JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

[Philip]

More Growlers and SHs to support the JSF! Boeing strikes it rich.

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/20 ... /11932069/

The Naval Air Systems Command has awarded a contract to Boeing for 44 F/A-18 Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft over the next two years. KSDK
Leisa Zigman, KSDK 6:14 p.m. CDT July 1, 2014

ST. LOUIS (KSDK) - The Naval Air Systems Command has awarded a contract to Boeing for 44 F/A-18 Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft over the next two years.

About 13,000 people work on the Growler and Super Hornet production lines in Missouri and it's responsible for 60,000 jobs nationwide.

The announcement is viewed as great news for now, but it is a temporary life line.

Without Congress approving the Navy's request for 22 more Growlers, production of both the Growler and Super Hornet will end in 2016.

Missouri and Illinois congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle have been fighting hard to continue funding for the fighter jets.

"The Growler jams enemy radar and basically creates an electronic fog around American aircraft, keeping troops safe from surface to air missiles or enemy fighters," said Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Missouri).

The Navy wants Boeing's growlers to compliment Lockeed Martin's F-35 Lightning II, which has stealth capabilities, but not the electronic jamming systems of the Growler.

"We will operate F/A-18E/F and F-35 aircraft together from our aircraft carriers through the 2030s," said Capt. Frank Morley, PMA-265 program manager.

Critics say drones are the future of war and spending on the F-35 or Growler isn't smart. The Growler and Super Hornet programs employee about 13,000 people in Missouri and 60,000 nationwide.

[Viv S]

More Growlers and SHs to support the JSF!

More Growlers and SHs to support the 60,000 people their production employs.

[NRao]

More Growlers and SHs to support the JSF! Boeing strikes it rich.

DDM, within.

[brar_w]

More Growlers and SHs to support the JSF! Boeing strikes it rich

These aren't more Growlers to support anything. These are the aircraft that were a part of the plans to buy all along. 12 Growlers were added to extend the lines and the Super Hornets (compared to a 20+ wish of the USN) being procured have all been accounted for in the force structure for years. Just as every year F-35's are ordered no one says "More F-35's added to add to the stealth fleet" because these are already known numbers that will be procured annually. Same applies for the 25 x E-2D ordered just recently. They are not "more E-2D's for Northrop" or Northrop has struck rich. These were numbers that were always expected to be bought

This happens to be the last batch of Super Hornets the Navy is going to be ordering.

[Austin]

Investigators Eye Third-Stage Turbine As F-35 Remains Grounded
Jul 4, 2014 Amy Butler | AWIN First

Investigators have narrowed their focus to the third stage turbine of the F135 engine as the likely source of a fire that erupted as an F-35A fighter was preparing for takeoff at Eglin AFB, Florida, last month.

The June 23 fire, which occurred at 9:15 a.m. local time, first prompted “safety pauses” to flights for the fleet directed by local commanders followed by a more serious fleetwide “grounding” issued the evening of July 3, just before the U.S. Independence Day holiday.

“We cannot run any engines,” including those in testing at the contractor’s facility, as a result of the fire, USAF Lt. Gen. Chrisopher Bogdan told Aviation Week during a July 3 interview. He declined to discuss the investigation or assumptions about root cause. Accident investigators have sequestered the charred F-35A and any related foreign object debris at a hangar at Eglin for review.

The third stage turbine is the second stage in the low-pressure turbine section. It is common to all F-135 variants – the A, B and C F-35 aircraft.

The low pressure section of the F-135 has bediveled the program before. The fleet was grounded from Feb. 21- March 1, 2013, due to the discovery of a 0.6 in. crack discovered on a third-stage low-pressure turbine blade on AF-2, an F-35A used for testing, at Edwards AFB, California. Pratt officials attributed it to a one-off manufacturing issue and not related to high-cycle fatigue.

Subsequently, in December, F135 ground test engine – FX648 - “blew” during trials at Pratt’s West Palm Beach facility as it reached 77% of its expected life. The culprit was a fan crack in the front stage of the F135; it occurred while the engine was operating in conventional mode. The fan is comprised of bladed disks – called blisks – that are machined in a solid piece. In this case, those blisks in the first stage were hollow and susceptible to cracking; they were made hollow earlier in the program during a weight-reduction push. Now, however, Pratt is going back to a solid design, adding about 6 lb. to the weight of the engine.

