JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

F-35 programme starts to turn the corner.

CHEAP turkey !!!!!
Things are starting to look up for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, says the top Pentagon official overseeing the programme.

If the trend holds up, by 2019, the F-35 programme will deliver a “fifth-generation aircraft at fourth-generation prices,” says US Air Force Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 programme executive officer.
So much for Rafale and the FGFA.


F-35 inducted into USAF air logistics centre
Hill AFB, Utah, hosted a ceremony on 20 September marking the arrival of the first Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighter to a depot facility for upgrading. Industry sources say the aircraft had arrived at the US Air Force’s Air Logistics Complex on 13 September.

“This aircraft was designed from its inception to evolve through modifications and upgrades so that our warfighters can continually outpace their opposition,” says Lorraine Martin, Lockheed’s F-35 vice-president and general manager.

The first F-35A to arrive is assigned to the 53rd Test and Evaluation Group at Nellis AFB, Nevada, and is expected to be used in the Block 2B operational testing and evaluation programme in 2015. The aircraft will receive a number of structural and avionics retrofits needed for the F-35 to complete its operational evaluations.

The US Marine Corps hopes to declare the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B variant operational in July 2015 with a Block 2B configuration. The USAF will follow suit in August 2016 using a Block 3i configuration, which is the same software load as Block 2B, but hosted on newer computer hardware.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Philip »

Will believe it when the turkey is on the plate,eaten and the bill received,including washing up charges! the definitive version of the JSF is a some way away from being served,and there are 3 distinctive flavours which are almost 3 diff. aircraft being developed.In any case it is not in the same league as the FGFA,meant to be a junior "compadre" of the F-22.The Rafale may be 4++ gen. only,but it is a proven in service "omni-role"aircraft with much combat experience.A bird in the hand rather than a 3-bird combo in the bush.If it is so appetising,why have the Canadians ordered the "diet" menu instead of the full course?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

I agree, we need to wait till 2019 to see if the estimated cost for the F-35A is actually $85 million per plane. There is a chance it may not happen.

On Canadian thinking, did they actually reduce their order? Outside of the Netherlands I have not seen ANY reductions so far.
KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 964
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by KrishnaK »

She applied for a scholarship and got it. She has degrees in computational mathematics and computer science.
Interesting no ?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Philip »

Sorry,one meant the Netherlands.Here are two items about the Mounties exploring the Rafale instead?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-1 ... -soar.html

Dassault Says Canada Mulling Rafale Warplane as JSF Costs Soar
By Andrea Rothman - Mar 14, 2013

Xcpts:
Canada’s minister of public works and government services, Rona Ambrose, said Dec. 12 that the country had “hit the reset button” on a deal for 65 JSFs after consultant KPMG said the estimated $25 billion bill could jump to $46 billion.

The Rafale’s performance in engagements in Libya and more recently in Mali, where France used the jet to help retake territory held by Islamic militants, will provide military officials with examples of its combat ability, Trappier said.

The F-35, the Pentagon’s costliest weapons system, hasn’t yet begun combat testing and isn’t scheduled to complete it until 2019, seven years later than planned, according to a recent report by Pentagon chief weapons tester Michael Gilmore.



$10.5B of Canadian work on F-35 fighter jets at risk without order: Lockheed Martin


Ross Marowits, The Canadian Press
Published Friday, September 13, 2013

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/10-5b-of ... z2gPsRTJvm
MONTREAL -- Canada's aerospace industry could lose about $10.5 billion worth of contracts over several decades if the federal government ultimately decides not to purchase the controversial F-35 Stealth Fighter, says a senior executive at Lockheed Martin.

Orlando Carvalho, executive vice-president of the U.S. defence giant, says Lockheed will honour $500 million worth of business already awarded to Canadian partners but that other work would be in jeopardy without a Canadian jet order.

"If in fact the Canadian government were to decide not to select the F-35 we will certainly honour the contracts that we have here with the Canadian industry but our approach in the future would be to try to do business with the industries that are in the countries that are buying the airplane," he said in an interview after officially opening its new engine overhaul facility in Montreal.
Related Stories

Pressure increases on government to stick with F-35 or leave program
What can your jet do? Government asks F-35 rivals for information
F-35 purchase may be delayed by U.S. budget cuts, MacKay warns

Carvalho said Lockheed estimates that Canadian industry could potentially receive $11 billion of contracts over 25 to 40 years as its builds 3,000 planes for air forces around the world.

About 72 Canadian companies have secured work on the F-35 project. Industry Canada has estimated that the potential value could be US$9.8 billion, including the amount of contracts already awarded.

Gilles Labbe, the former head of aerospace cluster Aero Montreal and CEO of F-35 supplier Heroux-Devtek (TSX:HRX), last year warned that thousands of jobs would be at risk if lead manufacturers Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman remove work destined to be completed in Canada by members of the global supply chain.

Ottawa is evaluating potential alternatives to its original plan to purchase 65 F-35 aircraft. A KPMG report late last year warned that the total bill, including service and support, could be as much as $45.8 billion over 42 years to replace the current stable of CF-18s, which are due to be retired in 2020.

Carvalho said Lockheed continues to reduce the F-35's cost. He said each plane will cost Canada around $75 million in today's dollars, or about $85 million including inflation once they are expected to be delivered to Canada in 2018.

He said the contractor has removed 50 per cent of costs from when it started production and is looking at how to remove another 50 per cent as it gets into full production, making it "an affordable airplane" to the U.S. government.

"As we continue to gain the efficiency on the production line, the learning, as we continue to build more and more airplanes, as the production ramps up, the cost of this airplane will only come down."

Carvalho added that the plane's features, including stealth technology and surveillance capabilities, make it the right choice for Canada.

The head of rival defence contractor Boeing said last week that he's confident that his company's F-18 Super Hornet could fill Canada's military needs at a lower cost.

James McNerney said it was only a matter of time before the Canadian government reopens the contract to new bidding and that the next generation of aircraft in use by Canada since the 1980s will be able to compete.
It appears quite likely that the Canadians will reopen the tender and the advanced F-18SH might find favour if it can outbid the Rafale.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

IF Canada reopens the tender, then it will be because they need a two engined aircraft (I honestly do not know why they signed up for a single engined F-35 in the first place. Actually even the USN too).

Secondly, they will NEVER go for a European aircraft. They have just too much invested in US based planes - offsets - that will prevent them from buying a European machine. That from a chaiwala - not mine. Just will not happen. But then, let us see.

Finally, WRT the F-35, the ultimate test of moving away is to let LM know about it through proper channels. And, then face the loss of F-35 related offsets. Now, I am not too sure what that math works out to, but I would imagine that is a substantial to rock the boat - but, perhaps not sink it.

Either way, wish them the best.

Having said that I am fairly confident that they will stick to the F-35. They have about a year to decide. And the math will work itself out.

