JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 27 Aug 2013 00:13

Is sunk cost, DoD negotiated pricing through FMS - all this official nomenclature? Any details here would be great.

How does all these cost and price negotiations reflect on financial discipline. It is like subsidy/concession kind of mechanism - for allies/customers and defense is highly subjective and ad-hoc. but what does say about future if US wants to redo/re-whatever as per any evolving politics kind of situation.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Aug 2013 00:20

vishvak wrote:Is sunk cost, DoD negotiated pricing through FMS - all this official nomenclature? Any details here would be great.

How does all these cost and price negotiations reflect on financial discipline. It is like subsidy/concession kind of mechanism - for allies/customers and defense is highly subjective and ad-hoc. but what does say about future if US wants to redo/re-whatever as per any evolving politics kind of situation.

I have found google to be of great help, especially if you use the search tool -> anytime -> custom range (you get a info based on a time-line).

Since all negotiations have been held with the Pentagon everything is out there to be read. And, then there are those that support the product and those that are opposed to it (watch the video I posted above).

It is not easy, over the internet especially, to discuss such broad ranging topics (like ad-hoc/subjective/etc).

FMS deals with the purchase of a product, I do not think it deals with the support beyond what is purchased with the product (like spares). So, yes, things are subject to political whims and fancies, but that is true for any nation, just that with some it is more and some it is lesser. You need to come up with your own conclusions.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 27 Aug 2013 01:40

It all depends. Lets take two examples at the extreme ends of American foreign policy, Saudia Arabia and Pakistan.

Saudia Arabia is a cash basis client. Everything is deluxe treatment for them except for the occasional congress critter mouthing off about selling stuff to Israel's enemy. They are definitely on the honey wagon and they definitely pay for it. They not only get the latest and greatest but they hire the American civilian contractors to come and work on their equipment. It's all sweetness with the elites of American politics (for instance the Bush family among others) humbly kissing the king's ring. Money works wonders. The Saudis don't drive a hard bargin either.

Then there is Pakistan. Dead broke. But we need them to do anything in central Asia and we still have to extricate our troops and equipment next year. We have a product line of F-16's that are for us, obsolete. So we loan the Pakistani's the money and then the Pakistani's go through a charade of how much they want to pay. It's all a pimp show. We strike a bargin and it usually includes some older equipment and earlier models and then they start crying about accessories. It don't look good unless you accessorize. You dig? That where's they got the sniper pods, I would hazard to guess. They don't wanna just drop dumb bombs. But they have us over a barrel. We can't ignore them. And as long as any Americans remain in Pakistan and my guess is there will be 5000 to 10,000 mostly spooks and rambos Pakistan will play this game. So Pakistan got their F-16's and accessories. With American loan money. And the F-16 production line in Fort Worth/Dallas is still running. And the Pakis got it cheeeeap.

There are a number of original countries that signed on with the original agreement to develop the F-35, Britain the most notable. They participated in the design fly off between Boeing and LM. They paid money for this process so they are plank owners so to speak. I don't know what kind of price they are going to get because they've got some sunk costs involved. Then there is future foreign sales. They don't have any sunk costs but they may or may not be important to American foreign policy and therefore financing. Pakistan won't get to the F-35 untill the product is basically obsolete. Then there is India who has already swung deals for C-17's, a mainstay of the US arforce and P-8's which wich will be one o the mainstay's of the US Navy. What kind of price and financing did India pay for these very important products? I can assure you there was some serious negotiating going on. You guys ain't rich like Saudia Arabis but you ain't broke like Pakistan either.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 Aug 2013 06:15

For those interested in "testing", this is a great intro, great nuggests:

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 27 Aug 2013 13:34

You guys ain't rich like Saudia Arabis but you ain't broke like Pakistan either.[/quote]

Rich like Saudi? We on any give day have a much bigger defence budget than the Saudis. Unkil severely lost out the MRCA, if not over 20 billion + C-17s, P-8s, Multirole Helos, C-130Js, Chinooks and Apaches deals are worth well around 50 billion in total. Unkil will still win quite a few deals with India. Just has to play the cards right.

However, I do firmly believe IAF should limit orders of Rafale to 100 or even cancel it and order around 250-300 F-35 in different versions with local grand assembly in India with a decent amount of TOT & local customization.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 27 Aug 2013 14:05

The most important aspects are therefore primarily US foreign policy, local industry and what can't be ignored - accessories etc for whoever plays games. Costing/calculations etc details are secondary. This is how it is, even in face of outright nuke blackmail by pakis - remember pakis and Americans are allies in war on terror - and terror networks.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 27 Aug 2013 22:06

This is off topic but this year there have been several mysterious bomb/missile attacks on the Taliban in Pakistan that the US has flatly denied taking any part of. The Taliban blamed drone strikes. I am beginning to suspect it was a Paki F-16 sniper pod at work. It can release at a target from many miles away. You just can't see or hear the darn things until it is too late. I saw a video of a F-16 sniper pod at work bombing a jehadi terrorist hideout. It was Zwahari, the dude who was cutting off American hostages heads in Iraq and releasing the videos. It must of been a 1000 lb 'er because I've seen some explosions on the test range at Yuma, Az in the 500lb range and it wasn't near as impressive as the one that killed Zwahari. I've helped load many 500 lb 'ers on A-4s but I never got to see the effects of them on targets until the one time in Yuma. I treated the bombs much more respectfully after that. I really think if you are going to load 'em up and cock the trigger, then you really need to see what can happen when the weapon is used. It really gives you a whole new perspective. Just sayin'...... Back to your regular channel of discussions......

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Aug 2013 01:53

Someone is a Cowboy fan.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Aug 2013 00:18

Aug 27, 2013 :: Joint Strike Fighter Gets the Nerd Test

Naval Academy graduate Bill Gigliotti knows the stereotypes people conjure up when he tells them he's a test pilot.

"A guy with a flight suit," said Gigliotti, who also graduated from the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School, known as Topgun. "Throw a scarf around our necks, it's all glamorous and sexy. But that's a very small part of what our job is."

The heroic image of American test pilots goes as far back as 1938, when Clark Gable flew a fictitious experimental flight on an aircraft known as a B-17 bomber. Other films, such as Tom Cruise's "Top Gun," added "reckless" and "cocky" to the descriptions.

But Gigliotti and other pilots who are instrumental in developing the nation's next-generation warfighter _ Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II _ are nothing like "Iceman" and "Maverick."

Instead, they are an unusual combination of nerdy engineer and brave trailblazer.

"We have a drive and sense of exploring the unknown and helping to be a part of a bigger thing, in making things better from that engineering standpoint," said Alan Norman, the F-35's chief test pilot at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in Fort Worth.

Norman holds two engineering degrees, one of them a doctorate in electrical engineering.

For much of the past decade, the F-35's development has been plagued by technical setbacks and cost overruns. Test pilots have been at the forefront of fixing problems in the program, which Pentagon leaders recently said is back on track.

Engineering knowledge is key for test pilots, who must understand the intricate layers of wires and systems that control the aircraft before they can troubleshoot.

The pilots push the capabilities of the combat plane to the max, then provide information to design engineers and production employees so they can make improvements.

"The test pilot is the one who bridges the gap between the people who design the plane and the people who fly the plane,'' said Gigliotti, who is also based in Fort Worth.

When the F-35 program was launched more than a decade ago, the Pentagon had ambitious goals and a vision to replace existing fighters with fifth-generation combat planes.

The charge was to build three versions of the F-35 at once. One version, with Marine missions in mind, was required to execute a short takeoff and a vertical landing. A lighter version with an internal cannon would be used by the Air Force. The third version, for the Navy, would be modified for carrier landings.

It was also decided that the plane be tested and produced at the same time, a methodology called "concurrency."

But simultaneously building and testing three versions of the same aircraft proved to be much more complicated than expected.

In 2010, the Pentagon reset up the program's cost projections and shifted the financial risk to Lockheed. Today, the three test pilots interviewed by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram said, the jet is performing more consistently.

"When the airplane has a problem ... it behaves as predicted and comes back safely,'' said Marine Lt. Col. Ty "O.D." Bachmann, who mentors future F-35 pilots and test-flies the plane at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. "It's really good news."

Meanwhile, other fighter jet issues _ such as problems with the oxygen system in Lockheed's F-22 Raptor _ haven't been reported on the F-35, Bachmann said.

"The Marine Corps is confident and poised to push the F-35 to the next generation battle space,'' he said. "I think that's really important (to say) at a time when dollars are kind of slim."

(EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM)

Norman, 54, is the senior pilot among the three interviewed for this report. He was an operational pilot for the U.S. Air Force in Korea and Germany during the Cold War in the 1980s.

Gigliotti flew in the first Gulf War in 1991 and is the chief air show pilot for the F-16.

Bachmann, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, is the most likely of the three to end up in a dogfight while piloting an F-35.

Norman and Gigliotti are retired military and work for Lockheed, but Bachman is an active Marine. And the Marine Corps is expected to lead the deployment of the F-35 in 2015.

(END OPTIONAL TRIM)

The pilots say the F-35 will be ready for battle and its pilots will be well-trained. "It's probably the easiest aircraft ever flown,'' Gigliotti said.

Unlike its predecessors, the F-35 is equipped with battlefield data, via integrated sensors and fused missions systems, that can predict an enemy's next move, the pilots said.

The aircraft's sensors amplify the user's "situation awareness,'' a military theory that dates back to Sun Tzu's "The Art of War."

"SA" is also described as the "ace factor" _ an observation skill that enables a pilot to anticipate an enemy's next move a fraction of a second before the enemy can observe or anticipate the pilot's own move.

"To the pilot, it's intuitive," Norman said. "It's a visual environment ... and the pilot gets all the information they need."

The F-35's pilot wears a special helmet that displays flight data.

"We don't have to look down at a dashboard anymore,'' Bachmann said. "That information is represented on the heads-up display that we have. ... We can see the information in front of us, and we can see it at night and night looks like day.

"We have cameras and sensors around the plane that can see."

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Aug 2013 17:33

Aug 28, 2013 :: F-35 Lightnings now flying over Pensacola

The military’s next-generation fighter jet has started flying over Pensacola Naval Air Station, although not yet landing there.

A base spokesman said Wednesday that Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightnings stationed at Eglin Air Force Base are flying “low approaches” over Pensacola NAS three to five times a week as a part of pilot training.