Prior to the blown engine last year, Pratt was already working a redesign to incorporate the solid blisks. Bogdan says the Joint Program Office is reviewing fixes to the redesign now and that they are limited to the compressor section, making retrofit in the field easier than if it has been a more widespread problem. “We were using hollow blades, which were very hard to manufacture and cost a lot of money,” Bogdan said. “Much of the design of that section of the engine was completed. So, all that they needed to do was to take the information that they learned from the engine incident – which was some stresses on the blades that they has not previously used in the modeling – put them in the modeling and then pop out the design.”

Bogdan said there is no reason to believe this incident and the fire occurred as a result of related problems.

Earlier redesigns also resulted from problems with test engines in advance of integration onto BF-1 – the first Marine version – in 2007 and 2008.

The timing of the fire – likely the first Class A costing more than $2 million for the $398 billion program – could not be thornier as four F-35Bs are stuck on the ground stateside. They were slated to have already made a historic transatlantic crossing in preparation for flying displays at the Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) next week followed by the Farnborough Airshow the following week.

Air worthiness authorities in the Air Force, Navy and United Kingdom have been doing back-to-back reviews since to see if the aircraft can be cleared for their journey to RAF Fairford, where they will be based for the deployment, but it is unclear when they could transit. The U.S. Marines are pushing hard to get clearance for the deployment. “It's not off. We are still planning to support the two air shows,” says Capt. Rich Ulsh, USMC spokesman.

The Joint Program Office and Pratt & Whitney did not respond to queries about the focus on the third stage.

“We are working closely with the Air Force Safety Investigation Board to determine root cause and to inspect all engines in the fleet. Safety is our top priority,” says Matthew Bates, a spokesman for Pratt. “Since the incident is the subject of an investigation it is inappropriate to comment further.”

http://aviationweek.com/defense/investi ... s-grounded

[Philip]

The weight problems have been a problem for long.Performance parameters were repeatedly reduced to allow the JSF to meet testing schedules. It appears that the manufacturers/programme pit bosses have been groping in the dark to rectify some problems.Cracks were becoming more apparent as weight-saving design changes were made. This is a major setback for the aircraft and if it does not appear at Farnborough,will be a negative sign to prospective buyers/allies who have made major commitments for the aircraft. The RN which has just launched its new QE2 large carrier and future second ship,a pogramme which has now cost over 6.2 B Pounds,up from 3.9B originally,is totally dependent upon the B STOVL version having abandoned the CTOL version earlier chosen.This decision has cost the RN almost 100M Pounds in rework. Had it gone in for the CTOL version with or without STOBAR,it would've had a variety of carrier conventional naval aircraft to choose from,or fall back upon from the Raffy to the SH.It now has to bite the bullet.

[brar_w]

Even if we were to assume that the same fan blade problem is the cause then its a known issue and all that is needed to rectify it is to go back to the solid design and add to the concurrency changes both in the line and in the retrofit model. In the meantime the aircrafts would be monitored until a time comes to add the changes. Since its a prior matter the concurrency costs would be split between Pratt and whitney and the JPO. The weight changes are rather insignificant and unless something major has also goes wrong the program would not be affected.

The RN has absolutely no issues with the IOC on the QEC, the ship is first of class and as such needs to do extensive testing before delaying IOC. The F-35B will IOC next year and in 2016 get to upgrade status 3A.

Although an absence at the air shows might be bad PR for lockheed and friends, it would be a less of a setback to the program. Britain will most likely sign an order for 14 jets regardless either at the shows or soon after. Others interested will keep evaluating it and there aren't any customers expected at these shows anyhow.

F-35 grounding has no impact on UK purchase plan, says Hammond

[NRao]

To think such things will make anyone back out is plain ....................... silly.

Cost will be an issue - for everyone, and rightly so.

But backing out is not an issue.

[brar_w]

Cost is hardly an issue any more given the current known cost projections and the PROVEN cost reduction from LRIP 1 to 7 (8 coming soon). The important aspect of the JSF that is often overlooked is the interoperability and the UAI and what it promises post block 4.