The bad news was that the F-35 was too expensive and rightly so. But, iF the downward trend of the cost can continue, then no customer will and actually can let the offer go. At $85 mil a plane - in 2019 - that is a steal for what one gets. Provided the F-35 is a good fit for their AF.

BTW, Singapore is thinking about the F-35.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Philip »

Here is an excellent report on the virtues of the F-35,though the author ends his piece speculating whether UCAVs will have taken over by the time the F-35 arrives in full measure.It's a long feature and worth reading in full.A comprehensive coverage of the pros and cons.

For US allies who cannot acquire the FGFA or SU-30/35,they have little alternative to buying some qty. of JSFs merely to keep the Chinese stealth fighters at bay.True,why Canada needs the JSF when it faces no great stealth threat,though some may now argue about the opening up of the Artic maritime trade route after the ice cap melting has opened up a new shorter route to Asia from Europe and increased Russian naval activity in those waters.

Inside the F-35, the world's most futuristic fighter jet
An aviation fantasy from the realms of Star Wars, the F-35 is the most sophisticated, expensive and controversial jet fighter ever produced. Jonathan Glancey takes its flight simulator for a spin

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... r-jet.html

Xcpts:
Everyone I meet involved in the F-35 project talks lyrically about the computer wizardry of this digital-era aircraft. I ask the same analogue question, over and again, of the test pilots: so what’s it like to fly?

'A no-brainer,’ they chorus.

They talk so fervently about the Star Wars aspects of the F-35 partly because it is the easiest aircraft any of them has ever flown: pilots are free to manage the weaponry while the F-35, more or less, flies itself.

Interactive graphic: explore the F-35 fighter jet in more detail

Tucked away inside the Lockheed Martin complex, Dr Mike Skaff, the chief engineer of pilot/vehicle interface for the F-35 programme, and a former USAF F-16 pilot, guides me through the simulator.

The seat is comfortable, the view commanding, the controls minimal. Turn on the battery. Press the starter. In 90 seconds, the virtual F-35B is ready to fly just as the real aircraft would be: unlike most aircraft, the F-35 performs all necessary safety checks automatically and extremely quickly. The instrument panel is a glass screen measuring 20x8in. As with an iPad, you touch it to bring up the information you need. Pilots can also talk to the aircraft; it talks back.

The F-35B, however, is 'fifth generation’. Not only is it stealthy in the military sense – all but undetectable by radar because of its origami form, its special coating, its hidden engine and low heat emission – but it can also perform truly extraordinary tricks through its continuously upgradeable computer software and complex engineering. What sort of tricks? Well, here I am turning towards the airfield. Not only will the F-35B land itself, but it will also hover at the touch of a button. Where hovering a Harrier is not unlike spinning plates on a pole on the tip of your nose while riding a trick bicycle on a circus high-wire – and no mistakes are affordable – the F-35 stops in the air, just like that, the pilot’s hands off the controls.....

Shortly before Christmas Air Chief Marshall Sir Stephen Dalton, Chief of the Air Staff, announced the formation of a new grouping known as Remotely Piloted Air System (RPAS) pilots. Because they will have to gain basic flying qualifications, this new generation of pilots will wear the same 'wings’ RAF pilots have cherished for generations. The 'lethal precision of their weapons’, Sir Stephen told the Royal United Services Institute, means that RPAS pilots will be seen increasingly as 'a cost-effective way to conduct warfare’. They will not be chasing the shouting wind alone in the cockpits of Typhoons, nor flying F-35s through footless halls of air; instead, they will be flying computer screens in remote underground bunkers.

'We’re making these [F-35s] for our kids to fly,’ Steve O’Bryan says, meaning future generations. Military pilots such as Jim Schofield, Harv Smyth, 'Wizzer’ Wilson, Billy Flynn and Brian Burridge will always want to fly in real airspace, and yet it is chastening to learn that the X-35B, the prototype F-35B, is already perched silently in the Boeing Aviation Hangar of the Smithsonian Institution in Virginia – a museum piece. Today’s fifth-generation fighter, hugely impressive, deeply seductive, upgradable and so very important and perhaps necessary to so many people’s security, jobs and freedom, is, oddly, already beginning to seem a part of military aviation history.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

Oh, my. How quickly the world changes. Mr. Glancey wrote that article in Jan, 2013 and it is already outdated!!!! : )

And, thank God for dates.

BTW, why do the Russians need a PAK-FA? Or the Chinese TWO 5th Gen planes? Just wondering.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

Image
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Victor »

TSJones wrote:pic of short, stubby, aircraft.....enjoy :)
(pic of F-35)
open another window in your computer and play this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKYIC2MPjO0

and then go back and look at the pic of the f-35 while listening to karunesh.....
:mrgreen: Nice! :mrgreen:
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Victor »

NRao wrote:iF the downward trend of the cost can continue, then no customer will and actually can let the offer go
This was the plan all along and it is playing more or less according to script. A testament to bulldog mentality of the Americans and the willingness to take risks. The cost per piece will go down further as more units are confirmed or at least resist inflation. Even then, it bears repeating that piece price is not the main savings source. The approx 70% commonality between types and the attendant savings in manufacture, logistics and training are. Considering that it will replace the A-10, F-16, F/A-18 and Harrier, the savings will be huge over the 4-5 decades it is expected to serve. Countries who are not a part of the F-35 network will simply not be able to compete, period. Certainly not China or Russia.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

Sept 30, 2013 :: Lockheed, Pentagon cite improved F-35 quality work since end 2012
Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) has resolved many quality problems on the $392 billion F-35 fighter jet program since a troubling audit by the Pentagon inspector general's office last year, top U.S. government and industry officials said on Monday.

The officials were commenting on a report on the year-long in depth assessment by the inspector general, which was completed in December 2012, but not released until Monday.

The report said each radar-evading fighter jet built had over 800 quality issues on average, and faulted both the Pentagon's F-35 program office and the Defense Contracts Management Agency for "inadequate" and "ineffective" oversight of the Pentagon's costliest weapons program.

The report said the issues could lead to "nonconforming hardware, less reliable aircraft and increased cost," but said the F-35 program office was implementing corrective actions.

Additional assessments of the program were being planned, the report added.

The F-35 program is running years behind schedule and 70 percent over initial cost estimates, but Pentagon officials say it has made progress on flight testing, production and long-term operating costs. They have also vowed to protect the program from across-the-board budget cuts to ensure it stays on track.

Lockheed is building three variants of the new jet for the U.S. military and eight countries that funded its development: Britain, Canada, Australia, Norway, Italy, Turkey, Denmark and the Netherlands. Israel and Japan have also ordered jets.

The Pentagon's deputy F-35 program director and Lockheed executives cited significant improvements since the inspector general's assessment concluded last year. The study was the first of its kind ever done on a major weapons program, they said.