Training at the Naval base allows the F-35 pilots, some of whom are Navy and Marine Corps aviators destined to fly the $70-million apiece jets on aircraft carrier deployments, over water on approach and simulated takeoffs in which the planes’ wheels never touch the tarmac at Sherman Field.

Patrick Nichols, a base spokesman, said he hadn’t been informed about the F-35’s role at PNAS when the News Journal inquired on Wednesday. After checking into the newspaper’s query, Nichols said he confirmed that the jets are practicing at the base.

“We welcome the F-35. We’re fortunate to have them here and be part of their training,” he said.

Nichols said there aren’t any plans to station F-35s in Pensacola. But he said one possible advantage of the simulated takeoffs and landings at PNAS is the experience of flying the plane low over water—specifically Pensacola Bay and the Gulf of Mexico—and environment unavailable at Eglin.

The Eglin segment of the F-35's implementation, which began in March 2012, consists of training pilots to fly the jet and mechanics to fix it.

Eglin is the global center for all F-35 training; the military and civilian contingent working with the stealthy single-engine Lockheed-Martin aircraft is scheduled to grow to 1,600 by 2015 and remain at the level.

The Pentagon’s announced plans are to have the F-35 eventually replace the Boeing F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet on carriers. The Air Force also plans to make the jet its most widely used fighter in the future.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Aug 2013 17:35

Aug 26, 2013 :: South Korean Fighter Order: AF Backs F-35

Boeing's F-15SE Silent Eagle has been selected as the only qualified bidder in South Korea's F-X Phase 3 competition for 60 fighters—but the country's air force is lobbying to overturn the decision in favor of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

A win in South Korea would extend the F-15 production line into the next decade and launch an improved version that could compete for future fighter requirements in the 2020s. That outcome seems likely following the decision of the South Korean purchasing authority, the Defense Acquisition Program Agency (DAPA), to eliminate first the F-35 as too costly and then the Eurofighter Typhoon for a bidding irregularity—although EADS, representing the consortium in the South Korean deal, disputes DAPA's decision.

A cross-government committee chaired by Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin will meet next month to rule on DAPA's decision. The review group will include air force officers, a member of the parliament's defense committee, an official from the finance ministry and the heads of DAPA and the Agency for Defense Development, which wants to lead indigenous industry in the development of its own stealthy fighter, the KF-X (AW&ST April 29, p. 46).

The finance ministry may back DAPA's fiscally conservative choice, but the air force has already shown its colors in fighting for the F-35.

“Some in the air force complain that the F-X Phase 3 is veering onto a wrong course, contrary to original aims,” the Yonhap news agency reported Aug. 20, a few days after DAPA's decision was disclosed. The “original aim,” as seen by the unnamed officers quoted by Yonhap, was evidently an F-35 order, and their attitude seems to be that the other two contenders were invited to bid just for the sake of creating competition.

This is a sensitive point. After competing for the F-X Phase 1 program, which the F-15 won in 2002, Dassault appears to have concluded that it had never had a chance and that the competition, for South Korea's benefit, was a waste of time and money in which its product was rejected in public. The French company said it had decided it could not work in South Korea and it would not take part in future competitions there. True to its word, it has not been a contender in either F-X Phase 2, also won by the F-15, or F-X Phase 3.

DAPA says that in F-X Phase 3 it excluded one contender—identified by local media as EADS—because the bidder, with the aim of reducing its price, changed previously agreed conditions of its offer without South Korea's consent. The contentious change was EADS's alteration of its offer from 45 single-seat and 15 two-seat Typhoons to 54 and six, respectively. EADS says there was no such agreement.

Lockheed Martin was excluded because its bid did not meet the budget, 8.3 trillion won ($7.4 billion), but has not given up, saying it “has not to date received an official notification from the Republic of Korea regarding the results of the price bidding for the F-X Program. The F-X source selection process has multiple phases, and we will continue to work closely with the U.S. government as they offer the F-35 to [South] Korea.”

If the South Korean government does not overturn the DAPA decision outright, an alternative would be to relaunch the competition. However, the aircraft that F-X Phase 3 is intended to replace—F-4 Phantoms and F-5 Tigers, delivered in the 1970s—are obsolete and close to the end of their service lives.

The F-15SE will not go into production without the South Korean order.Compared to its immediate predecessor, Saudi Arabia's F-15SA, it differs mainly in that it incorporates a suite of features to reduce its radar cross section (RCS), the most important being conformal weapons bays, accommodating either four AIM-120 missiles or two AIM-120s and two 1,000-lb.-class bombs, that replace the F-15's normal conformal fuel tanks (CFT).

Without F-X Phase 3, F-15 production may end in 2019—and earlier for long-lead items—when the last of 84 new-build F-15SAs is due to be delivered. F-X Phase 3 would prolong production until 2021, 49 years after the type's first flight.

Boeing's fighter has had several advantages in the program. Already in South Korean service, it has probably been the cheapest contender—a key advantage, since South Korea's parliament has forbidden DAPA to consider above-budget bids. Last month, DAPA rejected all offers because they exceeded the budget and called for new proposals from the competing companies.

Lockheed Martin not only had to deal with the high cost of the F-35; it also had to offer the aircraft through the U.S. government's foreign military sales (FMS) process, which stipulates that the price cannot be less than the U.S. military pays. Boeing could and did choose to offer the F-15SE as a direct commercial sale, with only weapons and some equipment being supplied through FMS channels.

Another advantage for the F-15 is that Korea Aerospace Industries is already a major subcontractor on the F-15, so it was easier for Boeing to meet DAPA's requirements for local content.

The F-15 almost certainly offered the best weapons capacity and range performance of the three aircraft, because of its size and CFTs. The Typhoon was also politically disadvantaged against competitors from the U.S., which underwrites South Korean security.

If South Korea's government sustains DAPA's decision, it will validate a Boeing strategy that looked quixotic in March 2009, when the Silent Eagle concept was unveiled. At that time, the F-35A was expected to be operational with the U.S. Air Force by 2013, with the sixth low-rate initial production batch being delivered. Contemporary U.S. budget documents predicted a flyaway cost for the F-35A of $70-75 million in South Korea's delivery years. Accordingly, the F-35 appeared very hard to beat.

Today, the F-35A is not expected to be operational with the U.S. Air Force until late 2016, and the service projects a flyaway cost of $96 million for 2020 deliveries. At the same time, Boeing's competitive position has improved with the 2012 Saudi order for the F-15SA, which not only restarts the production line, but funds (and makes less risky) three expensive features also used on the F-15SE: the all-digital flight control system, BAE Systems Digital Electronic Warfare System (DEWS) and redesigned cockpit with 11 X 19-in. flat-panel displays.

Although it is not formally a factor in South Korea's evaluation, the Saudi deal includes the local upgrading of the F-15S fighters to the SA standard; South Korea's F-15Ks could be similarly upgraded.

Boeing has evolved its fighter strategy since 2009. In particular, plans for development of the F-15 and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet have been more closely aligned. The F-15SA and SE cockpit displays use similar glass, processors and software, and Boeing is working on adding capabilities available on or in development for the F/A-18—for example, passive targeting (see page 20). The F-15K already has an infrared search-and-track system similar to that under development for the U.S. Navy's Super Hornets.

As part of the F-15SA program, the new fly-by-wire system and DEWS are in flight testing, while the new cockpit is in the advanced prototyping phase, undergoing integration testing in laboratory environments. Development of the conformal weapons bay is proceeding on schedule, Boeing says, following a 2010 flight demonstration. For most subsystems, requirements reviews are complete and design reviews are underway. Tests for features reducing the radar cross section are continuing.

Deliveries of Saudi Arabia's new aircraft are not due to begin until 2015, although Boeing has rolled out the first and is upgrading 70 F-15Ss to the F-15SA configuration. The company should be able to fill the Saudi order by building one a month, but the South Korean requirement—60 aircraft over four years—might demand more than doubling that rate. Deliveries of F-15Ks for South Korea and similar F-15SGs for Singapore ended in 2012. South Korea bought 61 F-15Ks under F-X Phases 1 and 2. One crashed.

After the F-15K won earlier F-X competitions with a mechanically scanning radar, Boeing sold the F-15SG to Singapore with the Raytheon active, electronically scanned array (AESA) APG-63(v)3 radar, which is the baseline offering for the F-15SE. Boeing says it told DAPA this year that an alternative is the Raytheon APG-82, selected by the U.S. Air Force to refit its F-15Es and due for entry into service in 2014. While the APG-63(v)3 uses a similar array to the F/A-18E/F's APG-79, the APG-82 uses the APG-79 processor and other components—another respect in which Boeing is pushing to make the F-15 and F/A-18 more common.

The impact on the F-35 program of an F-15SE win would be more psychological—being the first competitive loss for Joint Strike Fighter—than material, for the time being. The F-35 team has won in Japan and appears to be headed for a non-competitive selection in Singapore. Firming up commitments in Australia, Canada and Europe and completing development of the aircraft are of greater strategic importance.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Aug 2013 07:08

Aug 29, 2013 :: Testing of the F-35B aboard USS Wasp

ABOARD USS WASP - Two F-35B Lightning II jets (BF-01 and BF-05) touched down aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1) Aug. 12, kicking off week of Development Testing II (DT-II) where Wasp Sailors and Integrated Test Force (ITF) team members are testing and further validating the F-35B.

DT-II is the second of three test phases encompassing numerous milestone events including the first night operation at sea as well as the first launch and recovery of the F-35B at sea by a U.K. test pilot. The goal of this testing is to further define F-35B operating parameters aboard amphibious ships such as Wasp.

The F-35 Lightning II is the next generation strike aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force, as well as eight international partners. The jet combines advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. Wasp is testing the F-35B, which has short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) capability, enabling it to operate from a wider range of ships and in support of expeditionary operations.

"It's a significant milestone for the F-35 program," said Capt. Erik Etz, Director, Test & Evaluation F-35 Naval Variants. "We're providing an envelope that will be utilized by Marine Corps and U.K. aviators when they go out and employ the aircraft in a real environment. The ability to operate at night is critical and so certainly the testing we're doing here will provide a significant amount of data so we can clear the envelope and clear the aircraft to operate day and night, when the Marine Corps takes the F-35B to initial operating capability in 2015."

Wasp and the ITF completed a major milestone when Lt. Col. C. R. Clift launched from the flight deck and landed safely, marking the first successful night launch and recovery of the F-35B at sea.