Mitsubishi Electric eyes F-35 missile deal with Europe's MBDA: sources

[Philip]

They have no alternative! US allies however do have interim alternatives as far as heir air forces are concerned,but not the RN.The die has been cast as far as the QE2 is concerned once the CTOL version was dumped-a decision that the RN may have cause to regret a few years from now,and the massive air fleet of 14 JSFs will surely make nations tremble across the world.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26124894

UK to spend £2.5bn on F-35 fighters
Aircraft carrier costs 'to double'
Navy jet decision flawed, MPs say

The UK is about to commit to the F-35 fighter project, a US-led effort to produce 3,000 aircraft which is set to cost more than £600bn globally.

The initial UK order for 14 F-35Bs will, with support costs added, cost about £2.5bn, Newsnight has learned.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the F-35B was an expensive plane, but one with an "incredible capability".

But critics have questioned Ministry of Defence suggestions that the jets will be combat capable by 2018.

The F35-B will be known as Lightning II in UK active service and is going to replace the already retired Harrier.

The aircraft - capable of vertical landing - will eventually be able to fly from new carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth.

The F-35 programme is central to the future of the Royal Navy and the military aerospace sector of the economy, but it has been plagued by development problems, is years late into service and the true cost to the UK is only just becoming clear.
An F-35B Lightning II in flight The F-35B will be known as Lightning II when it is in UK service

At one stage, the US Marines had hoped to bring the F-35 into service in 2010, but they now hope to do so late in 2015. Many industry experts say this is hopelessly optimistic.
'Number one risk'

Newsnight has learned that Britain originally intended its F-35s to enter service in 2012.

With 8.4m lines of software, it is by far the most complex fighter ever built, but a Pentagon inspector's report stated that by last summer only 2% of that code was fully up to standard. Much of the plane's software, including that needed to aim and launch weapons, remains to be proven in tests.

Aircraftmaker Lockheed Martin argues that 7.4m lines of the aircraft's software have now been tested, but one senior source familiar with Britain's F-35 programme says continuing software problems are "the number one risk" to the UK bringing it into service on time.

Former Royal Navy chief Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, who now works with Lockheed Martin, believes the new aircraft is vital to maintaining Britain's status as a serious international player.

"By the end of the decade, we are going to have a credible air capability," he said, adding that the Ministry of Defence's original commitment to buying 48 jets "will certainly not be enough".
Jump media player
Media player help
Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.

"My job is to get the aircraft flying from the carriers as quickly as we can"

Worries about risk - financial and technological - have kept the British government from committing to bigger numbers.

Newsnight understands that the first 14 aircraft will be bought for £58m ($96m) apiece. However, once spares, maintenance and initial support are included, the price will be much higher.
'Basic weapons range'

There is concern in the MoD that observers will simply divide the approximate £2.5bn cost of this stage of the project by the 14 planes being ordered, whereas this price tag includes certain support costs for the entire, eventual UK fleet.

One Pentagon estimate last year for an aircraft plus support costs for the first few years came out at £154m ($253m) each.

In planning its own buy, Britain has shown a little more caution than the hard-charging US Marine Corps.

It's planned that the 14 aircraft will form the first operational squadron in 2018, and that by 2020 they will be able to fly from HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Justin Bronk, an analyst at the Royal United Services Institute, said that even by then, they might be capable only of "going through the motions" - taking off and landing - and not using the more advanced weapons in the RAF inventory.
HMS Queen Elizabeth at Rosyth Work on HMS Queen Elizabeth has been taking place at Babcock's Rosyth dockyard

People in the MoD say they are confident the aircraft will be "combat capable", with a basic range of bombs and missiles, by 2018, although they concede that getting some of the RAF's more advanced missiles to work with the F-35 will not happen before 2022.

However, others in the industry have suggested that 2025 might be a more realistic date for full combat capability, and that funding to "integrate" some of these weapons with the F-35 could come under threat at some future point.
'Air force backbone'

Mr Hammond said: "[The F-35] will be the world's most sophisticated fighter aircraft with a high level of stealth capability, so it will be able to penetrate enemy defences with very little radar signature, which makes it a very versatile and capable piece of equipment.

"And it will provide a backbone to our air forces, including our carrier power projection for many years to come."

He added of the software issues: "It would be a mistake to think of this as a software that will be completely written when the aircraft comes into service.