"This was a wake-up call that we had to be more rigorous," Eric Branyan, Lockheed's F-35 vice president of program management, told Reuters in a telephone interview.

"We take this very seriously," he said, adding that Lockheed had implemented a host of specific initiatives to focus on quality company-wide and had also set up a global quality council with 10 key suppliers.

Branyan said about 13 percent of the work on any F-35 fighter jet centred on resolving quality issues, down from around 18 percent during the first low-rate production batch.

He said Lockheed expected to drive that "scrap and rework" rate down to around 6 percent in several years when production reaches between 500 and 600 jets. The company's popular F-16 fighter jet only hit that 6 percent rate after production of four times as many jets - around 2,600 planes, he added.

The IG's report acknowledged some improvement in work on the F-35 program, but said further gains were needed since repair and rework rates continued to add significant cost.

It said there were an average of 859 "quality action requests" per aircraft in the fourth lot of low-rate production jets, down from over 900 on each of the three earlier sets.

The IG report said Lockheed's scrap, rework and repair rate fell to 13.11 percent in fiscal year 2013, which ends Monday, from 13.82 percent a year earlier, showing only "moderate" change.

"Although it would be unrealistic to expect first production to be issue free, our contractor assessments indicate that greater emphasis on quality assurance, requirement flow down and process discipline is necessary, if the government is to attain lower program costs," the report said.

Lockheed said it had also reduced the number of hours associated with quality issues on each jet to around 80,000, down from around 190,000 hours seen during production of the first batch of low-rate production jets.

Navy Rear Admiral Randy Mahr, the No. 2 official in charge of the F-35 program, said Lockheed and its suppliers were making progress in addressing issues raised by the inspector general's assessment. He said his office was also working closely with the Defense Contract Management Agency to ensure improved oversight.

Of 343 quality problems identified by the IG assessment, some 269 - or 78 percent - had been addressed and closed through specific action plans, and remedies were under way for all but 10 items, where specific plans still needed approval, said Kyra Hawn, spokeswoman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office.

Mahr said a majority of the findings were consistent with weaknesses previously identified by the DCMA and the F-35 Joint Program Office, and did not present new or critical issues that affect the health of the program. But he stressed that the IG assessment was professional and helpful.

"We're intentionally leveraging the lessons learned," Mahr told a small group of reporters. "You can't inspect yourself. We understand that. That's why the (inspector general) is there. We need people to come in and look and point out areas where we aren't paying enough attention."

The inspector general's office looked specifically at work done by Lockheed, the prime contractor on the F-35 program, and five suppliers: Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N); Britain's BAE Systems Plc (BAES.L); L-3 Communications Holdings Inc (LLL.N), Honeywell International Inc (HON.N) and the United Technologies Corp (UTX.N) unit that makes the plane's landing gears.

F-35 program officials said the inspector general's office initially planned to look at Pratt & Whitney, another United Technologies unit that builds the plane's engine under a separate contract with the government, but later skipped that part of the assessment due to funding constraints.

Two engine-related groundings last year occurred after the inspector general's office completed its assessment, Mahr said.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

Oct 1, 2013 :: Navy orders 40 Lockheed-Martin F-35 joint strike fighter aircraft in contracts worth $4.15 billion
U.S. Navy aviation leaders placed orders last week for 40 F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter (JSF) aircraft from the Lockheed Martin Corp. Aeronautics segment in Fort Worth, Texas, in two separate orders collectively worth $4.15 billion.

The orders, placed by officials of the Naval Air Systems Command at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Md., came on Friday in the second-to-last business day of federal fiscal year 2013. Federal agencies typically try to spend all their budgeted money before the end of the fiscal year.

The Navy awarded Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) one order worth $3.4 billion for 19 F-35 conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) military planes for the U.S. Air Force; six F-35 short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps; four F-35 carrier variant (CV) aircraft for the Navy; two F-35 CTOL aircraft for Norway; three F-35 CTOL aircraft for Italy; and one F-35 STOVL for the United Kingdom.

In another order, worth $742.7 million, the Navy placed an order with Lockheed Martin for two F-35 CTOL aircraft for Australia and three F-35 CTOL aircraft for Italy. Both orders involve low rate initial production (LRIP) lot VII F-35 Lightning II JSF aircraft.

In addition to the new combat aircraft, the contracts to Lockheed Martin include manufacturing support equipment, diminishing manufacturing sources management, pilot flight equipment, and concurrency changes to LRIP Lot 7 aircraft.

The F-35 is a family of single-seat, single-engine, fifth-generation multirole jet fighter-bombers designed to perform ground attack, reconnaissance, and air defense missions with stealth capability. The aircraft has three main models -- the F-35A CTOL, the F-35B STOVL, and the F-35C CV variant.

F-35 JSF development is funded by the U.S. and its close allies, the United Kingdom, Italy, Israel, The Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, and Turkey. The aircraft is designed to replace or augment the F-16 jet fighter, A-10 close air support aircraft, F/A-18 fighter-bomber, and AV-8B jump jet.

Lockheed Martin and the company's F-35 subcontractors will do the work in Fort Worth, Texas; El Segundo, Calif.; Warton, England; Orlando, Fla.; Nashua, N.H.; Baltimore; and Cameri, Italy. Aircraft deliveries should be made by October 2016.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Philip »

AWST
http://in.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416280785&e=true

Two reports on the JSF quality control issues by the IG "Quality Issues",and "Cost Target",the lower cost just below $100m for the USAF version.Latest LRIP costs are also gvien in a table.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

Northrop Grumman's F-35 DAS and Radar Demonstrate Ability to Detect, Track, Target Ballistic Missiles


[youtube]qF29GBSpRF4&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]
Published on Jun 21, 2012

The video shows Northrop Grumman's AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS) and AN/APG-81 F-35 radar as they detect, track and target multiple rocket launches during NASA's ATREX event at Wallops Island. The yellow box shows the radar as it tracks the missile and the magenta circle shows the tracking of the missile using the DAS.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

F-35 Glass cockpit:

From 2008:



From 2012:

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

F-35 project seeks to overcome EW obsolescence

Need login to read entire article.
The United States has embarked on a technology refresh development track for the electronic warfare (EW) module of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter to overcome obsolescence issues before the system has even made it into service.

This has seen the US Naval Air Systems Command place a USD149 million contract to Lockheed Martin, as a modification to a previous advanced acquisition deal and covers the "redesign and qualification of replacement F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter Electronic Warfare system components due to current diminishing manufacturing sources".

