.

Are those your numbers and bolded quotes? IF not please provide a URL.

Just BTW, the AWST you mention, is TITLED: "New F-35 Cost Target Slips Toward Goal"

How ironic!!!!

Yes, they all are very (not almost), different. In fact the F-35C is VERY different. But that was known going in - so it should not be an issue - unless there is a Debbie Downer like you (sorry).

Yes, 80% was the target, but I am not sure what it is currently or what it will be at the end, but you figure seems very suspicious on the face value. So, where did you get that figure from - URL please (no quotes from you)? TIA.

Added l8r:

[NRao]

Now the F-35C carrier-based version is horrendously expensive.Why? "Terrible design flaws" that cannot be fixed without excessive amounts of money not available in the new fiscal environment.The 3 major problems:

Again, your mirch, masala (you need to stop this extrapolation and Sorkar, Ripley's, etc)

1.Ripley's "believe it or not".The F-35C "cannot land on a carrier"! Why? The designers placed the tailhook too close to the rear landing gear.As a result,the gear presses down the wire instead of catching it.The JSF team has designed a sharper hook,but the new hook caught the wire only a few times,not satisfactory.To solve the problem,the airframe would have to be stretched,destroying any commonality it would have with its sister types and cause yet another drastic increase in price.No wonder the RN quickly changed their minds and plumped for the USMC version!

Please read up, you seem to be so out dated:

April 2013 :: Lockheed promises tailhook fix to Navy’s F-35C

I am not going to quote anything, but remember that the F-35C will be the very last to get the IOC - point being they have some time. As always, the F-35 program as a whole is in a critical stage.

2.Second problem,maintenance of stealthy materials at sea.LM has "failed to prove that the stealth materials at sea will not corrode away" in the salty maritime environment.These materials are extremely expensive and difficult to maintain and if not fixed,dramatically drive up the costs of maintenance.Dear me!

You seem to be getting such info from some odd ball blogs. Is there an official version we can look into on this topic? USN/LM/GAO? I googled for your quote and came up with two sites (and of course your post on BR).

I do not see this as a problem so far. Or a made up problem perhaps - let us see, jury still out. Provide a URL and we can take it from there.

3.Third problem,the most pressing and difficult,also found on the other two models.The F-35s have "24 million lines of software code"
that is extremely difficult to test and is as "complicated as anything on earth".Without these lines,the aircraft cannot perform the capabilities promised.In another post I mentioned how each "layer" of code is required for the next block to function from and the dev. of the codes are far from meeting their schedules .Without these codes an aircraft may be able to fly but not carry any munitions! In comparison,the F-18 has only 1.4M lines aboard.A few years ago I was in conversation with a US aircraft technician whose job it was to replace codes after each sortie of a specific type for each new mission.I couldn't understand the logic,as one would normally expect an aircraft to be ready in a fly-away condition for each sortie with on-board computers doing the business.The complicated manner in which some modern fighters are being developed with so much emphasis on software for delivering the "magic bullet" is making them an MRO nightmare.

Man, you sure can push the limits. "24 million lines of software code"? Again, a URL please.

April, 2013 :: Congress orders F-35 Software Plan

The JSF program developmental strategy is, in part, grounded upon a series of incremental software “drops” — each one adding new capability to the platform. In total, there are more than 10 billion individual lines of code for the system, broken down into increments and “blocks,” F-35 program office officials explained.

Billions. With a "B" as in Boy.

NOT Millions.

10.

NOT 24.

Complex, indeed. Fun too.

However, no matter the number of lines of code, it is a very complex plane - being leading edge. To ensure what you say is right I am having fun learning about this machine.

Added l8r:

Please check the AWST issue posted by Austin (http://in.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416275188&e=true). Page 33. The LIRP 7 will have the new tail hook. They are supposed to start testing it soon (this year end I think) on a preliminary basis.

That article has the solution to the helmet problem you brought up in an earlier post too.

[NRao]

The upgraded SH though with composites,etc. will have enough components to make it extra stealthy-not near JSF std. but far better,along with a 20% increase in engine power,a similar glass cockpit and it will be close to the JSF';s capabilities but at much lower cost.The advantage of Block-3 aircraft is that these upgrades can be retrofitted onto Block-2 aircraft too.

Says Philip.

The two are not even close. The F-18 will be a good filler, but that is about it.

.................. I am not sure what you are drinking now a days, but I would seriously look into it if you are going to spew such BS.

Again, please no blogs that are unable to present current numbers.

[NRao]

New SAMs.Apart from Russian and Chinese 200mile ranged SAMs,"networked multi-band radar systems'" and LR IRST sensors are reducing the stealth advantage.The Block-3 SH reduces the detection range of an S-400 or HQ 19 by 100 miles.AGM-88 ASMs along with Block-3 SHs would be able to potentially defeat these SAM systems,"as opposed to buying a few expensive JSFs,F-35Cs of questionable capability"

A lousy F-15/16 broke through such SAMs in Syria. One does not need a F-35 for Podunk jobs. But will be needed for the more sophisticated ones - if they will be needed.