"There will be updates of software throughout the life of these aircraft, adding capability as well as dealing with any specific issues that arise when the aircraft is in use."

One Pentagon estimate last year for an aircraft plus support costs for the first few years came out at £154m ($253m) each.
AT these prices who wouldn't want to be a commission agent for the JSF!

I have just one Q for the RN/JSF.Pray what anti-ship missile can be carried in its internal weapons bay,and if none can be carried in it,then what happens to its sole USP,stealth,"poof" would it go once such missiles are carried underwing?

PS:Tushar,assuming that the NLCA arrives,even a small Viraat class carrier can operate the type using STOBAR,SAAB even had a proposal of the naval Gripen operating from the Viraat.The latest E/F versions are vastly upgrades of the current Gripens,there's an excellent article on it in VAYU 3/14,where just tucking the undercarriage into a below wing bulge and not the fuselage gave it 40% more fuel.Operating costs/hr. are just $7500+ too.Perhaps the lowest for any frontline fighter.If such a requirement is factor din right from the start for our amphibs,then using either the NLCA or N-Gripen will considerably enhance their capability at significantly reduced cost of the air wing,just around $40-50M per aircraft unlike a min $100M fig. for the JSF,or as much as $250M+ with support as mentioned above!

[brar_w]

They have no alternative! US allies however do have interim alternatives as far as their air forces are concerned,but not the RN.T

Their are alternatives that will never be required to be exercised because this incident is not really going to affect IOC plans for any of the nations partnered onto the JSF.

14 JSFs will surely make nations tremble across the world.

Do you understand that not all the F-35B's for UK will be ordered in one large contract? The 14 aircraft contract is just a initial order and the demand to fill is more much more. The UK is a partner in the program they need not order the F-35 like an FMS nation would where the contract details are declared in bulk. They order the jet like the US services order it, that is in batches one block at a time.

I have just one Q for the RN/JSF.Pray what anti-ship missile can be carried in its internal weapons bay,and if none can be carried in it,then what happens to its sole USP,stealth,"poof" would it go once such missiles are carried underwing?

The JSM is internal on the F-35 btw and even then the UK is likely not to pick it at any point of time. They see a carrier that can support the marines through its air wing. Thats one reason they were able to cut back on the CAT requirements. As far as Anti ship missiles for the F-35 are concerned, the JSM will be plug and play to all the F-35 nations from block 4 onwards. The Real Long range weapons such as LRASM and the European version based on the storm shadow ( i think) would not require internal carriage because they are extremely long ranged weapons (250-500 nm).

[Philip]

And what is the great capability that the QE2 carriers will have even with a full complement of STOVL JSFs? The carrier costs have already doubled to over 6B Pounds .Read on.

LONDON — Flawed assumptions and immature data were behind a 150 percent rise in the estimated cost of Britain switching its planned carrier strike aircraft force from the STOVL F-35B to the conventional takeoff F-35C, says a report from the National Audit Office (NAO) here.

Britain flip-flopped back to the STOVL version of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter May 2012 after it emerged that the cost of converting one of the Royal Navy’s partly built aircraft carriers to include catapults and arrestor gear rose from an estimated £800 million (US $1.24 billion) in 2010 when the initial switch in aircraft type was ordered to about £2 billion.

The report, published May 10 by the government spending watchdog, cataloged a series of faulty assumptions about the change to the F-35C made at the time of the 2010 strategic defense and security review. Information on overall affordability, the cost of conversion, timescales and the degree to which French and US jets could cross-deck with the British were all inaccurate, says the report.

“Every element of the conversion cost increased significantly” between 2010 and 2012, according to the report.

Under the plan to operate the C variant, the government intended to equip one of the two carriers now under construction with a US-supplied electromagnetic aircraft launch systems (EMALS) and mothball or sell off the second warship.

The NAO said part of the blame for the failure to understand the issues properly was a decision by the administration “not to involve commercial and industrial partners in the process.”

One analyst here said the assumptions were in part the result of a rushed government strategic defense and security review that mandated the change in JSF type without testing the quality of the data.

The report did praise the MoD for acting quickly once it realized the assumptions and data were questionable.