The pilots were pleased with the progress that the first night landings at sea represent. "It all went extremely well," said Clift. "Throughout the night we conducted eight successful launches and landings, so we're on target and quickly gaining experience with F-35B night operations at sea."

Launch and recoveries filled the first, second and third days at sea creating smooth, synchronized daytime operations. Wasp flight deck crew members were trained in advance of DT-II to prepare them for F-35B operations at sea, ensuring all those involved were ready to support DT-II.

"The crew itself has spent quite a bit of time up at Patuxent River working with the F-35B understanding how the aircraft operates," said Capt. Brian Teets, Wasp's commanding officer. "What we've been able to bring is a consistent platform to the F-35B to support their testing. It's the same ship with the same capabilities, providing consistency and stability as a reliable test platform. Employing a consistent test platform allows the team to find ways to optimize this new aircraft in the Marine Air Combat Element."

U.K. Squadron Leader Jim Schofield, a Royal Air Force pilot became the first international pilot to conduct sea-based launch and landing in the F-35B.

"It's exciting to see the integration of this new plane with the amphibious assault ships," said Schofield. "After a year leading up to this evolution, it's awesome to get here and start. And the crew has been especially accommodating and efficient at running these tests smoothly."

The historical milestones were not lost on Wasp crew members, but for most it was "business as usual", focusing on safety and effectiveness during flight operations at sea. Aviation Boatswain's Mate (Handling) 1st Class Ashley Geary gave the signal to launch BF-05 for the first night flight operations.

"It was fun knowing we're making history," said Geary. "We worked with the test team at Patuxent River for a week, learning about the F-35B and its operations. They took our suggestions on flight deck procedures, ensuring we were one team working together towards a successful mission. The launch went well, without a hitch."

The F-35 Lightning II is scheduled to replace 13 different legacy aircraft in the current U.S. defense inventory. Sea trials for the Navy's F-35C aircraft carrier variant are scheduled at the end of 2014.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Aug 2013 07:11

Aug 29, 2013 :: U.S. Marines see progress in F-35 testing despite challenges

* Helmet, logistics systems still need work

* F-35 would "kick in the door" in future operations

* B-model exceeds wind limits of current fleet

ABOARD USS WASP, Aug 29 (Reuters) - Two F-35 fighter jets have completed dozens of test flights from the deck of this amphibious assault ship over the past three weeks, but several flights were scrapped on Wednesday for maintenance issues, just as more than a dozen journalists arrived for a demonstration.

U.S. Marine Corps officials said the jets had made more than 90 successful vertical landings on the USS Wasp this month, including many at night - showing the growing maturity of Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35B fighter. The officials said groundings were rare during the recent 19-day test period.

But Wednesday's failed demonstration was a reminder of the problems faced by the F-35 program, which has seen repeated cost increases and schedule delays since it began in 2001. Lockheed is developing three variants of the F-35 to replace over a dozen warplane types now in use around the world.

The Marines plan to start using the newest U.S. fighter in combat just two years from now - in mid-2015 - but the $392 billion program, the costliest weapons program in U.S. history, still faces technical and budget challenges.

Brigadier General Matthew Glavy said the radar-evading nature of the F-35 B-model, which can make short takeoffs and land like a helicopter, would make it a key asset in future missions against countries with surface-to-air missiles, like Syria.

"It would kick in the door," Glavy said, highlighting the benefits of the stealthy F-35B during a visit to the Wasp - one of the large Navy warships that will carry the new warplanes when they become operational.

He said the plane's stealth would allow it to penetrate enemy territory undetected, delivering the first punch in future wars.

Glavy said Wednesday's temporary halt in flights was disappointing, but the overall tests had demonstrated progress for other guests, including Pentagon chief arms buyer Frank Kendall and Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley.

"They've come and seen that this is not a PowerPoint brief. We're flying airplanes ... on and off these ships. That's where they belong," said Glavy, the No. 2 officer for Marine aviation.

The Marines have vowed to safeguard the F-35B, their top acquisition priority, despite tough budget reviews under way at the Pentagon. But the other services may see big changes.

One option under discussion, if U.S. lawmakers do not reverse a 10 percent cut in Pentagon spending for fiscal 2015, would result a two-year pause in orders for the U.S. Navy's F-35C carrier variant, said four sources familiar with the issue.

The sources stressed that no decisions had been made but said mandatory budget cuts were pressuring the program, which is still working through residual technical challenges.

The sea trials also come at a critical time for Britain, which has spent $2 billion to help develop the new warplane. UK authorities are facing its own budget pressures but must decide in coming weeks whether to proceed with the purchase of 14 additional B-model aircraft, a deal worth around $1.5 billion.

TESTING WIND LIMITS

Two test jets were completing about 90 percent of their planned flights until some maintenance issues cropped up this week. At least one of the jets did resume flying later Wednesday after the journalists left, said Pentagon F-35 spokesman Joe DellaVedova.

To date in the sea trials, which will end Friday, the planes had completed 90 short takeoffs, 92 vertical landing, including 19 pairs of takeoffs and landings at night, DellaVedova said.

That compares to 72 shipboard landings and takeoffs during the first sea trials in October 2011. A third round of sea testing is slated for summer of 2016.

U.S. Navy Captain Erik Etz, director of testing and evaluation for both the B- and C-models of the F-35, said the plane had proven during the latest tests that it can be operated at over 35 knots of headwinds and over 15 knots of crosswinds.

"That envelope is in excess of what the fleet has currently had with legacy platforms. It is what we had hoped to get ... so the aircraft is matching expectations," Etz told reporters.

HELMET, LOGISTICS SYSTEM STILL POSE PROBLEMS

U.S. officials say the F-35 has made strides in recent years, but test pilots on the Wasp cited continued problems with a new pilot helmet that fuses data from radars and other sensors and projects it onto the pilot's visor. A computerized operations and maintenance system called ALIS is making progress, but also remains far from pilot-friendly, they say.

Glavy said the helmet being developed by a joint venture of Rockwell Collins Inc and Israel's Elbit Systems was "not exactly" where officials wanted it, but was optimistic that a useable helmet would be ready by mid-2015.

He cited progress on the helmet, but said the Pentagon continued to fund work on an alternate helmet by Britain's BAE Systems through the third quarter of fiscal 2014.

Marine Corps Captain Michael Kingen, one of the F-35 test pilots, said there were still some issues with the helmet's night vision, especially on dark nights; a lag in the data streaming into the helmet; and with some "jitter" in the view.

But he said the helmet did provide pilots with more data than previous aircraft systems, and the overall approach was useful to help pilots accomplish their mission.

Wing Commander Nic Hindley, the UK liaison to Marine Corps headquarters, said Britain was keeping a close eye on the tests since it must decide by October on buying 14 more F-35 B-models.

He said testing results were encouraging, as was recent news that the Pentagon had lowered its estimate for the long-term cost of operating and maintaining the planes.

"It's been impressive to see how this jet has developed. It's a huge leap forward from 2010, when the B-model was on probation," Hindley said, referring to a one-year period when former Defense Secretary Robert Gates had threatened to cancel the B-model variant unless it showed significant progress.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Aug 2013 14:07

>> * F-35 would "kick in the door" in future operations

sure it will. kind of like a small chihuahua kicking in the door after a tribe of tibetan mastiffs have been through the house tearing anyone apart.

first CMs, growlers and jassms will make a mess of the IADS and C3I network
then growlers , B52, B1 will launch CM and e-attacks on the IADS
F-solah/F-18/F-15 will clear the skies in sweeps
then JSF will kick the door in and bombard supine airbases and camps from 50km away using winged kits

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 30 Aug 2013 14:38

Considering steps ahead of F-35 are taken care of by unkil while allied forces do get credit for strengths of F-35. Abilities of allied forces could be aligned that way better but much more work for unkil.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Aug 2013 16:46

Singha wrote:>> * F-35 would "kick in the door" in future operations

sure it will. kind of like a small chihuahua kicking in the door after a tribe of tibetan mastiffs have been through the house tearing anyone apart.

first CMs, growlers and jassms will make a mess of the IADS and C3I network
then growlers , B52, B1 will launch CM and e-attacks on the IADS
F-solah/F-18/F-15 will clear the skies in sweeps
then JSF will kick the door in and bombard supine airbases and camps from 50km away using winged kits

He is a Marine, expected to lead from up front, may not have time for naval CMs or AF F-22s to be around. Cannot expect that kind of support most of the time.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Aug 2013 16:55

Aug 30, 2013 :: Lockheed Martin Mired in Controversy with Canada Over F-35 Costs

U.S. defense firm Lockheed Martin is 'neck-up' in controversy with the Canadian government putting a cap on its F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

Reports say that the government of Canada has hit the 'reset button' on the deal because costs go beyond the agreed rate of $9 billion for the contract. A spending cap that limits the purchase of F-35s to $9 billion has been placed by the conservative party in Canada.

The Canadian National Defence refused to release information regarding four major military projects to a Parliament oversight agency saying that the Conservatives, "Tories", are not in tune with the F-35 controversy.

In 2006, PM Stephen Harper assured his navy a supply of up to eight patrol ships with a price tag of $3.1 billion. However, the delays on Harper's projects suggest that there may not be any patrol ships forthcoming. Alternatively, a fewer number of vessels will made.

Richard Fadden of the Defence Department, told the Parliamentary Budget Office that information related to costs would not be disclosed, said the PBO website.

Fadden added that documents used in the planning phase "falls outside the scope of the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer ... and is therefore not being provided to your office," The National Post reported.

The report said that the National Defence department had already issued a statement of requirements for the F-35s during a study by the PBO on the stealth fighter project a couple of years ago.

Jack Harris, a critic of NDP defence commented that there is a 'culture of secrecy" at the National Defence department. He retorted that Defence authorities and the Conservative government were engaging in strategies that do not work with the F-35.

Leading up to the election of 2011, officials at the Defence Department dodged questions from the PBO about the actual cost of the F-35. Before the election, the PBO spurred a controversy with an estimate that the F-35s would run the government $30 billion for 30 years.

Following stiff criticism, the Canadian conservative government decided to forego purchasing the F-35 after an auditor's report that revealed that stealth aircraft would cost $45 billion or more to own and operate. "We thought this government had learned its lesson," said Harris, stating, "But they're stonewalling the Parliamentary Budget Office once again."