The conclusion:The USN needs not the world's best aircraft or a stealth bird,but superior ordnance and an aircraft better than our potential enemies,good enough to get the job done,and made available in large numbers to be flexible in tactics.The SH fits the bill,"the F-35C does not even come close."

But stuck with the F-35! Why? The international partners,8 in number are getting increasingly impatient and becoming alarmed at the trends in the programme.Another article notes,that "the USN's budget spending is more important for the USAF than the USN,and Natl. Sec. Policy of the US for the F-35A to fly for its international partners than for the F-35C to fly off a USN carrier."

OK, time to go catch up with my sleep.

[Philip]

I am spewing such BS? Poor old NR.He is so full of personal bias that he can't think objectively. He has to shoot the messenger every time.That "BS" that he refers to is straight from the USNI Proceedings,which saw the article worthy of publishing ! June 2013 issue,get a copy if you can,online only for USNI members.AWST regularly publishes progress reports on the JSF and its litany of problems.It is going to be several years from now before it enters service,hard fact.Just taking to the air (as our LCA has done for a decade now) without being inducted ,does not help the US armed forces.There is a long hard testing regime ahead and slippage of timeframes is upsetting the allies who are "partners" in the project.Just look at the order-book table stats. which I earlier posted,the reduced number of orders both from the US armed forces and the allies.That speaks for itself.

And by the way,what I post is from open source sources,so anyone who ridicules them ,ridicules the authors,not me.I also thought that this was a free country,free speech,etc.If anyone does not like my considered opinion,they can have their own.I don't abuse them if they think differently,that's the difference between a gentleman and a lout.

[Christopher Sidor]

The F-35B and F-35C will take of from carriers or from flat-top ships. So unlike the airforce in the navy space is a premium. So theoretically one can replace F-35A with a semi-stealthy FA-18 Block X, where X is the next best thing provided by Boeing if one were in the airforce. With the navy this will not wash.

In simpler words forget about replacing 1 F-35C/B with 2.8 or 3 F/A-18 SH. There is not enough place in the aircraft carrier to do so.

Now let us look at the range, F-35 obviously wins over. So if F/A-18 SH were to carry out the same range missions it would require aerial refueling. In what the USN and USAF consider as "contested waters/airspace" what chance will an air refueling tanker have. Let us not forget the best way right now, right now to take down a stealth fighter is to do target not the fighter but its tankers and its AWACS. There is a reason why the current fighter literature is so chock full of benefits of fighters capable of performing a mini AWACS role.

Being stealthy from the front and not from the back has one serious drawback, i.e. when one returns from doing a mission. Yes F-15 and F/A-18 in a simplified world may be hide from all the radars pointed towards it. But while returning when there exhausts will be towards the radars they will be very easy picking. I have not even started talking about AWACS.

Let us look at stealth, the ability of the fighter and its pilot to return back to the ship and carry out another mission. That is missing in F/A-18. Yes they can use growler which just messes with the signals sent from the radar, but guess what a F/A-18 behaving as a growler becomes for all practical purpose a single role aircraft and worse on a mission with 5 F/A-18 SH if the growler is taken out then all the 5 aircraft are no longer stealthy. Not so with F-35. In a mission of 5 F-35C or F-35B if one of the fighter is blown away the rest of the 4 aircraft still remains stealthy.

Yes one can save money, but at the end of the day what does USN and USAF want? Does it want to save money or does it want to get the mission done with minimum amount of casualty. And the same applies to IAF and IN. If USN wants to save money then ditch F-35B, F-35C and even F/A-18 and go for Mig-21BISON. They are far more cheaper and they will save tons of money. But off course these will be paper weights on the aircraft carrier.

Questioning F-35B or F-35C's capabilities is fine. But one should not forget F/A-18 SH will never have the capability which F-35B or F-35C will have. F/A-18 will never be able to fly or land from a marine ship, i.e. a non-aircraft carrier.

Windows XP was a brilliant piece of software. So was Windows 98. Guess what was the difference in number of lines of code between these two systems? And guess which OS would be picked up today if the choice were offered again? So having more lines of code is not the issue. It is better because is shows the level of sophistication that is available in the fighter. So unless the lines of code is red herring in real life it means nothing.

So basically what are we left with as an argument against F-35B and F-35C? The cribbing against F-35 has gone through stages. Firstly it was against the whole program and its three variants. The same sing-song, capability and cost. Then one variant, i.e. F-35A took to the sky. Guess what criticism has stopped all together for this variant. The Anti-F-35 brigade has suddenly fallen silent. Now the target is F-35B and F-35C. About how the UK has shifted or changed and so forth. As if the Royal Navy is the final word.