Principal components of the fifth-generation multi-mission F-35's integrated avionics suite are the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, Northrop Grumman's AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS), the Lockheed Martin AAQ-40 Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), a VSI (joint venture between Elbit Systems and Rockwell Collins) Helmet-Mounted Display System (HMDS), and BAE Systems' digital AN/ASQ-239 (Barracuda) system derived from the F-22 Raptor's AN/ALR-94 EW suite.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Philip »

Controversy in the UK over costs of JSF trg. in a mag report not in cyberspace.The UK is to set up its own trg. establishment for the RN,which will cost thrice as much per pilot ,instead of the cost of getting their pilots trained in the US,which other nations buying the aircraft plan to do.At the moment the RN is truly up the creek in a leaky boat with no carrier aviation whatsoever,asininely early retiring all its Harriers which were snapped up by the USMC who plan to use them upto 2025 at least.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

ALIS
Single, secure information environment
Distributed network based on Web technologies

Capabilities integrate broad range of domains – operations, maintenance, supply chain, customer support, training and technical data

Supports performance-based logistics for the F-35

Enables lower operation and sustainment life-cycle costs

Service-oriented architecture allows for reach-back to legacy systems and updates from future IT initiatives

External interfaces

Integrated commercial off-the-shelf/developed solutions utilize best-in-class applications

Support is in place today to support the development and test of the first production aircraft
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by negi »

I was just wondering the folks who have been waiting for JSF for all these years might be cursing the chap who came up with VL requirement (was it munna#1 UK and it's obsession with the jumpjet and all that ?) for JSF ; from a cursory glance if you look at the platform and the underlying technology everything was already proven and fielded by the F-22 only the tilt nozzle and fan part are different. Obviously JSF being a sort of a JV suffers from too many cooks ailment. I mean unless you are going to operate the F-35 from a rather small aircraft carrier I cannot think of any other use case to justify a complex powerplant like the one employed by F-35. Looks like because the 35B version got overweight by 2000 pounds LM lost 18 months on re-design and spent over 6 billion USD and for what ? So that munna#1 can deploy these on it's piddly carriers. Rest of the members of the consortium won't even field that version but since LM has to ensure that there exist a spare and design commonality in airframes it had to make changes to the other variants too.
Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Christopher Sidor »

^^^
Not exactly. The Vertical Lift capability was a requirement from the USN and Marines. USN and the marines know that in a future conflict involving PLAAF and PLAN they would loose some CBGs. If they had gone only for F-35C and not for F-35B then effectiveness of USN and Marines in any fight involving PLAAN and PLAAF would have been severely degraded. Even now one of the biggest customer of the F-35B is the US Marines. US Marines current aircraft simply do not have the capability to penetrate the Chinese Air defenses and hold their own against the current crop of PLAAF and PLAN fighters.

If one lives with the limitations of F-35B and moulds its strengths to ones advantage then it is a fantastic plane to posses. Even our Aircraft Carriers INS Vikramaditya, IAC-I and INS Viraat would have been potent forces to contend with had they fielded F-35B. Of Course our Aircraft carriers would have required modifications for fielding this aircraft. Think about it, all our carriers are non catapults carriers. Ideal environment for F-35B to operate from.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by TSJones »

Vertical lift capability was THE deciding factor on who was to get the contract for the F-35, Boeing or LockMart.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

CS,

A small quibble. The USN is getting only the F-35C (260 of them) (not the F-35B).

USMC is getting both: the F-35B (340) and F-35C (80). USMC procures these machines through USN, but are independent of the USN.

The Brits are getting (so far) 138 F-35Bs (they have flip-flopped between the B and the C). And the Italians are expecting 30 F-35Bs.

Negi,

The JSF "problemS" were HUGE and not solely related to the F-35B. (It was a very simple mistake - but it is taken care of). BUT, the result of that mistake is the cost (you mentioned) AND time: 9 years late (the JSF was supposed to have been inducted in 2010). In addition they bit more than they could chew (this happens, just that in leading edge cases it causes major headaches).

But, even with all this AND talk of looking at alternatives, the JSF will survive - there really are not options for these countries.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

TSJones wrote:Vertical lift capability was THE deciding factor on who was to get the contract for the F-35, Boeing or LockMart.
A couple of years ago I was in the restoration hanger at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, Dayton. And they had one of the copies of the Boeing solution out there - just the shell. One word: UGLY. (Sent a pic of it to hakimji IIRC.)

(BTW, they also had - among other planes - a complete MiG-27, engine and all, that the Iraqis had buried in the sand.)
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by TSJones »

NRao wrote:
TSJones wrote:Vertical lift capability was THE deciding factor on who was to get the contract for the F-35, Boeing or LockMart.
A couple of years ago I was in the restoration hanger at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, Dayton. And they had one of the copies of the Boeing solution out there - just the shell. One word: UGLY. (Sent a pic of it to hakimji IIRC.)

(BTW, they also had - among other planes - a complete MiG-27, engine and all, that the Iraqis had buried in the sand.)
Years ago I saw a documentry of the flyoff for the F-35 between Boeing and LockMart. The Boeing had pretty good capabilties but it looked like a pregnant segull or puffin. The Brits, who paid to particpate in the choice were aghast. It was LockMart for them, no questions about it. The US was kinda iffy probably due to the enormous power and reputation of Boeing. But they went with LockMart also. The head of the Boeing team put forth a valient effort but he just couldn't get past the design of his plane. It even showed him calling the CEO of Boeing and apologizing for the loss. The CEO was gracious enough but it was evident that the team leader of Boeing was doomed. He was a 40 year plus veteran of Boeing. That's captialism for you. Rewarding but harsh.

Also seen in documentry was the test pilots first flight of the test plane for the flyoff. The engineers put their car keys and wallets in a small bag and gave it to the test pilot to carry for the first test flight. It was awesome to watch!
Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5030
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Surya »

PBS Battle of the X planes?
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by TSJones »

Surya wrote:PBS Battle of the X planes?
That could be it but I am not sure. If its got the team leader apologizing to the CEO of Boeing, then that's the one.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

Norway wants to buy 6 more F-35 fighter jets
The Norwegian government wants to order another six F-35 fighter jets this year, in a deal worth some 7.38 billion kroner ($1.23 billion).

If approved by Parliament, the aircraft would be delivered by 2018 on top of six others ordered this year, which lawmakers had already agreed to. In 2011, Norway ordered four F-35s.

Norway's defense ministry said in 2008 it plans to buy 52 F-35 fighters for 64 billion kroner, but that each year's purchase must be approved by Parliament.

Monday's proposal was part of the 2014 budget plans presented by outgoing government, which is stepping down after a defeat in last month's parliamentary elections.

Leaders of the new government, expected to take office later this week, have said they would continue with plans to procure the 52 aircraft.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

Oct 13, 2013 :: Dutch to commence F-35 training
The Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) is to shortly begin training air and ground personnel on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the country's Defence Minister disclosed on 9 October.