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Aug 2013 20:49

AWST 26/8/13 says that the SoKo FX-Phase 3,deal is "not quite over".

Though the F-15 has been selected,most llikely to be confirmed,which would extend F-15 production in SoKo,The decision has to be ratified by the govt.LM was eliminated on cost grounds,as it could not meet the "$7.5B" figure.Though the SoKo air force wants the F-35,the Fin. Min. and DAPA (the Def, acquisition agency) selected the F-15,rejecting the F-35 as being too costly and Typhoon for a "bidding irregularity" (split of 45 single and 15 two seaters,changed to 54 single and 6 two-seat),allegedly to bring down the cost.SoKos ultimate aim is to develop its own stealth fighter,the KF-X.Rafale refused to participate as it felt that the dice was too heavily loaded against it right from the start in favour of the US,SoKo's main defence ally.

The F-15."almost certainly offered the best weapons capacity and range performance because of its size and CFTs".If SoKo confirms the same it would "validate a 2009 Boeing strategy that looked quixotic" at the time.The F-35 was expected to cost around $75M a piece,but AWST says that beginning operations with the USAF to start only in late 2016,and with a flyaway cost of "$96M" in 2020,the JSF is too expensive.What has helped Boeing are two orders ,from the Saudis and Singapore,no competition orders.

The SoKo F-15Ks will have 3 chief improvements.All digital FCS,BAEs DEWS EW system,and a redesigned cockpit with 19" flat panel displays.SoKos existing F-15s could also be upgraded.Sing's F-15SEs will have the APG-63-3 AESA radar,and Boeing is trying to effect greater commonality with F-18SH and F-15 systems.If the Boeing selection is confirmed,the decision would have more "psychological" effect as it would mean a first loss for the JSF,which is trying hard to firm up orders/commitments for Oz,Canada and Japan.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 30 Aug 2013 21:32

NRao wrote:
Singha wrote:>> * F-35 would "kick in the door" in future operations

sure it will. kind of like a small chihuahua kicking in the door after a tribe of tibetan mastiffs have been through the house tearing anyone apart.

first CMs, growlers and jassms will make a mess of the IADS and C3I network
then growlers , B52, B1 will launch CM and e-attacks on the IADS
F-solah/F-18/F-15 will clear the skies in sweeps
then JSF will kick the door in and bombard supine airbases and camps from 50km away using winged kits
He is a Marine, expected to lead from up front, may not have time for naval CMs or AF F-22s to be around. Cannot expect that kind of support most of the time.

That's what happened at Guadalcanal and again at Leyte Gulf when Bull Halsey was lured away by a fake Japan armada.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Aug 2013 22:15

Philip wrote:AWST 26/8/13 says that the SoKo FX-Phase 3,deal is "not quite over".

Thanks.

Page 18:

AWST Aug 26, 2013

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 31 Aug 2013 07:20

Aug 31, 2013 :: Fighter pilots master vertical landing in F-35B jet

A test F-35B is being lowered from the flight deck on the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1) on Wednesday, Aug. 28, 2013. The F-35Bs have successfully completed more than 90 vertical landings and short takeoffs during days and nights at sea on the USS Wasp. (The' N. Pham | The Virginian-Pilot)

Aboard the wasp, fighter pilots do much of their warfighting work at night, when targets are lulled by sleep and the jets can take cover in the embrace of darkness.

That capability was on display during the past three weeks of F-35B testing aboard the Norfolk-based amphibious assault ship Wasp. The next generation Marine fighter jet conducted 19 nighttime takeoffs and landings – demonstrating its remarkable ability to slow to a hover and drop with precision onto the flight deck of an amphibious ship in the middle of a dark ocean.

It was a milestone for the $400 billion joint strike fighter program, which is developing three versions of the jet – to operate from land, from amphibious ships, and from aircraft carriers. The planes have been in development for more than a decade but are still years from operational use.

“Our primary striking power and posture comes at night,” said Navy Capt. Erik Etz, director of testing and evaluation for Navy and Marine Corps variants. “So the ability to operate the F-35B at night from the ship provides that capability for this aircraft to augment forces abroad.”

But there’s a catch: Night vision capabilities on the F-35’s revolutionary integrated helmet system fall short of requirements and are inadequate for shipboard vertical landing or nighttime refueling.

“The helmet’s been a problem, no doubt,” said Brig. Gen. Matthew Glavy, assistant deputy commandant of aviation for the Marine Corps.

The helmet-mounted display is key to unlocking the technological systems built into the plane – allowing the pilot to view a kind of virtual reality vision of the world through the aircraft’s many cameras.

The F-35’s “fusion” system processes all the data collected by the airplane – movement on the ground, possible enemy targets, the approach of enemy aircraft – and projects it onto a display screen built into the visor, so the pilot sees it all in real time.

Walking around the aircraft on the deck of the Wasp on Wednesday, Lt. Col. Matt Kelly, a former F-35 test pilot now working in the program office, pointed to a transparent enclosure under the nose of the plane containing two rounded chrome-and-glass sensors.

The F-35 is the only stealth aircraft to have this kind of electro-optical targeting system built in, allowing it to remain stealthy, he said. It works in conjunction with radar and the cameras embedded in the plane.

“One of the key attributes of the F-35 is it is designed to collect information through its multiple sensors,” Kelly said.

All that information is transmitted to the pilot through the helmet.

Over the past year, testing of the helmet revealed a series of problems, Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, executive officer for the F-35 development program, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in April.

Some problems – including a green glow, jittery symbols and a time lag in displaying information – have since been resolved. But the night vision issues remain troublesome and an alternative helmet is being developed based on night vision goggles, he said.

Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems are competing to design a helmet, Glavy said.

Because of the unique challenges of operating on an amphibious ship, the F-35B has so far proved to be the most costly to develop. Its purchase price is an estimated $110 million in 2018, compared with $96 million for the Navy version and $85 million for the Air Force version.

During three weeks on the Wasp, two F-35Bs conducted more than 90 takeoffs and landings on the small amphibious deck. On Wednesday, when the Navy flew journalists aboard the Wasp for an F-35B demonstration, both jets were down for maintenance. One was quickly repaired and took off later the same day, program officials said.

The planes also “pushed the envelope” in other ways, flying in stronger winds and carrying dummy weapons to simulate how the aircraft handles with its payload.

In those things, the aircraft “is matching expectations in ease of handling,” Etz said.

Some of the Wasp crew spent time at Patuxent River Naval Air Station training to work with the F-35B either in maintenance or on deck.

“As much as the aircraft evolves, the ship evolves with it,” said Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew Bennett, who directs the rear half of the flight deck.

“It’s a pretty prestigious event,” he said. “We are kind of going down in history with this jet.”

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Sep 2013 18:36

Some US analysts are advocating the USN dumping the F-35C variant in favour of the USMC's F-35B STOVL variant. I have long said that this is the best variant of the lot.It also comes in at a much lower price than the carrier cat-launched versions,about $20+ M according to some estimates.These analysts say that the commonality would be great between USMC and USN aircraft,allowing USN sqds. to operate from USMC amphib flat-tops as well giving them a swing role,like WW2 "Jeep" carriers.When faced with smaller crises,the amphib vessels could suffice,eliminating the need for a large carrier group to be deployed,making it a more cost-effective option.I've said the same thing for aeons,that our future amphib vessels should also operate STOVL aircraft for the same reason.A pity that we did not buy any of the early retd. RN Harriers (budget reasons),which had many years of active life left in them,the entire lot of 70+ bought by the USMC.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Sep 2013 19:25

Philip wrote:Some US analysts are advocating .

Again, can you please provide an URL? Thanks.

Here is one:

Mar, 2013 :: Is the end of the Aircraft Carrer nigh? The rapid decline of the 'carrier navies'

It also comes in at a much lower price than the carrier cat-launched versions,about $20+ M according to some estimates

Nope - no estimate had the B less than the C. The F-35B is the more expensive of the two. Estimated costs: F-35B around $115 mil, F-35C around $100 mil (in 2020ish)

A pity that we did not buy any of the early retd. RN Harriers (budget reasons),which had many years of active life left in them,the entire lot of 70+ bought by the USMC.

I thought we had been through this and that there was a good reason for not buying them. Besides the USMC bought them for parts IIRC.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 02 Sep 2013 20:38

The B module is way more technically complicated than the other modules.

As to the possible extinction of the giant fixed wing a/c carriers:

Not gonna happen anytime soon. Those carriers can establish air superiority where the amphibs cannot. Why? Because of this airplane:

E2 Hawkeye.

It's capabilities: According to Wiki:

The E-2C and E-2D Hawkeyes use advanced electronic sensors combined with digital computerized signal processing, especially its radars, for early warning of enemy aircraft attacks and anti-ship missile attacks, and the control of the carrier's combat air patrol (CAP) fighters, and secondarily for surveillance of the surrounding sea and land for enemy warships and guided-missile launchers, and any other electronic surveillance missions as directed.

And it can do all of this hundreds of miles away from the fleet while the fleet runs electronically silent. No way will the US Navy ever willingly give something like that up.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Sep 2013 21:44

Today it is very easy to post anything on the Internet. It is truly great that we can do that - more ideas floated, etc. But, at times, it also allows yahoo opinions to become mainstream. And then one can always pawn off some yahoo self opinions as being supported by some unknown experts. Leads to bad discussions or very bad info on the net.

The above article I posted is one such, where the author mixes things that do not mix. He himself claims that it is a lack of funds that forced the USN to down grade. What happens if the US economy ramps up? His entire theory goes out of the window.

Then how many nations have a marine service in their armed forces?

Can a nation like India tactically or strategically afford a major portion of her naval air wing in stovl? I do not think so, but am open to ideas.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Sep 2013 23:56

Letter: Fund and support the F-35 program

While your recent editorial, "Good news, for a change," Aug. 25, is, for the most part, positive, it's extremely important we don't get complacent when it comes to jobs.

It's absolutely essential that all the manufacturing we have in New York stays in New York, and this includes the F-35 strike fighter program. More than 3,000 jobs are involved in the program in this state alone. It pumps close to $600 million into our economy. It also helps ensure we continue to have a strong and vital military as the fighter is set to replace aging aircraft in our Air Force, Navy and Marines.

As a Navy veteran who was stationed on the USS Iowa when 47 of my brethren were killed during a tragic gun explosion, I know all too well that the military can and will have its failures. I also know for every failure there are thousands of successes.