[Philip]

Chris,the so-called ant-JSF brigade is mainly within the US.As far as we are concerned,we couldn't care less! It is the success oif the FGFA that is our cup of tea. What is worrying the entire defence establishment in the US from the Pentagon downwards,is the unexpected design challenges that have emerged,some of which cannot be rectified in the existing format of the aircraft's basic design without huge redesign and cost and time delays.

Secondly,each variant requires a level of software to be certified and further developments have to take-of from the earlier level,otherwise the aircraft is in truth a "turkey" which cannot face combat.The time delay is also impacting hugely on the costs which is making it extraordinarily expensive even for the US.What some of the articles posted contain is an alternative,a cost-effective method when faced with inferior enemy assets.Of course the JSF is a superior aircraft to an F-18SH on steroids,but one requires numbers .I'm posting in full the intro. para of the article,"Averting the navy's tactical aircraft crisis".

"We cannot afford to wait before our fighters--most of which were acquired during the Cold War---become worn out beyond repair.At the moment the Navy is buying the F-18 E/F SH and developing the F-35C Lightning-2.However,with sequestration taking effect,the service does not have enough money to afford both and must make a very tough decision.So which of these aircraft should the Navy buy?"

The "conclusion" in my earlier post ,that the USN should instead buy the F-35A instead of the F-35C is that of the author's and not mine.

However,the problems that the US is experiencing with the JSF is a timely reminder to us as we embark upon our very own JV with Russia for the FGFA.It is why we must carefully examine how the US is faring with its very ambitious JSF programmeis to avoid the pitfalls it is experiencing.It is also why many nations who want a stealth bird as their future fighter like SoKo,Japan,etc.,are also considering less ambitious designs after seeing the huge difficulties that the US is experiencing.This is why I've advocated a further variant,a MK-3 of the LCA with some stealth input,so that we "can walk before we run" when it comes to designing an AMCA.
Stealth birds are certainly going to be with us cometh 2020+,but their numbers may be far smaller than earlier envisaged and will have to be complemented with lesser capable 4++ fighters like,as recommended by the author, the SH on steroids.

[Christopher Sidor]

Philip my refute was towards what the author had said not towards you. If my post gave that impression then I am sorry, I did not have that intention at all.

One requires numbers, that is why F-35B and F-35C are sooo important for USN and the US Marines. That is why the ability to take off from Flat-tops is so crucial. PLAAF and PLAN will play the numbers game. USAF and USN will not be able to. Not because of the machine in question but because of the human in the middle. The entire defense of Western Pacific is dependent on these fighters. and 60% of USN strength is going to be in the pacific for the foreseeable future.

What we have not realized is that similar will be the case of IN. If tomorrow our navy is unable to go to western pacific we would have lost the 2nd Sino-Indo war without firing a shot. And there Mig-29K will not simply do. It might be good against PN and PAF but not against PLAAF and PLAN.

The USAF is happy with its F-22 because if push came to shove they have what is required to protect USA.

[Philip]

Chris,no problem at all! I understand your point well.Tx. for your viewpoints.I appreciate the input.Our goal is to develop and produce aircraft for our needs at affordable cost.We must learn from the mistakes of others.

[NRao]

Philip,

There are multiple issues. But, here is what I would suggest and request of you. Please be an unbiased messenger, post artciles/reports/etc, provide URLs (I have not seen URLs). There is an anti-F-35 brigade, so is there a pro-F-35 group and neutral groups. We can learn from all.

That the F-35 program is badly goofed up is a given, there is nothing to convince anyone about that. LM is on record saying it is at a pivotal stage and there are plenty with the administration that seek cancellation of the program.

The question is can it be pulled out. can LM and others (as an example, the helmet is not a LM issue - Elbit/Raytheon issue - and as far as I know one problem remains, rest are solved) (so too WRT sea water impact on the F-35C - I cannot find any reference so far, but will look further). For pretty much every point you have posted as a negative I seem to have found that it no longer is - they WERE.

Think about it, the most challenging plane of these three, the F-35B, is expected to get the IOC first. For a badly f**ked up program that is a big deal. There are take aways from that too - which never make it into your post.

I am not interested in the F-35 - technologies perhaps, but not the plane itself. (Yes, I think they will pull it off.)

---------

OK, you still owe me the stuff on the F-18 (composites, etc). Unless that is your suggestion (which is perfectly fine), I just do not see Boeing investing that kind of funds. But, may be I am wrong.

[Victor]

Comrade Stalin he say "quantity has own quality". (And this is just the pre-IOC line).

[Philip]

NR, fair enough.Wherever there are links,I will include them.However,some info is unavailable on the net,and is gleaned from a variety of def. mags,etc..Trust me nothing is invented!