Speaking to parliament in the Hague, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert said that RNLAF pilots and technicians will begin training at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) in Florida at the end of October. The disclosure comes weeks after she announced that the Netherlands will procure a total of 37 JSFs to replace the RNLAF's Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcons.

The pilots will start off with theoretical training and begin flying with the JSF in December. The training aims to prepare pilots and maintenance personnel for the operational test phase beginning in 2015.

The Netherlands will participate in both parts of this phase, testing the JSF's Block 2 software starting in 2015, followed by the testing of Block 3 software in 2017-2018. Dutch participation in the first part of the operational test phase was made possible by a delay in the start of the operational test phase and the extension of its duration, Hennis-Plasschaert told parliament. Dutch personnel will join their US and UK counterparts who have already completed a year of the initial two-year operational test phase.

The two Dutch F-35A conventional take-off and landing aircraft (AN-1, delivered in April 2012, and AN-2 delivered in March 2013) are currently at Eglin AFB. The two aircraft, along with the Dutch personnel, will move to Edwards AFB in California for the second part of the operational test phase.

Hennis-Plasschaert described the beginning of Dutch training at the end of October as an "irreversible step" in the Netherlands' JSF programme.

Participation in the operational test phase will cost the Netherlands EUR21.6 million (USD29.3 million) at current prices, and operating the two Dutch JSFs between 2013 and 2018 will cost EUR52.6 million (USD71.3 million), excluding munition usage.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

Pentagon Scraps Alternative F-35 Helmet
The U.S. Defense Department has canceled development of an alternative helmet for the F-35 fighter jet, the program office announced today.

The move is projected to save about $45 million in avoided development costs, according to Joe DellaVedova, a spokesman for the program.

“The F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) has decided to stop the development of an alternate helmet and focus solely on bringing the ‘Gen 2′ helmet – now being used in testing and training – up to a fully compliant Gen 3 standard,” he said in an e-mailed statement.

The decision is a loss for BAE Systems Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of London-based BAE Systems Plc, which was developing the product in coordination with the plane’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin Corp.

“We are disappointed at today’s decision by Lockheed Martin and the Joint Strike Fighter Joint Program Office to discontinue the pursuit of a second helmet for the F-35 aircraft,” Liz Ryan Sax, a spokeswoman for the company’s Electronic Systems unit, said in an e-mail. The team “has achieved every milestone to date, providing a critical viable alternative for the customer,” she said.

The Pentagon in September 2011 tapped BAE Systems to build a more traditional fighter helmet with night-vision goggles after Lockheed, Rockwell Collins Inc. and Elbit Systems Ltd. encountered problems developing a more advanced design, known as the Helmet Mounted Display System.

The dual-approach helped to lower the cost of the display system by 12 percent, DellaVedova said, though he didn’t specify its latest price tag.

The Helmet Mounted Display System is supposed to provide fighter pilots with 360-degree situational awareness in any kind of weather, day or night. The jet’s distributed aperture system is designed to stream real-time imagery from cameras mounted around the aircraft to the helmet, allowing pilot’s to “see through” the air frame.

While development of the technology “has posed significant challenges,” the program office has worked with Lockheed over the past two years to identify fixes, DellaVedova said.

“Improvements to the Gen 2 helmet are planned and being phased into production,” he said.

The second-generation helmet that pilots currently use will meet the needs for the Marine Corps to begin operational flights of the F-35 in July 2015, DellaVedova said.

The third-generation helmet — including an improved night-vision camera, new liquid-crystal displays, automated alignment and software improvements — will be introduced in 2016 as part of the seventh batch of Lightning II aircraft, DellaVedova said.

The Marine Corps version of the jet, called the F-35B, which can fly like a plane and land like a helicopter, is scheduled to begin operational flights by December 2015; the Air Force’s conventional version by December 2016 and the Navy’s carrier variant by February 2019.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons systems, estimated to cost $391 billion to develop and build 2,457 aircraft.

“The government’s decision to proceed exclusively with the principle helmet is indicative of their confidence in the helmet’s performance and the successful resolution of previously identified technical challenges,” Lorraine Martin, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and general manager of the F-35 Lightning II Program, said in a statement.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2013/10/10/penta ... z2hkmK2x2n
Defense.org
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

Oct 13, 2013 :: Israeli Company to Produce 'Next Generation' F-35 Helmets
Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon announced Sunday that Israeli engineering company Elbit Systems had been chosen to co-manufacture hi-tech helmets for pilots of the US F-35 stealth fighter.

He said in a statement that Elbit Systems and its US partner Rockwell Collins have been chosen by the Pentagon and F35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin to supply helmets for the next generation of the Joint Strike Fighter, the hi-tech warplane that is supposed to serve as the backbone of future American air power.

"I congratulate Elbit Systems on becoming a partner in this global flagship project to produce the world's most advanced warplane," Yaalon said.

Elbit Systems designed the helmet for the fighter, and its selection comes after early doubts following bugs in its early designs.

Israeli state-owned Israel Military Industries is already part of the F-35 project, for which it manufactures aircraft parts.

Yaalon lauded the significant involvement of Israeli developers in the production of the F-35, which Israel plans to introduce into its own airforce in the coming years.

"The choice of Elbit Systems to produce the pilots' helmets is a vote of confidence in Israel's defense industries and their people," he added.

Israeli daily Yediot Aharanot said that Israel has so far ordered 19 of the aircraft and intends to buy more.

"The new helmet, which is to be manufactured in the United States, is capable of putting flight data as well as data about weapons systems and intelligence before the pilot's eyes," it said, adding that it would be delivered as standard with every F-35 purchased around the world from 2016.

"The helmet allows the pilot to see images from the cameras on the plane, including on its nose. This allows the pilot to 'see through' the front of the plane and is very helpful in dogfights and in bombing targets on the ground," it wrote.

"With the Israel Air Force planning to decommission its fleet of ageing F-15s and F-16s, the F-35 will continue to ensure the country's global competitiveness," according to Lockheed Martin's website.

The aircraft, which comes in conventional, vertical takeoff and aircraft carrier versions, has struggled with production delays and cost overruns.

Designed to replace fighters in the US Air Force, Navy and Marines and supported by a consortium of eight countries, the programme is already the most expensive in US military history with a price tag of $395.7 billion (292.2 billion euros).
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5301
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Viv S »

I wonder what the forum response will be if we reopen the thread i.e. conduct a fresh round of polling. When the thread was first opened by Philip in 2011, most people were convinced that the F-35 was a $200 million white elephant that could not possibly be a substitute for the the MMRCA/Rafale. The first article on the thread is unsurprisingly titled 'The sound of a JSF death rattle'.

The flyaway cost of the Rafale F3 for the French military was about $140 million/unit in 2011 (ref). Maybe $130 mil for the Rafale B.