The F-35 is, and will continue to be, one of those successes. Not only in helping to protect this nation and our allies, but in strengthening New York by keeping us on the map as a leader in high-tech manufacturing jobs.

Supporting and protecting these jobs, not only for current workers, but for future workers, including recently discharged military personnel and new college graduates, are key to New York's economic future.

I'd encourage everyone, along with New York's congressional delegates, including Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, to support and fully fund the F-35 program.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 03 Sep 2013 03:09

NRao wrote:Today it is very easy to post anything on the Internet. It is truly great that we can do that - more ideas floated, etc. But, at times, it also allows yahoo opinions to become mainstream. And then one can always pawn off some yahoo self opinions as being supported by some unknown experts. Leads to bad discussions or very bad info on the net.

The above article I posted is one such, where the author mixes things that do not mix. He himself claims that it is a lack of funds that forced the USN to down grade. What happens if the US economy ramps up? His entire theory goes out of the window.

Then how many nations have a marine service in their armed forces?

Can a nation like India tactically or strategically afford a major portion of her naval air wing in stovl? I do not think so, but am open to ideas.

A stovl only fleet just doesn't make sense. The British were unable to have absolute air superiority in the Falklands campaign because they couldn't launch radar picket planes from their ships. They did put a radar picket ship between the Falklands and Argentina but it just did'nt give them enough warning. Yet they are still following the stovl concept.

Stovl is great in support of troops but to achieve total air supremecy you need radar picket planes. Once the troops establish a landing strip then that changes things. This will be the US Marine strategy in the Pacific islands should the US get in a tussle with China.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Sep 2013 04:00

The F-35 is a special plane. It comes in a variety of avatars, including a Command and Control:

The F-35's communication, sensors and information systems enable it to draw on information from around the world - and deliver that information directly to the battlefield. Embedded, network-enabled information capture allows distribution of information to enhance and enable other platforms. Information gathered by F-35 sensors can be securely shared with commanders at sea, in the air or on the ground, providing a high-fidelity view of ongoing operations.

and, of course, the Electronic Attack:

Advanced electronic warfare (EW) capabilities enable the F-35 to locate and track enemy forces, jam radio frequencies and disrupt attacks with unparalleled precision. All three variants of the F-35 carry active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars with sophisticated electronic attack capabilities, including false targets, network attack, advanced jamming and algorithm-packed data streams. This system allows the F-35 to reach well-defended targets and suppress enemy radars that threaten the F-35.

Specially since it is "supposed" to replace some heavy duty aircrafts, I for sure would not compare it in any shape or form with the Harrier (and others too). Having searched, now for a few weeks, I think I am comfortable to state that there is really nothing like it.

But, I like it that people really think it is a Turkey!!!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Sep 2013 06:56

The rationale for advocating that the IN buy ex-RN early retd. Harriers,which were in fine fettle,was because of two reasons.Firstly,that the Viraat will soldier on until 2020.It is a STOVL carrier,with barely a handful of Sea Harriers left operational.For achieving its full potential,it requires at least another 16 aircraft.The Harrier is the only aircraft that it can operate.If we lose a few more Harriers in the next 7 years,it will be reduced to the status of a helicopter carrier only.The IN lacked the vision of the USMC.Secondly.we also require 3-4 amphibious vessels,which also require a quantum of integral air power to support landings.The remaining Harriers would've been very useful in this role.We will now have no aircraft able to operate from the amphib vessels,the only type available will be the F-35B at enormous cost.The USMC uses harriers aboard all its amphib. flat tops.The Harriers have been used in the Gulf Wars and Afghanistan as well operating from the decks of the RN's small STOVL carriers,even smaller than the Viraat.The Russians are fixing their support capability by developing the KA-52 heavy attack helo for carrier ops. and their Mistral class amphibs being built.

However,Harriers are not a replacement for MIG-29Ks or equivalent carrier aircraft,but would be complementary until the NLCA arrives,sometime by 2020.The Gorky/Vikramaditya arrives year end.The IAC-1 (Vikrant II) will arrive only by the decade end.Until then the Viraat will have to soldier on.The F-35B has one quality that makes it cost-effective,in that using a ski-jump,no cats are required for the carrier.The RN examined the issue and decided to go in for the STOVL version for their QE 60,000t+ flat tops,overturning its earlier decision (and back to the first decision for STOVL) to buy the cat-launched version because of the enormous cost of fitting cats and the extra power required to operate them,costing upwards of a few billions. (When you look at the cost of the Gorky/Vikram of around $2.5B,it appears insignificant when that would be the cost of just fitting cats on a QE sized carrier).It has also developed its own helo AEW using the Sea King/Merlin platforms.UAVs are also expected to provide additional AEW capability.

Some US analysts as mentioned recommend the USN buying the USMC version for commonality and inter-operational capability ,between USN and USMC flat-tops,as earlier mentioned.It would be prudent for the IN to follow on with STOBAR for IAC-2 ,as by 2025+,we would have two new STOBAR carriers in service.By then the costs of installing cats would be prohibitive.Rather than that,the carrier could be N-powered,a better option,given the declining oil production fortunes of the country and dependence upon oil imports from the troubled ME/Gulf region.Even the US is facing shrinking budgets.There is no guarantee that economies will bounce back in a short period of time.rather,it is stiff budget-cutting that is going on.Let me give you the low down.NR is more optimistic than the US!

VAYU III/13.On massive US budget cuts and a lesson for India.

"..a decade spent at war and an economy gutted by the recession of 2008,exacerbated by the Budget Control Act of 2011" has "devastated the US military".This yr. alone,$68B has been slashed with another est. $1.3 Trillion over the next decade.

Worst hit,the USN.A mammoth $41B cut by the end of this fiscal (Sept. '13).The US Army,Navy and MC are also affected.
4 carrier air wings grounded (A total of ...38 sqds.,almost as much as the entire IAF op. strength!) The Ronnie Reagan,Carl Vinson,Dwight D. Eisenhower,and John Stennis are being shut down.In effect they are being mothballed with NO flight trg. taking place.But that's not all,two more carriers,Theodore Rosevelt and Nimitz are being downgraded to "minimum readiness" status,where flying is reduced to lowest levels,to just keep them in "min. safe qualification".This leaves just 4 left ,one being land based,leaving 3 carriers operational worldwide,the lowest level since the 1960s!
Gen.Amos,Commandant of the USMC said that their capability for trg. and ops. overseas would be limited to USN vessel availability.Surface fleet ops are also being affected with reduced deployment of assets.

USAF annual flying hrs. being reduced by 18%.No more Thundrebirds,Blue Angels,etc.2/3 of active combat units will see reduced trg.Combat units being grounded are:
1X Raptor F-22,4X F-15SE, 6 X F-16,2 X A-10C2X B-1B,1X B-52 sqds.Other sqds. will have reduced op status,ironically which will call for large amts. of money to restore them to full capability.

Red Flag 2013 was cancelled.No new dates.Crucially,a series of acquisitions have been affected including a delayed purcahse of F-35s intended for 2013 fiscal.

In this "bleak scenario",one can now understand the US analysts wanting the USN to buy the USMC STOVL variant of the F-35.As pointed out earlier,there is far less commonality between each variant when compared with other fighters.It would be the equiv. of the USN and USMC operating almost two diff. types.Operating one common type would make it very cost-effective to operate and maintain,being more economical in the long run.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Sep 2013 06:58

One reason why it is a bad idea to replace F-35Cs with F-35Bs:

http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f35comb ... ed_193.gif

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Sep 2013 07:08

VAYU III/13.On massive US budget cuts and a lesson for India.

"..a decade spent at war and an economy gutted by the recession of 2008,exacerbated by the Budget Control Act of 2011" has "devastated the US military".This yr. alone,$68B has been slashed with another est. $1.3 Trillion over the next decade.

Worst hit,the USN.A mammoth $41B cut by the end of this fiscal (Sept. '13).The US Army,Navy and MC are also affected.
4 carrier air wings grounded (A total of ...38 sqds.,almost as much as the entire IAF op. strength!) The Ronnie Reagan,Carl Vinson,Dwight D. Eisenhower,and John Stennis are being shut down.In effect they are being mothballed with NO flight trg. taking place.But that's not all,two more carriers,Theodore Rosevelt and Nimitz are being downgraded to "minimum readiness" status,where flying is reduced to lowest levels,to just keep them in "min. safe qualification".This leaves just 4 left ,one being land based,leaving 3 carriers operational worldwide,the lowest level since the 1960s!
Gen.Amos,Commandant of the USMC said that their capability for trg. and ops. overseas would be limited to USN vessel availability.Surface fleet ops are also being affected with reduced deployment of assets.

USAF annual flying hrs. being reduced by 18%.No more Thundrebirds,Blue Angels,etc.2/3 of active combat units will see reduced trg.Combat units being grounded are:
1X Raptor F-22,4X F-15SE, 6 X F-16,2 X A-10C2X B-1B,1X B-52 sqds.Other sqds. will have reduced op status,ironically which will call for large amts. of money to restore them to full capability.

Red Flag 2013 was cancelled.No new dates.Crucially,a series of acquisitions have been affected including a delayed purcahse of F-35s intended for 2013 fiscal.

In this "bleak scenario",one can now understand the US analysts wanting the USN to buy the USMC STOVL variant of the F-35.As pointed out earlier,there is far less commonality between each variant when compared with other fighters.It would be the equiv. of the USN and USMC operating almost two diff. types.Operating one common type would make it very cost-effective to operate and maintain,being more economical in the long run.

You need to provide URLs where you can. I understand that Vayu does not have one.

There is no "delayed purchase of F-35s intended for 2013 fiscal" as you claim. ALL the LRIPs have been fully funded.

The rest is a given. What else is new Philip?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Sep 2013 07:14

Philip wrote:The rationale for advocating that the IN buy ex-RN early retd. Harriers,which were in fine fettle,was because of two reasons.Firstly,that the Viraat will soldier on until 2020.It is a STOVL carrier,with barely a handful of Sea Harriers left operational.For achieving its full potential,it requires at least another 16 aircraft.The Harrier is the only aircraft that it can operate.If we lose a few more Harriers in the next 7 years,it will be reduced to the status of a helicopter carrier only.The IN lacked the vision of the USMC.Secondly.we also require 3-4 amphibious vessels,which also require a quantum of integral air power to support landings.The remaining Harriers would've been very useful in this role.We will now have no aircraft able to operate from the amphib vessels,the only type available will be the F-35B at enormous cost.The USMC uses harriers aboard all its amphib. flat tops.The Harriers have been used in the Gulf Wars and Afghanistan as well operating from the decks of the RN's small STOVL carriers,even smaller than the Viraat.The Russians are fixing their support capability by developing the KA-52 heavy attack helo for carrier ops. and their Mistral class amphibs being built.