Vic,yes,there is a production line and aircraft are indeed rolling off the line.Several pre-production aircraft have to be handed over to various users so that they can familiairise themselves with training and maintenance a few years before induction.The USMC is likely to be commissioning the aircraft in 5 years time.The aim is to be able to build 40-50 aircraft per year.50/yr was the original intention,but it has been revised to 40 due to the reduced orders,US and foreign.

Here are details of the F-18 alternative to the F-35.
http://defensetech.org/2013/04/08/upgra ... -to-f-35c/

Upgraded F/A-18 to begin test flights; offer Navy alternative to F-35C

by Brendan McGarry on April 8, 2013

Boeing Co. as early as this summer will fly for the first time an upgraded version of the F/A-18 Super Hornet that it’s pitching to the U.S. Navy as an alternative to the Lockheed Martin Corp.-made F-35, a Boeing vice president said.

A Super Hornet outfitted with a weapons pod on its belly, an avionics system in the cockpit featuring a touch-screen pad, and other modifications will begin test flights in late summer or early fall from St. Louis and then from Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Md., according to Mike Gibbons, vice president of F/A-18 programs at Chicago-based Boeing.

The improvements, to include new engines made by General Electric Co., are part of a company investment designed to provide the service with an alternative to the F-35 Lightning II during a period of tightening defense budgets, Gibbons said today at the Sea-Air-Space exhibition, a three-day conference at National Harbor, Maryland, organized by the Navy League.

“We’re not trying to replace the F-35,” he said in an interview after a media briefing. “We’re just trying to give the Navy solutions as they look at that fleet mix and figure out what works best.”

The F-35 program, known as the Joint Strike Fighter, is the Defense Department’s most expensive acquisition effort, estimated to cost almost $400 billion for a total of 2,443 aircraft. The Navy plans to buy about 260 of the Navy variant of the plane known as F-35C, designed to take off from and land on aircraft carriers.

Even the Navy’s top officer has questioned the need for a stealth naval aircraft such as the F-35 given advances in radar technology. In an editorial last year in “Proceedings,” a monthly magazine published by the U.S. Naval Institute, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, argued that “we need to move from ‘luxury-car’ platforms — with their built-in capabilities — toward dependable ‘trucks’ that can handle a changing payload selection.”

During a speech this morning, Greenert defended the F-35. “I need the fifth-generation strike fighter,” he said. “We’re all in, but it has to perform.”

Regardless, Boeing wants the F/A-18 to be that cheaper workhorse for the Navy.

“Everybody needs defense dollars to stretch further,” Gibbons said. “That’s why the Super Hornet looks good right now.”

The Defense Department faces $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade under deficit-reduction legislation passed in 2011. Half of that, about $500 billion, will come from automatic, across-the-board cuts — unless Congress and the White House agree to an alternative spending plan.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2013/04/08/upgra ... z2cWf690zD
Defense.org

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2013/04/08/upgra ... z2cWey1XoB
Defense.org

[Victor]

it has been revised to 40 due to the reduced orders,US and foreign.

Hill of beans comes to mind. The JSF will still appear in the THOUSANDS versus merely the hundreds, if that, of any other type of aircraft.

Here are details of the F-18 alternative to the F-35.

Boeing would not be doing their job if they didn't try to explore every single avenue to juice their SH. Who knows, the Navy and Marines may even get a few strictly as a stopgap measure. But the SH in any avatar cannot be an "F-35 alternative".

I posted that photo for a reason. America is determined to hammer thru the JSF and it will happen.

[NRao]

This is a classic post of misinformation/bias/whatever-u-want-to-call-it:

NR, fair enough.Wherever there are links,I will include them.However,some info is unavailable on the net,and is gleaned from a variety of def. mags,etc..Trust me nothing is invented!

I said "biased", NOT invented. And, you current post is proof enough. And, I suggested that you correct it - simple.

Vic,yes,there is a production line and aircraft are indeed rolling off the line.Several pre-production aircraft have to be handed over to various users so that they can familiairise themselves with training and maintenance a few years before induction.The USMC is likely to be commissioning the aircraft in 5 years time.The aim is to be able to build 40-50 aircraft per year.50/yr was the original intention,but it has been revised to 40 due to the reduced orders,US and foreign.

Where did you get "5 years" from? All reports indicate IOC in mid 2015 and some EXPECT induction right after that. Granted this will be LRIP 7, so we should expect a few more rounds of upgrades, yet it would be "commissioning" around 2015. Do you have better figures or is it your own view?

No, the aim is to build - by 2020 - MORE THAN 100 a year. Source (above) is LM itself. (Now you are free to question this number and laugh at it, but that is the number.) (BTW, the cost per plane, estimated at $85 Million, ASSUMES a production run of MORE THAN 100 planes per year.)