On the other hand, the estimated F-35A price for the LRIP 7 is $98 million/unit (ref). Add another $16 million for the F135 engine, LRIP 3 cost (lower for the LRIP 6) (ref), and you get a flyaway cost of $114 million, if not less. And the cost is likely to fall much further as the system gears up for full production.

Even assuming it isn't an apples to apples comparison, the F-35 does appear more than competitive on acquisition cost.

While the introduction of upgrades to the Rafale is proceeding quite satisfactorily, the commitment by the French state is tempered by its determination to scale back production orders as much as possible as long as the slack can be passed on to an 'export customer' (with prospects in UAE and Brazil appearing weak, the customer alluded to, is obvious).

(Ironically, when the EF was still in the running, the critics claimed that it 'needed' the IAF contract to bail out supposedly uninterested over-budget consortium members, and therefore ought to be rejected.)

In contrast, the F-35 already has its first upgrade program sanctioned, despite IOC being at least two years away, and has managed to retain traditional markets viz. Japan, Israel, South Korea (latter being all but certain), in addition to the eight other participants in the JSF program.
Last edited by Viv S on 18 Oct 2013 02:31, edited 2 times in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

And, to think there is plenty more out there.

As an example:

Nov, 2012 :: The F-35’s Race Against Time
It has been 16 years since the Pentagon laid out a set of requirements—the blueprint—for the advanced stealthy strike fighter now known as the F-35 Lightning II. Ambitious plans called for the Air Force’s F-35A to be operational by now, before Russia or China could field their own stealth fighters.

Plans, unfortunately, have changed. Serious program delays have pushed scheduled deliveries well to the right. Today, no one expects the fifth generation F-35A to enter operational service before 2017, if then.

How much of the F-35’s postulated combat advantage will remain? By the time it reaches squadron service, will it still be a dominant fighter, relative to the rest of the world? In short, is the F-35A going to be worth the wait?

If the view of Lockheed Martin is any guide, the answer is emphatically yes. In a recent briefing for Air Force Magazine, the F-35’s developer offered important new details about the fighter’s stealthy design, employment concepts, modern air combat capabilities, and more.

Just a Quartet

The briefing, summarized here, offers what should be viewed as something close to a best-case scenario for the new fighter.

Lockheed Martin Vice President Stephen O’Bryan, the company’s point man for F-35 affairs, declared that the fighter meets requirements. A former Navy F/A-18 Hornet pilot, O’Bryan said the combat capability of even the earliest baseline model will greatly exceed that of the most heavily upgraded fourth generation fighters and strike aircraft, such as the F-15, F-16, and F-18.

The fighter’s capabilities will make it a three- or four-for-one asset, said the Lockheed briefers, meaning that it will be able to simultaneously perform the roles of several different aircraft types—from strike to electronic attack, from command and control to battlefield surveillance.

O’Bryan pointed out an important truth about air combat: Fourth generation strike aircraft assigned to hit targets guarded by modern anti-access, area-denial systems (A2/AD, in military parlance) require the support of "AWACS, electronic attack, sweep airplanes, SEAD" (suppression of enemy air defenses) aircraft and cruise missiles. Such a package could run to dozens of aircraft.

The same mission, he claimed, can be achieved with just a quartet of F-35s. Each would be capable of operations that go well beyond air-to-ground missions. The four-ship would be a potent factor in any scenario calling for the employment of airpower, O’Bryan asserted.

In short, he concluded, the F-35 is "the efficient package" for future strike missions, offering high probability of success with "lower probability of loss."

When it comes to maintainable stealth design, the F-35 represents the state of the art, O’Bryan said, superior even to the F-22 Raptor, USAF’s top-of-the-line air superiority aircraft.

The F-22 requires heavy doses of regular and expensive low observable materials maintenance. F-35 stealth surfaces, by contrast, are extremely resilient in all conditions, according to the Lockheed team.

"We’ve taken it to a different level," O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35—verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges—is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22.

This, he went on, is true in part because the conductive materials needed to absorb and disperse incoming radar energy are baked directly into the aircraft’s multilayer composite skin and structure.

Moreover, the surface material smoothes out over time, slightly reducing the F-35’s original radar signature, according to the Lockheed Martin official. Only serious structural damage will disturb the F-35’s low observability, O’Bryan said, and Lockheed Martin has devised an array of field repairs that can restore full stealthiness in just a few hours.

Dramatic Stealthiness

The F-35’s radar cross section, or RCS, has a "maintenance margin," O’Bryan explained, meaning it’s "always better than the spec." Minor scratches and even dents won’t affect the F-35’s stealth qualities enough to degrade its combat performance, in the estimation of the company. Field equipment will be able to assess RCS right on the flight line, using far less cumbersome gear than has previously been needed to make such calculations.

In designing the new fighter, Lockheed Martin engineers assumed they would guess wrong about some access doors; it would be necessary to put some in different places during the course of its lifetime.

Thus, said O’Bryan, the company left open several ways to make field modifications that can create a quick-release door in the aircraft’s skin. These doors won’t then need tape or caulk to restore stealthiness, the application of which is a time-consuming and expensive chore in other stealth aircraft.

The repair and upkeep of low observables has been one of the F-22’s "main maintenance drivers," he said, "and that goes away with [the] F-35."

The F-35A has a serpentine inlet making engine fan blades invisible from any point outside the fuselage. That factor eliminates one of the biggest RCS problems for stealth designs.

Moreover, the air intakes constitute a single piece of composite material devoid of seams, rivets, or fasteners. These types of parts are huge RCS reflectors and caused massive signatures on earlier-generation aircraft. Their absence dramatically aids the F-35’s stealthiness.

That’s not all. No antennas protrude from the aircraft’s surfaces. These elements are instead embedded in the leading and trailing edges of the wings. Their positioning there not only reduces the radar signature but also yields a far wider, deeper, and more precise picture of the battlespace.

Stealth, said O’Bryan, has to be "designed in from the beginning" and can’t be added as an afterthought or upgrade. That means radar, electronic warfare, data links, communications, and electronic attack "need to be controlled" and must be fused from the start to work in concert with the special shapes and materials of the airframe itself.

The F-35A fighter has an active electronically scanned array radar and unique antennas spaced around the aircraft so that it can direct radar energy precisely, with minimal "bleed" in unintended directions. That puts more power where it’s wanted and reduces emissions that can give away the F-35’s position.

In addition, it uses machine-to-machine communications with other F-35s. Emitters such as the radar and the electronic warfare system can flash on and off among all the F-35s in a flight.

A leading fighter, for example, can have a trailing F-35 illuminate his target with radar. The data in such an operation will be shared via a laser-powered Multifunction Advanced Data Link; the pilots don’t even need to talk to each other.