However,Harriers are not a replacement for MIG-29Ks or equivalent carrier aircraft,but would be complementary until the NLCA arrives,sometime by 2020.The Gorky/Vikramaditya arrives year end.The IAC-1 (Vikrant II) will arrive only by the decade end.Until then the Viraat will have to soldier on.The F-35B has one quality that makes it cost-effective,in that using a ski-jump,no cats are required for the carrier.The RN examined the issue and decided to go in for the STOVL version for their QE 60,000t+ flat tops,overturning its earlier decision (and back to the first decision for STOVL) to buy the cat-launched version because of the enormous cost of fitting cats and the extra power required to operate them,costing upwards of a few billions. (When you look at the cost of the Gorky/Vikram of around $2.5B,it appears insignificant when that would be the cost of just fitting cats on a QE sized carrier).It has also developed its own helo AEW using the Sea King/Merlin platforms.UAVs are also expected to provide additional AEW capability.

Some US analysts as mentioned recommend the USN buying the USMC version for commonality and inter-operational capability ,between USN and USMC flat-tops,as earlier mentioned.It would be prudent for the IN to follow on with STOBAR for IAC-2 ,as by 2025+,we would have two new STOBAR carriers in service.By then the costs of installing cats would be prohibitive.Rather than that,the carrier could be N-powered,a better option,given the declining oil production fortunes of the country and dependence upon oil imports from the troubled ME/Gulf region.Even the US is facing shrinking budgets.There is no guarantee that economies will bounce back in a short period of time.rather,it is stiff budget-cutting that is going on.Let me give you the low down.NR is more optimistic than the US!

Well the IN did not pay attention I guess (need to research it a bit more), BUT, CAS did have an opinion:

Nov, 2010 :: Indian air chief dismisses UK’s ‘iffy’ Harriers

Indian air chief dismisses UK’s ‘iffy’ Harriers

By James Lamont in Kalaikunda and Alex Barker in London

Britain has hit an early obstacle in its bid to sell its fleet of Harrier jump jets after India, the most promising potential buyer, described the aircraft as “iffy” and obsolete.

Air Chief Marshall PV Naik, the head of the Indian Air Force, said on Tuesday he would be looking to acquire modern aircraft of fourth-generation capabilities or better. “The Harrier doesn’t fit into that category,” the Air Chief Marshall said.

His dismissive remarks over the “iffy” Harrier came soon after Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, the chief of the UK air staff, acknowledged the possibility of a sale while paying a visit to India to boost military co-operation and exports.

India is one of the largest arms bazaars in the world and is seeking to modernise its aging, largely Russian-supplied airforce, to face threats from Pakistan and China.

The distinct lack of interest shown in the Harrier, which was decommissioned in the defence review primarily on grounds of cost, will be a blow to ministers who are seeking to generate some much-needed revenue from the disposal.

Air Chief Mashall Naik’s words will particularly sting because the Ministry of Defence has spent more than £500m upgrading the Harrier avionics over the last five years and the jets could potentially remain in service until the mid 2020s.

Peter Luff, defence procurement minister, told the Financial Times this week that he was hopeful of finding a buyer for the Harrier, the

(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...

and

Well buying a used subsonic attack aircraft with no radar is not exactly very enticing for most militaries.

On the US side:

June 2011 :: Report: Marines to harvest U.K. Harriers for spares

Apr, 2012 :: USMC’s Harriers Could Fly Until 2030!

$55 mil for 40 Harriers was a steal, but they are being used as spares.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Sep 2013 07:37

Well,quoting an IAF chief against buying the ex-RN Harriers (which it tried very hard to sabotage decades ago) isn't the best argument! He lost the plot.In fact,the issue was/is to support the existing miniscule fleet of Sea Harriers with more of the same,as the Viraat's life has been extended by another decade.The IN plumped for the MIG-29K for a"modern fighter" for both the the Gorky/Vik and IAC-1 as its main combat aircraft.The IN's Sea Harriers were also given the LUSH upgrade equipped with BVR missiles (Derby) improving their performance.It would be most interesting academically to see an air combat duel between IAF types and the subsonic Sea Harrier.Granted that the SH can best perform point def. of the fleet and is better suited to CAS.There are numerous sites debating the Harrrier vs other types.It performed best in close combat.here is one quote.

At past Red Flag (Nellis AFB) exercises the Harrier has achieved a 75%+ success rate at low level close in ACM with F15's. Its a mud mover much like the a10c but a wee bit quicker

Here are some interesting comments ,a wider perspective,on the USN acquring the JSF.

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/06/18/n ... onfidence/

Here's the basic gripe sheet with the F-35C as I see it:
1. You have three bombers but no fighter in your potential deckload.
2. The .5:1 thrustload in military is abysmal and when combined with the HUGE drag penalty of that wing you have a 43 second deficiency in the pole-boost scenario of getting an AIM-120 onto target before the target responds.
3. Everyone knows that lighting the torch against any threat which has a modern IRST is a guaranteed acquisition, even if you are RFLO.
4. When you consider a -realistic- (not brochure) NEZ range on AIM-120D as 25nm, front quarter, you see that bringing 2 missiles, internally, that close is a guarantee of not just detection but likely forced secondary (radar/visual merge) combat with an enemy that brough anything up to 5 times as many missile shots as you did.
4. As a 600nm radius airframe, the jet is going to be twice as far out on the useable fuel curves so, even with 18,900lbs of gas onboard, the notion that you /can/ use A/B to boost your poles or indulge in extensive dogfighting is highly questionable.
5. The best missile for resolving this shortcoming, at least in terms of closure to a dangerously exposed position is the BAe/MBDA Meteor missile which, because it is a ramjet and can actually adjust it's total impulse time vs. thrust output, can be launched waaaaaaay out here (80-100nm) and still have a reasonable NEZ at perhaps 40-45nm, without the F-35 ever having to go burner to boost. You just let the weapon build Mach gradually, the same way the AIM-54 Buffalo once did. Unfortunately, NIH applies and so there is no sign whatsoever that Meteor is being adopted, despite British interest in qualifying the weapon.
6. Since the Meteor won't hang on the door mount and the main weapons bay -should- be preserved for heavy primary misssion ordnance, there is a need to find more ways to put ordnance on the airframe. Not least because SEAD isn't even considered with the 13ftX36"X810lb HARM not even fitting. The obvious way to do this, particularly in combination with the Meteor whose standoff capability minimizes RCS losses), is via EWP or External Weapons Pods that encapsulate anything up to four bombs and two missiles per pod and are LO treated. This would roughly triple the loads available with single-station parent loading of pylons but as the pods are a Boeing Idea, NIH applies as well.
7. One of the least well kept secrets of the F-35 is the undiscussed but much touted EA features of the APG-81. This is most commonly denoted as an 'L-Band DEW' which suggests either an HPM mode to fry electronic frontend (2-4GHz) or a cyber method (30-60GHz) means of inserting bad-code directly into the threat receiver-processor backend. 'Nobody Knows' because there are two different band notch definitions of L-Band and because the higher frequency system, which is technically millimeter wave, not microwave, can penetrate threat apertures through the tiniest of RF cavity seal failures. The cost of which being that MMW has such poor atmospheric propagation lines that it attenuates completely around 15nm, no matter how powerful the driver electronics for the nominally _X-Band_ (10-12GHz) APG-81 is. Of course, beyond the obvious of a radar merge ranged DEW capability that may or may not keep guided weapons on the threat jet outside 15nm, is the reality that electronic warfare is one of the most fleeting and mutable advantages you can have. We need only look at the ineffectiveness of period chaff and jamming against the German SN-2 and later Freya radars in the Nightwar of WWII to understand that the 'unknowable unknown' of whether you have actually beaten back the enemy is simply too indeterminate to be exclusively trusted in a BVR-to-25nm to GAU-22-1nm degradation in mission capability.
What this ultimately means is that the F-35 has to have a dedicated jammer that is both sophisticated enough to be single-man operable (the Caman system on the French Mirage F-1 comes to mind here) and able to be used by a stealth platform to support other stealth platforms without worrying about whether a 40N6 ARM variant from an S-400 battery is going to suddenly transfix your Growler, 100nm away.
Unfortunately, NGJ has also not been funded for immediate integration with the F-35 in any flavor which means it's not optimized to the platform and when it gets here, for the EA-18G, it will be at least another 5-7 years out from techbase transfer, if it's even possible at all.
8. Finally, we have the radius metrics.
F/A-18E/F.......>363nm
F-35C...............................>700nm
X-47B/UCLASS..................................>1,100nm +3hr
Carrier<.....................................................................................DF-21D 1,500nm
Mines and Coastal AShM X1,0000,000 cost trade.
The differences in radius of action as sphere of influence are critical. Because you've effectively divided your airwing into three, unequal by cost, numbers. With 20 Super Hornets as A-7E equivalents, 10 F-35C as A-6E equivalents and 30 UCLASS as A-4 equivalents. None of which can support each other due to massive differentials in sortie generation rates, signature thresholds and aerodynamic performance. Something we learned the hard way back in 1991 when we tried to push Gorilla packages into Downtown Baghdad and found fuel use, cruise speeds, EW support windows and general head to tail threat exposures to defensive hornet's nests all made raid coordination very unpleasant at the extended ranges which ASBM now virtually mandate.
It should be noted that if we go to the 'Near Peer' we will be coming into _their OHT-B (JORN equivalent) network and _their_ light-sat launch BAMS coverage windows. This is no longer the Cold War and Tu-95 Bear D era people.
Finally, one cannot discount the threat of assymetry. A 1,500 dollar sea mine put an 89 million dollar hole in the engine room of the Samuel B. Robers. And the Iranians didn't have S-Cav, nuclear options, CAPTOR copies or submarines to deliver them.
CONCLUSION:
Anyone who has read _Illusions Of Choice_ by Robert Coulam is familiar with the analytical (why the system technically failed) vs. cybernetic (why the decision leading to the incorrect system was made) modeling of weapons system acquisition process on the F-111 program.
From false beliefs in the resolution of concurrent technology development (first highlighted in 1997 by CRS/CBO reports). To the 'wishful thinking' belief that program difficulties could be resolved as a function of 'normal improvements to aircraft performance' which in fact are impossible once the basic design is hardened and may have always been so, by configurational choices. To the outright denial or of suppression of information on specific problems which are left unstated due to inappropriate and overarching security issues (the Chinese now know more about the F-35 than it's purchasing customer base does) the F-35 is following in the steps of this program with mindboggling exactitude.
Indeed, the next step in the process is for the 'subordinate service' to begin to rock the boat as a means to justify backing out of a program for a bomber when it now wants to buy an NGAD fighter. And we all know what happened the last time such a convenience of government, FAR breaker, condition came up on a (cough, A-12) defense aerospace program.
If we're going to save the U.S. defense posture, we need to, right now, decide whether the F-35's late, overweight and vastly overbudget existence is worth preserving as a monument to procurement inefficiency. Or if we can afford the contract termination fees and likely loss of another major defense contractor to start over. Perhaps by resurrecting the F-22 line as an interim Gen-5 platform with F-35 technology inserts and leaving the USN to rot on the vine while we institue an emergency development effort to find a replacement for the F/A-XX which is also too expensive for what it will provide.
My own view is the Gen-6 needs to be hypersonic and that this alone will totally change how we view intra-theater applications of nominally 'tactical' airpower.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Sep 2013 07:42

Well,quoting an IAF chief against buying the ex-RN Harriers (which it tried very hard to sabotage decades ago) isn't the best argument!