Here are details of the F-18 alternative to the F-35.
http://defensetech.org/2013/04/08/upgra ... -to-f-35c/

Upgraded F/A-18 to begin test flights; offer Navy alternative to F-35C

No where does it make ANY reference to a composite structure - which you posted in an earlier post. I am seriously looking for a redesigned composite based F-18. Is there one proposed?

by Brendan McGarry on April 8, 2013

Boeing Co. as early as this summer will fly for the first time an upgraded version of the F/A-18 Super Hornet that it’s pitching to the U.S. Navy as an alternative to the Lockheed Martin Corp.-made F-35, a Boeing vice president said.

A Super Hornet outfitted with a weapons pod on its belly, an avionics system in the cockpit featuring a touch-screen pad, and other modifications will begin test flights in late summer or early fall from St. Louis and then from Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Md., according to Mike Gibbons, vice president of F/A-18 programs at Chicago-based Boeing.

The improvements, to include new engines made by General Electric Co., are part of a company investment designed to provide the service with an alternative to the F-35 Lightning II during a period of tightening defense budgets, Gibbons said today at the Sea-Air-Space exhibition, a three-day conference at National Harbor, Maryland, organized by the Navy League.

“We’re not trying to replace the F-35,” he said in an interview after a media briefing. “We’re just trying to give the Navy solutions as they look at that fleet mix and figure out what works best.”

The F-35 program, known as the Joint Strike Fighter, is the Defense Department’s most expensive acquisition effort, estimated to cost almost $400 billion for a total of 2,443 aircraft. The Navy plans to buy about 260 of the Navy variant of the plane known as F-35C, designed to take off from and land on aircraft carriers.

Even the Navy’s top officer has questioned the need for a stealth naval aircraft such as the F-35 given advances in radar technology. In an editorial last year in “Proceedings,” a monthly magazine published by the U.S. Naval Institute, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, argued that “we need to move from ‘luxury-car’ platforms — with their built-in capabilities — toward dependable ‘trucks’ that can handle a changing payload selection.”

During a speech this morning, Greenert defended the F-35. “I need the fifth-generation strike fighter,” he said. “We’re all in, but it has to perform.”

Regardless, Boeing wants the F/A-18 to be that cheaper workhorse for the Navy.

“Everybody needs defense dollars to stretch further,” Gibbons said. “That’s why the Super Hornet looks good right now.”

The Defense Department faces $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade under deficit-reduction legislation passed in 2011. Half of that, about $500 billion, will come from automatic, across-the-board cuts — unless Congress and the White House agree to an alternative spending plan.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2013/04/08/upgra ... z2cWf690zD
Defense.org

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2013/04/08/upgra ... z2cWey1XoB
Defense.org

1) You seem to have the same article mentioned multiple times. Any reason why?
2) Here is what I term biased posting; You have bolded a section that "questions", but never took the time to highlight - the very next sentence - where the same person supports the very same project - assuming it performs.
3) Is there a question - today - that the F-35 will NOT perform? (NOT asking if such performance will be expensive - different thread.)

Philip,

I expect you to highlight the bad and the good. And the neutral.

You have NOT invented anything here. You have just highlighted only stuff that supports your view. Which is what I all biased.

In a way I need to thank you - I had never followed either the F-22 or the F-35 and now I am learning more about these wonderful technologies. Plenty to take away for India if need be. On the FGFA (NOT Pak-FA) I just do not think the two (F-35 and FGFA) overlap much.

[Philip]

NR,if you've followed earlier posts,the revised production rate has been mentioned.AWST also had a graph of the numbers of JSFs on order,much reduced,which I gave details of.If you imagine that the skies are going to be full of "thousands" of JSFs in the future,F-16 or F-18 numbers,like crows in the park,dream on. Barring the US,the numbers are going to be in a few dozens in the inventories of allies 500-600 at the most.

Now here are the facts,which you keep on nitpicking disputing for the sake of argument,refusing to read the print:

AWST stats June 17/13.
Total est. numbers of F-35s for allies will be 650+,US numbers 2,300 (This is roughly a fig. of "a total of 3000 aircraft down by about 1500-2000 earlier estimated").Actual orders give a different story though.54 from allies,and 90 from the US.I do not doubt however that the US will buy most of the estimated number,unless the USN as posted above,plumps for the "Advanced F-18SH" instead.The allies as reports says,some may find the cost unaffordable.

AWSTJune24/2013.

"Decision Time".

(How the USN will be able to make the transition from the SH and Growlers to the JSF while retaining the resources needed for carrier-launched reconnaissance-strike UAVs)

The navy has not elected to declare IOC with Block3i software and will wait for Block3F,which is acknowledged to have a higher schedule risk.It plans to buy a minimum of of F-35B/Cs through 2015 (the 2017 delivery year),then increase it to 18 airframes in 2016 and 28 in 2017,attaining its sustained rate of 40 aircraft in 2018.

A comparison of the F-35C and the "Advanced Super Hornet" as proposed by Boeing and GE ,shows that the aircraft are similar in many ways.The F-35s advantages are a higher degree of stealth,and the ability to carry 2X 2000lb bombs,instead of one in "stealth mode",but Boeing contends that its design is survivable,with reduced radar signature and electronic combat systems,while being less costly to acquire than the F-35C.