Stealth also permits (and requires) internal fuel and weapons carriage. The Air Force F-35 variant, fully loaded for combat, can pull nine-G turns with a full load of fuel and missiles. This cannot be done by fighters lugging along external weapons and fuel tanks.

O’Bryan took skeptical note of other fighter makers’ boastings that they have reduced by up to 75 percent the radar signatures of their fourth generation aircraft. He finds the claim perplexing; their original signatures are so massive, he says, that even a 75 percent reduction still leaves a huge radar return. These uprated fighters are visible within the maximum range of adversary air-to-air missiles, he said.

"You basically haven’t really done anything, in terms of a practical tactical advantage against an enemy," said the Lockheed official.

Worse, the RCS reductions evaporate once nonstealthy ordnance, fuel tanks, and other stores are hung on the "clean" aircraft.

"Until you have a first-shot, first-look, first-kill" capability, said O’Bryan, "you’re still at the same standoff [range], hoping that training and tactics are going to overcome a potential adversary."

China and Russia have recognized the fallacy of trying to make a silk stealth purse out of a nonstealthy sow’s ear. That is why China is vigorously pursuing the J-20 and Russia the PAK-FA stealth fighter designs. If their programs pan out as expected, said O’Bryan, "fourth gen airplanes are really going to be at a serious disadvantage" against them.

In a modern A2/AD environment, no fourth generation fighter can survive, O’Bryan insisted, no matter how much support it receives from jammers. In such an environment, however, the F-35 can fly in relative safety, with more range than the F-16 and with the same combat payload.

When enemy defenses have been beaten down, and the need for stealthiness is not so strong, the F-35 will use both internal and external stations. That would boost its carrying capacity to a full 18,000 pounds of ordnance—more than triple the F-16’s max load of 5,200 pounds.

O’Bryan said the F-35 is an all-aspect stealth aircraft—that is to say, stealthy from any and all directions.

A Conspicuous Omission

Cost and performance trade-offs were made when it came to designing the F-35’s exhaust system, O’Bryan said. Lockheed Martin chose not to employ a two-dimensional thrust-vectoring nozzle, as it had on the F-22 Raptor.

For one thing, the decision reduced cost. For another, it eliminated one of the larger practical challenges to maintaining the stealth characteristics of the F-35.

The classified "sawtooth" features that ring the nozzle help consolidate the exhaust into a so-called "spike" signature, while other secret techniques have been employed to combat and minimize the engine heat signature.

"We had to deal with that, and we dealt with that," O’Bryan said, declining to offer details.

The F-35 meets or exceeds the services’ infrared signature specifications. Many of the standard fighter engine features such as a big afterburner spray bar assembly and related piping are missing from the F-35. The F135 power plant, built by Pratt & Whitney, is truly a "stealth engine," he said.

Much speculation has swirled around the question of the F-35’s electronic warfare and electronic attack capabilities. The Air Force has resolutely refused to discuss any specifics. Yet experts have pointed out that, in its most recent EW/EA roadmap, USAF has failed to mention any plans for a dedicated jamming aircraft. It is a conspicuous omission.

O’Bryan certainly couldn’t go into the subject of the fighter’s EW/EA suite in any detail, or the way it might coordinate with specialized aircraft such as the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System, RC-135 Rivet Joint, E-8 JSTARS, or EA-18G Growler jammer aircraft.

He did say, however, that F-35 requirements call for it to go into battle with "no support whatever" from these systems.

"I don’t know a pilot alive who wouldn’t want whatever support he can get," O’Bryan acknowledged. "But the requirements that we were given to build the airplane didn’t have any support functions built in. In other words, we had to find the target, ... penetrate the anti-access [defenses], ... ID the target, and ... destroy it by ourselves."

O’Bryan said the power of the F-35’s EW/EA systems can be inferred from the fact that the Marine Corps "is going to replace its EA-6B [a dedicated jamming aircraft] with the baseline F-35B" with no additional pods or internal systems.

Asked about the Air Force’s plans, O’Bryan answered with several rhetorical questions: "Are they investing in a big jammer fleet? Are they buying [EA-18G] Growlers?" Then he said, "There’s a capability here."

O’Bryan went on to say that the electronic warfare capability on the F-35A "is as good as, or better than, [that of the] fourth generation airplanes specifically built for that purpose." The F-35’s "sensitivity" and processing power—a great deal of it automated—coupled with the sensor fusion of internal and offboard systems, give the pilot unprecedented situational awareness as well as the ability to detect, locate, and target specific systems that need to be disrupted.

When it comes to electronic combat, the F-35A will make possible a new operational concept, O’Bryan said. The goal is not to simply suppress enemy air defenses. The goal will be to destroy them.

"I don’t want to destroy a double-digit SAM for a few hours," he said. "What we’d like to do is put a 2,000-pound bomb on the whole complex and never have to deal with that ... SAM for the rest of the conflict."

At present, that is difficult to do. Adversaries, O’Bryan pointed out, recognize that the basic American AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile has a light warhead able to do little more than damage an air defense array. Thus, they have adapted to the threat by deploying spare arrays with their mobile systems.

The hope is that the introduction of the new F-35 will put a stop to that practice.

The effect of the F-35’s stealth, EW/EA capabilities, and powers of automatic target recognition and location in all weather will offer conventional "deterrence" on an unprecedented scale, O’Bryan said.

The fighter’s version 3.0 automatic target recognition software won’t be able to distinguish one kind of battle tank from another. However it will be able to pluck out the mobile surface-to-air missile system from a forest of other kinds of vehicles.

Multiple fighters detecting and characterizing a site’s electronic emissions, coupled with a detailed synthetic aperture radar image, will lead a strike group to specific aimpoints. It goes without saying that all of this can be achieved while the fighters themselves remain undetected.

The F-35’s electronic attack capabilities, said O’Bryan, allow the fighter to penetrate into "places that other airplanes can’t go" and therefore "hold strategic targets at risk." These capabilities are unique to the F-35, he asserted.

Countermeasures, Not Turning

As F-35s criss-cross enemy airspace, they also will automatically collect vast amounts of data about the disposition of enemy forces. They will, much like the JSTARS, collect ground moving target imagery and pass the data through electronic links to the entire force. This means the F-35 will be able to silently and stealthily transmit information and instructions to dispersed forces, in the air and on the ground.

Because it was designed to maneuver to the edge of its envelope with a full internal combat load, the F-35 will be able to run rings around most other fighters, but it probably won’t have to—and probably shouldn’t.

"If you value a loss/exchange ratio of better than one-to-one, you need to stay away from each other," said O’Bryan, meaning that the fighter pilot who hopes to survive needs to keep his distance from the enemy.

He noted that, in a close-turning dogfight with modern missiles, even a 1960s-era fighter such as the F-4 can get into a "mutual kill scenario" at close range with a fourth generation fighter. That’s why the F-35 was provided with the ability to fuse sensor information from many sources, triangulating with other F-35s to locate, identify, and fire on enemy aircraft before they are able to shoot back.