I did say I would research the reason why IN did not buy them, did I not?

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/06/18/n ... onfidence/

does not work!!!!

(And, Philip, do you really understand what that guy typed?)

_____________________

OK, found it.

So, if I quote the CAs it does not count, and you go and find an unsubstantiated comment from an unknown and I have to accept it?

What kind of a discussion is this?

Besides there are glaring flaws in his argumentS. It is mostly unacceptable (there are parts I do not understand so I will give that guy the benefit of doubt.)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Sep 2013 07:48

Do you too? The jargon may sometimes require a translator,but the essence gets through.However,at least there is some clarity in his conclusion,whether to go ahead or not acquiring the JSF.

If we're going to save the U.S. defense posture, we need to, right now, decide whether the F-35's late, overweight and vastly overbudget existence is worth preserving as a monument to procurement inefficiency. Or if we can afford the contract termination fees and likely loss of another major defense contractor to start over. Perhaps by resurrecting the F-22 line as an interim Gen-5 platform with F-35 technology inserts and leaving the USN to rot on the vine while we institue an emergency development effort to find a replacement for the F/A-XX which is also too expensive for what it will provide.

PS:Pl. do check if info is available.I think that the main reason for the IN not buying ex-RN Harriers could be down to two reasons.One funds.Not in the budget. Would require a DM unlike AKA to "seize the day". No swift decision making unlike that displayed by RG when we were offered the Hermes.Different political /DM leadership.Before we could even react,the USMC bought the lot.These are all RAF GR versions adapted to RN carrier ops.However,there may be some Sea Harriers left in RN storage which we could acquire.

The second point is that some critical eqpt. would've been removed.We earlier bought a few ex-RN two-seat trainer versions if I remember correctly,but Blue Vixen radars were not offered.This would've resulted in another upgrade round, inevitable to bring the aircraft in conformity with the LUSH std. There was a report (CAG?) that the Derby did not meet its specified range,etc. Perhaps this is another contributing reason.However,the Viraat's SH capability is at its lowest ever. The ex-RN aircraft could've been used for cannibalisation at least ,along with acquiring the plentiful supply of spares,engines,etc.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Sep 2013 08:08

Philip wrote:Do you too? However,at least there is clarity in his conclusion,whether to go ahead or not acquiring the JSF.

Buddy, that is your post, not mine. So, if at all it would be you that needs to understand it BEFORE posting, not me.

However, like I stated in my previous post, no I do not understand some parts of it.

But, from what I do, his arguments are not that strong. In fact they are rather weak. But then he is a commenter, so that is the norm for comments.

{I did a search on that page for the author of that comment "Lop_Eared_Galoot". I got 29 returns. Perhaps it would behoove you to go and read some of the responses to his postS.}

PS:Pl. do check if info is available.I think that the main reason for the IN not buying ex-RN Harriers could be down to two reasons.One funds.Not in the budget. Would require a DM unlike AKA to "seize the day". No swift decision making unlike that displayed by RG when we were offered the Hermes.Different political /DM leadership.Before we could even react,the USMC bought the lot.These are all RAF GR versions adapted to RN carrier ops.However,there may be some Sea Harriers left in RN storage which we could acquire.

The second point is that some critical eqpt. would've been removed.We earlier bought a few ex-RN two-seat trainer versions if I remember correctly,but Blue Vixen radars were not offered.This would've resulted in another upgrade round, inevitable to bring the aircraft in conformity with the LUSH std. There was a report (CAG?) that the Derby did not meet its specified range,etc. Perhaps this is another contributing reason.However,the Viraat's SH capability is at its lowest ever. The ex-RN aircraft could've been used for cannibalisation at least ,along with acquiring the plentiful supply of spares,engines,etc.

SO, you really do not know why the IN did not get those Harriers, do you? And then claim IN did not have vision? Seems to me they had perfetc vision and did not spend funds on a lump of nothingness.

I did search a wee bit (need to do more), but IN looked into buying 8 trainers in 2007/8 and seems they did not (???).

Funds were there in 2010, that was never the issue. What was going to removed was the capability to fire the 120, they were going to retain the rest WITHOUT support. Do not know if that made any diff, but your claim that the IN lacked vision is so far wrong. They seemed to have looked at all options and then rejected it.

However,at least there is some clarity in his conclusion,whether to go ahead or not acquiring the JSF.

What conclusion?

He wrote that two months ago, so he is certainly saved from the recent releases. BUT:

Mr. confused wrote:If we're going to save the U.S. defense posture, we need to, right now, decide whether the F-35's late, overweight and vastly overbudget existence is worth preserving as a monument to procurement inefficiency. Or if we can afford the contract termination fees and likely loss of another major defense contractor to start over. Perhaps by resurrecting the F-22 line as an interim Gen-5 platform with F-35 technology inserts and leaving the USN to rot on the vine while we institue an emergency development effort to find a replacement for the F/A-XX which is also too expensive for what it will provide.
My own view is the Gen-6 needs to be hypersonic and that this alone will totally change how we view intra-theater applications of nominally 'tactical' airpower.

The price as we post is coming down and is EXPECTED to go down even further. (Based on the AWST article you posted.)

Then his alternative - F/A-XX - he himself claims "which is also too expensive for what it will provide." {Oh yeah? Nice alternative.}

And then the kicker: "My own view is the Gen-6 needs to be hypersonic and that this alone will totally change how we view intra-theater applications of nominally 'tactical' airpower." {Oh wow. hypersonic solutions when they have failed in ALL their attempts.}

Clarity?

Some conclusion.

Need to read, and the understand what one posts. Padho, phir padahi karo.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Sep 2013 13:06

I stand by my comments.I think I understand the issues quite well.That's my opinion,you may differ.Unfortunately you sometimes cannot see the wood for the trees, and degrade discussion to the personal level.A pity.If you don't like my viewpoints,its just too bad.It's a free country and free forum.You can't stop me from posting my views and analysis of the issues.I don't complain about your personality,or posts.I give alternatives for other people to chew on.

Of course the IN had no vision.It is refitting the Viraat to serve for another decade without enough aircraft for the role. We have barely half-a-dozen serviceable.Officially 8 + 2/3trainers.The USMC had far better vision by their swift decision to acquire the lot on the cheap,less than $3M an aircraft! I've posted above the US's defence budget woes too.They played it smart.The good ex-air chief should ponder over why the USMC bought the ex-RN Harriers. I wonder where the IN is going to get aircraft for the Viraat for the rest of its lifespan. The other info is what I know from earlier facts to give a wider perspective.Just see how the USMC will operate the type until 2026!

The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) is paying $180 million to buy 72 BAE Harrier GR.9 V/STOL fighters that were axed from the Royal Air Force in last year’s British defense review. The airframes, engines and other parts will be used as a spares source for the USMC’s fleet of AV-8B Harriers, which are now scheduled to continue in service until 2026, four years later than previously planned.

The UK Ministry of Defence said that the sale brought total savings from retiring the Harrier fleet to about $1.5 billion. The British Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) also withdrew the Royal Navy’s two “Harrier-carriers,” thus leaving the UK without a “carrier strike” capability until 2020, when one of two larger carriers now under construction will be equipped with F-35Cs.

The USD1.5 billion figure quoted by the MoD is the value of the sale plus the savings it says it has made from the early retirement of the aircraft in 2010 – some eight years earlier than originally planned.

British junior defense minister Peter Luff said, “Harrier served this country with great distinction, but retiring it eight years earlier than planned was the right decision. Had we taken the decision in the SDSR to decommission Tornado instead, we would not have been able to carry out the missions that were required simultaneously in Libya and Afghanistan. It was essential to retire older, less capable aircraft to allow us to invest in more modern, cutting-edge fast jets.”

It is understood that the GR.9 aircraft will help support the USMC's McDonnell Douglas AV-8B fleet as well as allowing the corps to retire some of its older model Boeing F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters.

Source: by Chris Pocock - December 2, 2011 - IHS Jane's & Aviation International News

More on the issue.Who lacks vision?

USMC’s Harriers Could Fly Until 2030!
by John Reed on April 16, 2012

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/usmcs ... z2doTzPidf
Defense.org

Yup, you read that correctly. With the help of spare parts scavenged from Britain’s old GR9 Harriers that the Marine Corps just bought from the UK, the Marines could keep their AV-8B Harrier jump jets flying until 2030. Yes, the Harriers could serve alongside, F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, EA-18G Growlers, and whatever jet is selected as the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike jet. Remember, the F-35B short-takeoff and vertical landing version of the JSF was originally supposed to start replacing the Marines’ Harriers and F/A-18 Hornets by oh about now. You all know what’s happened to that plan. The AV-8B entered service with the Marines in the mid-1980s.