There is also a table comparing the stats of the two aircraft.

In the July 1st AWST issue,the Pentagon TEST chief ,Michael Gilmore,warns against slippage,while briefing the Senate's Defence appropriations committee.
"Radar and el-op system snags have delayed weapons integration,consuming all the margin built into weapons testing.Buffet and transonic wing-drop continue to be a concern to achieving operationaL combat capability'.

The "buffet and transonic roll-off" problem fixing has "reached a limit on what can be done with control laws..further changes would degrade manouvreability or overload the structure"

I've posted earlier the statements of the Pentagon test Chief on the programme's status,its continuing problems affecting its development schedule and rising costs,CNO of the USN Adm.Greenert who questioned the touted value of stealth in the USNI Proceedings.From your posts,you give the impression that you are better informed than these two gentlemen.I have highlighted the key points in the various articles and reports for the sake of less informed members than yourself.There is a wider audience on BR who can distinguish wishful thinking from hard reality!

PS:Just a few more quotes from AWST reports:

June 3/2013,opening para:

"The latest F-35 cost report shows that after years of study,the Pentagon is seemingly no closer to clarifying the expense of operating and sustaining the stealthy new F-35 fighter or reducing its staggering $1 trillion 50 yr. life cycle cost"

"SAR numbers do not however quell concerns that the F-35 may be unaffordable for some customers"

I also posted the latest estimated costs ,AWST 5/12 Aug 2013,F-35A...$124M,F-35B...$156M,F-35C...$144M,which are for an aircraft still under development which has to overcome the problems a few of which have been mentioned above!

In the same issue details are there about the UK's acquisition,not more than 48,with only a "land-based operating capability by 2018".

AWST July 15/2013.
On costs of retrofits,"only about 35% of flight tests are complete and LM has much to do with flight testing the structural durability of each of the variants over multiple lifetimes of use".

"The USMC is having to wait years longer and pay billions of dollars more than planned to introduce (IOC) the stealthy F-35B into service,a milestone now planned for Dec.2015".No date fixed for FOC.

The 16 aircraft which will be available by 2017,will be transferred to Japan in "late summer 2017".The USMC will be the first operator of the JSF.

[NRao]

F-35C tail hook issue:

http://in.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416275188&e=true . page 33

Finally, Kendall will review the status of work to correct a poorly designed tailhook for the F-35C. The point of the hook, coupled with its distance from the landing gear, made it susceptible to bounce and prevented it from scooping under the arrwesting wire.

Qualification testing for the new design began Aug. 8, and roll-in tests are slated for the first F-35C to receive the hook in December at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, N.J. Flight tests with the new hook are slated for early next year as preparations for the initial sea trials for the F-35C are completed late next summer, Siebert says. Aircraft built in the LRIP 7 will be the first to include the new arresting hook

[NRao]

if you've followed earlier posts,the revised production rate has been mentioned.AWST also had a graph of the numbers of JSFs on order,much reduced,which I gave details of.If you imagine that the skies are going to be full of "thousands" of JSFs in the future,like crows in the park,dream on. Barring the US,the numbers are going to be in a few dozens in the inventories of allies or at the most in the low hundreds.

Wiki has the following:


Customer Variant Numbers

USAF A 1763
USN C 260
USMC B 340
USMC C 80
UK B 138
Turkey A 100
Australia A 100
Italy A 60
Italy B 30
Netherlands A 85
Canada A 65
Norway A 52
Japan A 42
Denmark A 39
Israel A 19

That works out to 3173 planes. Of which 2443 are from the US alone.

That works to 730 for partners. That is close enough to the 500-600 you estimated. Not bad, especially when we consider that politics will influence most of the decisions.

I do recall some noise from Canada and potential reductions from the US itself. But not more than that. But, for the time being these numbers stick UNLESS you can show more recent updates. (In which case we can update wiki too.)

(And, as an extension, IF most of these orders go through, ONLY then will LM be able to achieve 100+ planes per year. Yes, more than 100 a year. We can easily compute who gets what in which year - that is not an issue. Also, they all have signed up for delivery at a certain time/date - so that too should not be an issue.)

[NRao]

AWSTJune24/2013.

"Decision Time".

(How the USN will be able to make the transition from the SH and Growlers to the JSF while retaining the resources needed for carrier-launched reconnaissance-strike UAVs)

The navy has not elected to declare IOC with Block3i software and will wait for Block3F,which is acknowledged to have a higher schedule risk.It plans to buy a minimum of of F-35B/Cs through 2015 (the 2017 delivery year),then increase it to 18 airframes in 2016 and 28 in 2017,attaining its sustained rate of 40 aircraft in 2018.