The F-35’s systems will even allow it to shoot at a target "almost when that airplane is behind you," thanks to its 360-degree sensors.

According to O’Bryan, the F-35 also can interrogate a target to its rear, an ability possessed by no other fighter.

If you survive a modern dogfight, O’Bryan claimed, "it’s based on the countermeasures you have, not on your ability to turn."

If the situation demands a turning dogfight, however, the F-35 evidently will be able to hold its own with any fighter. That is a reflection on the fighter’s agility. What’s more, a potential future upgrade foresees the F-35 increasing its air-to-air missile loadout from its current four AIM-120 AMRAAMs to six of those weapons.

The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.

The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to "throw" such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.

There is a major extension of the fighter’s range if speed is kept around Mach .9, O’Bryan went on, but he asserted that F-35 transonic performance is exceptional and goes "through the [Mach 1] number fairly easily." The transonic area is "where you really operate."

In combat configuration, the F-35’s range exceeds that of fourth generation fighters by 25 percent. These are Air Force figures, O’Bryan noted. "We’re comparing [the F-35] to [the] ‘best of’ fourth gen" fighters. The F-35 "compares favorably in any area of the envelope," he asserted.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19333
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

Oct 18, 2013 :: Singapore and the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter
In a wide-ranging interview with the Defense Writers Group in late July, General Herbert J. "Hawk" Carlisle was asked about Singapore’s interest in the Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program and if an initial sale had been made. He had this to say:

“I talked to their CDF (Singapore’s Chief of Defence Force Lieutenant-General Ng) Chee Meng. I was just in Singapore. Singapore’s decided to buy the B model, the VSTOL variant to begin with. But I don’t know where they’re at in putting it into their budget. I know that’s a decision that’s been made and that’s why they’re part of the program, but I don’t know where they’re at in putting that in the budget”

That portion of the interview has mostly escaped the attention of media covering the event as coverage zeroed in on the U.S. Air Force’s plans for the Pacific pivot, which was also discussed at length. If General Carlisle is right, it would mean that Singapore will become the fourth operator of the F-35B, after the United States Marine Corps, the United Kingdom and Italy.

A densely populated island nation sitting at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula, Singapore sits at a choke point along the vital sea lines of communications between the economic powerhouses of East Asia with the Middle East and, further afield, Europe. Its deepwater port is the lifeblood of a booming economy, while world-renowned Changi International Airport serves as a vital Asian air hub for travellers throughout the globe. With so much to defend and so little strategic depth (the main island measures just 723 square kilometers or approximately 277 square miles), Singapore has responded by building a powerful military, widely regarded as among the best in Asia.

Singapore joined the F-35 program in February 2003 as a Security Cooperative Participant (SCP). As an SCP, Singapore is believed to be able explore configurations of the JSF to meet its unique operational needs and form its own program office. However, the island nation’s interest in the STOVL variant started to catch the eye only in 2011, when Rolls-Royce revealed that Singapore had launched studies aimed at considering the F-35B.

Having the United States and Australia, both of whom have close defense ties with Singapore, also planning to operate F-35s in the neighborhood, it would be no surprise if Singapore was keen to follow in their footsteps. Together with Japan’s (and possibly South Korea’s) aircraft, the type’s network-enabled capability and integrated sensor suite is a definite plus for interoperability with allied F-35s in the event of a need to conduct joint operations in the region.

Notoriously secretive about its military matters, defense officials in Singapore have neither confirmed nor denied the reports about its interest in the F-35B. However, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen had previously gone on record a number of times to say that Singapore is evaluating the F-35 for the Republic of Singapore Air Force’s (RSAF) next fighter, but that no decision has been made. General Carlisle’s remarks are the first indication of the direction Singapore’s Ministry of Defence will be taking with regards to an initial purchase.



With Singapore’s strategic limitations in mind, the F-35B would appear to be a very prudent option to consider. A fleet of easily-dispersed STOVL-capable assets capable of taking off fully loaded from a 168m (550ft) runway would ensure that the RSAF would be able to keep up combat air operations even without operational, full length runways in the event of an enemy first strike. Such a capability would certainly complicate any adversary's calculations in attempting a first strike to nullify Singapore's defenses.

With the recent announcement by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong that land-scarce Singapore will close one of its three tactical fighter bases to free up land for residential and industrial use in the near future, this would leave Tengah Air Base in the west and Changi Air Base (East), next to Singapore’s international airport in eastern Singapore, as the only bases to house the RSAF’s air combat aircraft. Both airbases will be expanded and upgraded to accommodate the relocation of RSAF aircraft and units currently based at Paya Lebar.

With the number of available runways in Singapore to be reduced by one, having an air combat asset on hand capable of STOVL operations would assume a greater importance in the mind of Singapore’s defense planners. It will be just one of many factors to consider, but the upgrades to Singapore’s existing fighter bases will likely include building thermally coated “lilypads” that would enable F-35Bs to land vertically without the hot exhaust gases damaging the tarmac.

However, Ng has also said that Singapore is in no hurry to make a decision, even if he has called the F-35 “a suitable aircraft to further modernise (Singapore’s) fighter fleet.” With a relatively young fleet of advanced F-15 and F-16 multi-role fighters already in its current fighter inventory, Singapore’s defense establishment will likely want to see several aspects of the JSF program mature before committing to what will be one of the most, if not the most, costly military acquisition programs in Singapore’s history. Even with the price of the F-35B having fallen to US$104 million per aircraft (sans engines, which are bought separately) in the Pentagon’s recently released contract for aircraft in Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Batch 7, it might be some time before Singapore issues a Foreign Military Sales request for the F-35.

The RSAF currently operates 60 late model Lockheed-Martin F-16C/D Fighting Falcons serving alongside 24 Boeing F-15SG Eagles. It has been reported elsewhere (and seemingly corroborated by photographs from a recent Maple Flag exercise in Canada) that Singapore has received additional F-15SGs that have not been publicly announced. These will most likely be for replacing the handful of Northrop F-5S/T Tiger II interceptors still in service when they are retired in the next year or so.

Singapore has also recently announced that the RSAF’s F-16s will undergo a Mid-Life Upgrade, which should keep them in service until the mid-2020s. That would appear to be an ideal timeframe for the RSAF to introduce the F-35 to its inventory. With Singapore’s usual procurement policy being incremental purchases in several batches, an initial F-35B order will almost certainly not be the last. If one bears in mind that the F-35B has payload, maneuver and other performance limitations put upon it due to its STOVL capability compared to the other variants, it might also not be farfetched to speculate that Singapore may eventually order the Conventional Take-off and Landing (CTOL) F-35A further down the road as well. As they say, watch this space.
Post Reply