Naval Air Systems Command has done a structural analysis of the Harriers’ airframes and concluded that the jets will be good, with plenty of maintenance, to fly through 2030, said Rear Adm. Donald Gaddis, the Navy’s program executive officer for tactical aviation during the Navy League’s annual Sea, Air, Space conference in National Harbor, Md.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/usmcs ... z2doU8zIvn
Defense.org

The aircraft were also not junk,but most of which were fully operational,some recently upgraded.A 16 aircraft final flypast marked the end of its service with the UK.The irony is that the JSF is also delayed and will probably enter RN service a couple of years late with the RN.

The UK had already reduced the size of its Harrier ground-attack fleet over the last several years, but Flightglobal’s MiliCAS database says the type’s early retirement still leaves around 52 aircraft as surplus to requirements. This includes 28 recently upgraded GR9s and 16 GR9As – the latter version is powered by Rolls-Royce’s uprated Pegasus 107 engine – plus eight T10/12/12A two-seat trainers

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/nov/ ... britain-us

The sale of the Harriers is bound to raise fresh questions about the wisdom of retiring the much-admired aircraft, which the Americans intend to use until 2025.

Speaking to the NavyTimes, Rear Admiral Mark Heinrich, chief of the US navy's supply corps, said buying the Harriers made sense because many of the jets had been recently upgraded, and the US already had pilots who could fly them.

"We're taking advantage of all the money the Brits have spent on them," he said. "It's like we're buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it. These are very good platforms. And we've already got trained pilots."

The US military already has its own fleet of Harriers, and converting the British planes to fire American missiles can be done relatively easily.

The F-35B also has to overcome this little problem before induction..
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/ ... ot-weather

The hi-tech jets that will be flown from the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers cannot land on the ships in "hot, humid and low pressure weather conditions", a report warns today.

The version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) that has been bought for the £5.5bn carriers is still in development but currently cannot land vertically – as its predecessor the Harrier jump jet could – in warm climates without jettisoning heavy payloads, the National Audit Office says.

Though the Ministry of Defence insists the problem will be overcome by the time the first carrier is ready for service in 2020, it is one of a number of concerns pointed out by the NAO over a project that has been bedevilled by delays and cost increases

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Sep 2013 13:25

If one wants to see how the program has also been managed,read the foll. (April '13) excerpts coming straight from the man who was until recently in charge of the programme.True,on paper the bird has merits,but years of delay,cost overruns and plagued by problems,the JSF is in trouble.

More problems cited in F-35 JSF program

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program continues to trigger new controversies. Latest comments allege flawed estimates of the jet's weight and, as before, questions about the timeline for the plane's delivery and final cost.

Outgoing Executive Vice President and JSF General Manager Tom Burbage was quoted in the news media as saying the manufacturer miscalculated on the aircraft's weight during its early development.

After spending 12 years fronting the Lockheed Martin F-35 program Burbage retired Monday on an optimistic note but still far from clear about the aircraft's ultimate cost and delivery schedule.

Burbage was named head of the F-35 program less than three weeks after the company beat Boeing to develop the aircraft. Then valued at $220 billion, the contract aims to build thousands of F-35 for the U.S. military and hundreds more for international partners, Flight International said on its website.

When those aircraft will roll off to join the waiting military services worldwide remains unclear.

In a Lockheed Martin news conference, Burbage looked back on key lessons that could have been learned and spared the manufacturer a costly redesign and troublesome relations with the program's international partners.

After a 2004 redesign responding to weight concerns that delayed the program two years and cost billions of dollars, Burbage stepped aside from the daily operations and became the F-35's public face marketing the aircraft around the world for the next eight years.

Canada and Japan are in the forefront of countries having second thoughts about the JSF and considering significant cutbacks in their acquisition of the joint strike fighter.

Burbage said he hopes future engineers working on a sixth-generation fighter will heed lessons of the work done so far on the F-35 program.

"Somewhere along the way, we made an error in our parametric weight models," Burbage said.

"Turned out we were predicting the things that we knew about pretty well, the structural parts were pretty close, the small detail parts were pretty close. What wasn't predicted well by the model was stealth and internal weapons bays because the airplane that had those capabilities weren't part of the database."

It could have been as early as 2003 when quick-mate joints -- appliances used to make production faster -- were thrown away to save 1,000 pounds of weight, the Eric Palmer blog said, citing statements made at the time by Burbage and others.

The blog said that during the encounter with reporters, "Burbage made no apologies for his years of misleading Joint Strike Fighter Partner nation government officials about cost and capability of this troubled program."

"The fundamental airplane is going to be there," Burbage told reporters, Defense News said. "It's going to be late, it's going to be more expensive than we thought to do the development, but it's still going to be there, which I think that's the ultimate metric."

"I don't know what the timeline will be," he continued. "I'm hoping that it will be on a reasonable timeline. I think we have a new leadership that's gonna drive the program where it needs to be. It's a new day going forward.

"I think it will happen. I think all three airplanes will be flying in the services, and it's just a question of time, now."

Burbage said running the F-35 program was "more complicated than running some of the business enterprises that are companies."

The program manages thousands of employees, multiple companies and countries worldwide.

He said the decision to develop the F-35 as a joint program with a number of partners led to complications, Defense News said. Geopolitical events outside its control also affected the program, Burbage said.

"Who would have predicted a eurozone crisis for all the international partners in Europe? Who would have predicted the shift to the Middle East and the pivot to the Pacific?" Burbage asked.

The focus on Asia has "actually had a pretty big effect" on the JSF program as a whole, leading to two new partners in Japan and, potentially, South Korea, Defense News said.

Asked how far behind schedule the program was, Burbage said the answer depended on what metric is used, Defense News said. Citing program restructuring in 2010, he said, "I would argue the program post-2010 is not the program pre-2010, modified slightly. It's really a new program."

"The program is so big that a small bump in the road is a big bump in the road," he said, Defense News said.

"It's a tough program. It's technically a very challenging program. This airplane is going to have the capabilities that can transform the joint coalition operational model, and it's going to be effective for a long time."

Burbage sought to keep the international coalition of countries outside the U.S. on track and, where possible, chase new international business, Aviation Week said.

Stephen O'Bryan is working under Burbage as vice president of program integration.

"The departure of Burbage will mark a major shift for the program," Aviation Week said. "He was a polarizing figure for the Joint Strike Fighter. Those staunchly behind him say he provided much of the glue that has kept the international coalition together through thick and thin as the F-35 stumbled through numerous cost overruns, technical problems and delays.

"Those more critical of his contribution suggest that he was at the forefront of Lockheed Martin's aggressive sales campaign that overpromised to customers and has, thus far, under delivered," Aviation Week said.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... z2dobX24iP

This was just a few months ago.So it appears that the usual BS ,overoptimistic sales talk was used by the GM in charge.From his own comments it appears that he was groping in the dark on many things and is still quite clueless about when the thanksgiving bird will eventually arrive!

PS: Some new costing figs after the 4% reduction after 6 months of negotiations (1 yr for LRIP 5),which has been approved by the Senate for 2014 acquisitions,but which has slowed down 2015 prod. rates until dev. issues are resolved.

But lawmakers’ concerns over concurrency led to a reduction in advanced procurement for fiscal 2015 so the program can “focus on the existing challenges in testing, design and development before ramping up,” committee Chairman Sen. Dick Durbin D-Ill. said.

“Aggressive overlap in designing, testing and procuring this aircraft earlier in its history got us into serious trouble,” Durbin said, “and this committee is eager to avoid a repeat of these problems.”

In LRIP-5, the F-35A variant cost $105 million per jet, the F-35B cost $113 million per jet, and the F-35C cost $125 million per jet. Based on those costs, reducing 4 percent for each of the follow-on lots should bring unit costs to around:

■ F-35A: $100.8 million in LRIP-6, $96.7 million in LRIP-7.

■ F-35B: $108.4 million in LRIP-6, $104.1 million in LRIP-7.

■ F-35C: $120 million in LRIP-6, $115.2 million in LRIP-7.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... cerned-JSF

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Sep 2013 14:13

IF you have something recent let me know - Aug 2013 onwards. I am on my iPod but all those articles are dated, as far as I can see and therefore badly skewed. I cannot take them seriously - my posts are very recent.

On the harrier posts will need to research more about IN. And I wholeheartedly agree that ISMC did a great job. butso fat disagree that I N did a poor one.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Sep 2013 15:14

Reports of a few months old are quite valid,as matters do not get fixed overnight.One also needs to have a strong foundation of history ,recent history at least to understand new info as it comes.The 4% reduction in costs of LRIP variants will be better understood from earlier figs.

In my opinion,the IOC of the IAC was "overestimated",and the extra MIG-29Ks,making a total of just under 50 for the type,was supposed to operate out of both Gorky and IAC-1 sometime around 2017.Now that the IAC-1 is delayed by a few years,2020 a realistic date,the Viraat has had to be given yet another dose of steroids to last out until 2020,which will be a record of 60 yrs. of service! Yet even before this delay in the IAC-1's arrival,the lack of enough Harriers was already an issue.The Viraat can carry upto 30 aircraft and helos.With plans for new amphib vessels too,even if they arrive after 2020,after the Viraat is retired the harriers could've served aboard the Gorky or IAC-1 upto 2026/2030 from the above posts ,USMC estimates.This would've been especially invaluable because the NLCA is delayed as well.Until the new more powerful engine required for carrier ops is integrated into the NLCA and other developmental issues like weight,landing gear,etc., are resolved ,none will enter service until the next decade..that too if NLCA production does not suffer with deliveries of IAF birds with a huge production rate of 8 per year!

The crux of the matter is that under the UPA,the MOD and AKA,has been very lax in "seizing the day".It has been reactive,in decision making rather than pro-active.The case of the immediate "rush to Russia" after the sub disaster speaks for itself.Therefore,one pities the services who also must share some of the blame in not more forcefully presenting their case and using the media more effectively.Someone just posted the indifference of a service in improving its PR.At least the services could've used the voice of ex-chiefs and recognised think-tanks and strategic analysts to lobby and bombard the MOD and GOI on serious shortcomings.In recent times they are heard more often thanks to a pro-active media.If you look at the Pakis,they usually act fast,keeping a weather eye on the "bone".They seized a goodly lot of T-80s on the cheap from Ukraine,forcing us into the knee-jerk reaction in buying the T-90.China seized hundreds of Soviet engineers and designers to help modernise their wares.We just "pass the parcel" hoping that the music will stop.

As they say "opportunity knocks but once".The "Postman might ring twice",but he usually delivers the bills!