A comparison of the F-35C and the "Advanced Super Hornet" as proposed by Boeing and GE ,shows that the aircraft are similar in many ways.The F-35s advantages are a higher degree of stealth,and the ability to carry 2X 2000lb bombs,instead of one in "stealth mode",but boeing contends that its design is survivable,with reduced radar signature and electronic combat systems,while being less costly to acquire than the F-35C.

There is also a table comparing the stats of the two aircraft.

In the July 1st AWST issue,the Pentagon TEST chief ,Michael Gilmore,warns against slippage,while briefing the Senate's Defence appropriations committee.
"Radar and el-op system snags have delayed weapons integration,consuming all the margin built into weapons testing.Buffet and transonic wing-drop continue to be a concern to achieving operationaL combat capability'.

The "buffet and transonic roll-off" problem fixing has "reached a limit on what can be done with control laws..further changes would degrade manouvreability or overload the structure"

I've posted earlier the statements of the Pentagon test Chief on the programme's status,its continuing problems affecting its development schedule and rising costs,CNO of the USN Adm.Greenert who questioned the touted value of stealth in the USNI Proceedings.From your posts,you give the impression that you are better informed than these two gentlemen.I have highlighted the key points in the various article and reports for the sake of less informed members than yourself.There is a wider audience on BR who can distinguish wishful thinking from hard reality!

I have to nitpick when the news is not the latest. That is what it is all about. Check out the tail hook status, as an example. What you claim you "post" many a times is a biased post.

Thanks for posting URLS and quotes. That is progress. BUT, I hope they are the latest. Will get to that - nitpicking for sure. It is what it is. Like I have stated I have no interest in this plane per se. I have NO interest in the FGFA either and I do NOT believe that the FGFA is a "JV". So, there you go.

[Philip]

Tailhook testing is going to begin only in 2014,and that does not assure success.Even if found successful within a year,it has added to the delays, plus will involve redesign and the usual cost escalation.

I shall post the latest info when it appears in the def. media.It is truly illuminating for us watching this turkey struggle to take wing,as we are in a JV ( HAL running away from a major share,"30%", of its 50% development indicates its inability to deliver the goods,yes its reduced the JV content no doubt) with Russia for an ambitious FGFA,and especially for those who have wet dreams of developing our own stealth fighter all by ourselves,who can't even deliver on a basic trainer or IJT and are struggling to succeed with the LCA Mk-1!

[NRao]

At the cost of nitpicking further, here is the AWST article from June 24, 2013, regarding the Advanced F-18. (THIS is what YOU should have done.)

Decision Time

There is nothing there, including the Advanced F-18, that is of concern from a F-35C PoV.

The cost of a F-35C, for the record, is estimated at $115 million and that for the Advanced Super Hornet (ASH) at $88-92 million.

I just do not see the USN opting for the ASH. I expect them to upgrade the current Super Hornets.

One of the things that popped out to me - as usual - is the advancement of the technology and the cross pollination.

I would be inclined to consider the F-35 (in general) on the Talisman side of the fence. Certainly not a turkey - not even close. At this point in time (need to hedge).

[NRao]

Tailhook testing is going to begin only in 2014,and that does not assure success.Even if found successful within a year,it has added to the delays, plus will involve redesign and the usual cost escalation.

Yes, that is what I posted from the AWST article above. (So, what is there to report in bold?)

Anything can fail. Russians have failed to deliver a proper engine for the PAK-FA so far.

BUT, it happens to the best Americans, British and Russians and Chinese.

You seem to almost hope or expect the tail hook test to fail.

I shall post the latest info when it appears in the def. media.It is truly illuminating for us watching this turkey struggle to take wing,as we are in a JV ( HAL running away from a major share,"30%", of its 50% development indicates its inability to deliver the goods,yes its reduced the JV content no doubt) with Russia for an ambitious FGFA,and especially for those who have wet dreams of developing our own stealth fighter all by ourselves,who can't even deliver on a basic trainer or IJT and are struggling to succeed with the LCA Mk-1!

OT for this thread,

but not surprised that you have brought it up. HAL is giving up 30% share because the FGFA project has gone from a full blown Design/Development/Testing to a plain System Integration. Which is why the cost is also being reevaluated. I would not be surprised if the GoI goes not further with the FGFA in its present form. Great plane for the IAF, a disaster in waiting for learning as much as India could have had the two seater been opted for. Simple.

The problem is you think It to be a "JV", which it is not. The air frame is Russian, the engine is Russian, the radar is Russian. Only thing non-Russian seems to be some computers and perhaps a few other gizmos. That is what is the Su-30MKI.

Unless you can provide (again) some substantial details it is not going to happen.

I for one back HAL on this matter (assuming what I said is true).

It is truly illuminating for us watching this turkey struggle to take wing

Do you mean the F-35C? IF so, on the previous page I have posted that it is flying - the entire article with a picture.

[NRao]

UK may reduce order from 138 to 48. BUT, NOT because of dissatisfaction with the F-35 program.

May, 2013 :: Philip Hammond Unsure About F-35 Order

[Philip]

"Take wing",get fully developed and enter service,otherwise it will remain a "tech demonstrator".I hope the tailhook tests succeed because the US needs a capable stealth fighter to combat primarily the PRC which is building up large numbers of 4++ fighters and will field its own stealth fighter in the future. It now has an alternative in case the F-35 is delayed further and is too expensive to acquire in large number,with the "Advanced F-18SH". Any US "retreat",or cowing down to the PRC in the Pacific could have dramatic effects in our region,where the PRC will be emboldened to very aggressively impose a Sino-diktat for the IOR region.

UK acquisitions.Remember the old campus joke?

"I have a new car!"

"What brand?"

"Ford"

"What model?"

"Can't Af-Ford!"

[NRao]

Need to rename this thread "F-35 Turkey, FGFA Talisman".

Read that article about the choices the UK has. Nothing to be ashamed about - it is what technologies will do to you. And finances. And politics.

[NRao]

Aug 2, 2013 :: Pentagon downplays prospects of cancelling F-35, bomber

Ouch. The Turkey lives to fly another day!!

The U.S. military on Thursday downplayed concerns it could cancel the F-35 fighter and a new stealth bomber, after leaked documents from a budget review suggested the programs might be eliminated as one way to deal with deep budget cuts.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Wednesday that finding $500 billion (330 billion pounds) in budget cuts required by law over the next decade, on top of $487 billion in cuts already being implemented, required tough trade-offs between the size of the military and high-end weapons programs.

Pentagon briefing slides shown to various groups mapped out those tradeoffs in stark terms, indicating that a decision to maintain a larger military could result in the cancellation of the $392 billion Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 program and a new stealthy, long-range bomber, according to several people who saw the slides.

Defense officials later stressed there were no plans to kill either program, noting that dismantling the F-35 program in particular would have far-reaching consequences for the U.S. military services and 10 foreign countries involved in the program, which is already in production.

"We have gone to great lengths to stress that this review identified, through a rigorous process of strategic modelling, possible decisions we might face, under scenarios we may or may not face in the future," Pentagon Spokesman George Little told Reuters in an email when asked about the slides.

"Any suggestion that we're now moving away from key modernization programs as a result of yesterday's discussion of the outcomes of the review would be incorrect," he said.

Analysts said Hagel and other Pentagon officials appeared to be leaning toward the option that would emphasize high-end weapons programs over force size.

Mackenzie Eaglen, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said suggestions that the F-35 program "was being targeted was either an oversight or a scare tactic, but it wasn't a serious proposition that the entire program would be cancelled under any circumstances."

She said failure by Congress to reverse deep budget cuts could result in the F-35 program being slowed or scaled back, but outright cancellation was unlikely given the huge investment already made in the new warplane, which is designed to replace over a dozen planes in use around the world.

One defense official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said the budget document had sketched out a worst-case scenario that was highly unlikely to occur.

"Cancelling the program would be detrimental to our national defense," said the official, noting that the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps needed to replace aging fleets of fighter planes that were increasingly expensive to maintain.

Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, cited estimates that it would cost four times the amount needed to buy new F-35s to keep the current force flying. And cutting the planned bomber would generate very little savings since the program - which could eventually cost around $30 billion - is in the early stages at this point, he said.

"You have to view these options as analytical excursions rather than serious proposals because they're not consistent with what the administration has said it wants to do," he said.

Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall and top U.S. military officials have repeatedly underscored their commitment to the F-35 program in recent months.

On Thursday, Admiral James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a House Armed Services Committee that early work to develop a new long-range bomber was on track, and the new bomber would be a vital part of the U.S. nuclear deterrent and potential future warfare concepts.

But he said deepening budget cuts under the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 could threaten the ambitious schedule for the new bomber, which Air Force officials want to field by 2025 -- and potentially the whole program.

"It could impact that program in terms of timing," Winnefeld told lawmakers. "It also would depend a little bit on whether you emphasized capacity or capability in terms of how many you might buy or - or whether you would do the program."

Details are classified, but industry officials and analysts said Lockheed, Northrop Grumman Corp, and Boeing Co have been awarded small-scale study contracts to start working on possible bomber designs, with a formal acquisition process to begin in coming years.

The Air Force requested $400 million in its fiscal 2014 budget request for what it is trying to keep an affordable program. It plans to spend up to $550 million each to buy 80 to 100 new bombers in coming years, with an eye to fielding them in the mid-2020s, said spokesman Ed Gulick.

Jim Thomas, vice president at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the two options of a smaller military or sharp cutback in weapons programs represented a false dichotomy.

"This is almost one reasonably attractive option and a straw man that looks pretty unattractive," he said. "I don't think we're going to end up at either of these corners on the map. I think that you're going to get a hybrid solution."