“It was a big strategic decision taken with poor information. Once it became clear how bad a decision it was the government deserves credit for acting swiftly even if it was politically embarrassing. Having [Philip] Hammond as defense secretary made it easier as his predecessor [Liam Fox] had been more wedded to the carrier variant,” said one executive who asked not to be named.

The rapid decision to abort the F-35C plan once the government realized the problem enabled the British to save hundreds of millions of pounds in long-lead items and other costs that were about to fall due.

The Ministry of Defence estimates the STOVL option without the proposed EMALS fitted to the carrier will be £1.2 billion cheaper over 10 years than the F-35C variant.

That figure halves to £600 million over 30 years due to higher procurement and support costs associated with the STOVL aircraft.

The British estimate support of the STOVL aircraft will cost 20 percent more than the carrier variant.

Initially, the UK is buying 48 F-35Bs to equip a joint Royal Navy/Royal Air Force fleet.

An order for the first squadron of F-35s is expected later this year to add to operational test and evaluation aircraft already being flown by the UK .

The cost of the two 65,000-ton carriers had risen 55 percent to £5.24 billion between 2005 and 2012. That figure is set to rise further when the final costings on the program are agreed by the MoD and the BAE Systems–led alliance building Britain’s biggest ever warships.

Margaret Hodge, the chair of the influential Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee, said, “This latest U-turn came about because the decisions taken in the SDSR were based on the same wildly over-optimistic assumptions and poor understanding of costs and risks that have characterized this program from the start. What the MoD needs to do now is stop backtracking on decisions and hemorrhaging money, and finally get a grip on this ongoing fiasco.”

The report, “Carrier Strike: the 2012 reversion decision,” said an important factor in the U-turn was the realization that the F-35C carrier variant could not be delivered until 2023, three years later than thought due to conversion issues with the carrier.

To save money, Britain is already taking an aircraft carrier capability holiday until the first of the two Queen Elizabeth-class warships are scheduled to be operational in 2020, but Gen. Sir David Richards, the chief of the Defence Staff, deemed the additional delay unacceptable.

But reverting to the STOVL version of JSF means Britain is also now going to take another holiday, this time on deep and persistent offensive capability (DPOC) .

The carrier variant of F-35, with its longer range and greater payload, would have filled the role now taken by Royal Air Force Tornado GR4s in a way the STOVL aircraft can’t.

The MoD accepts it will have a capability gap, leaving its allies to provide the required assets.

“Accepting a gap in DPOC is a key factor in the potential long-term cost advantage of the STOVL option,” said the NAO.

The report said the MoD had changed its mind three times in two years on DPOC and needed to “introduce a degree of consistency in its decision-making not previously apparent.”

The reduced cost of building and operating STOVL carriers compared with a cats and traps-equipped warship led Defence Secretary Philip Hammond last year to raise the possibility of having both carriers available to give the Royal Navy a continuous deployable capability.

The first carrier is scheduled to start operational training in 2017, have the first JSF flying from its deck the following year and be operational in 2020. The second carrier is due for completion in 2019.

The report questioned whether a 2020 operational date for the carrier was feasible following an MoD decision to delay the Crowsnest Merlin helicopter-based early warning radar system operational until 2022.

Crowsnest is a vital airborne detection system set to be based on the RN carriers. Its predecessor, the Sea King Mk7, is going out of service in 2026, leaving the British with another capability gap.

Lockheed Martin UK secured an assessment phase contract for the program recently. The aim is to deliver the first Crowsnest in 2020 but the NAO says unless the MoD brings forward funding or finds a credible alternative that does not compromise capability, some carrier operational tasks could only be undertaken with additional risks until the helicopter obtains full capability.

The NAO warned that although carrier build work is progressing well the project had the highest risk phases of construction and integration still to come.

Analysts and executives here said delivering the carrier, the F-35 and Crowsnest on schedule and within the limits an austerity-struck British budget can afford will pose a major challenge to the industry and government alike.

In a statement, Hammond defended the MoD’s decision to slow down introduction of Crowsnest.

“The Department does not consider that the phased introduction of Crowsnest undermines the delivery of carrier-strike capability. Crowsnest will enter service at the same time as HMS Queen Elizabeth and will be fully operational by 2022. Until then, its maritime surveillance capabilities will be augmented by other platforms and systems,” he said.
Tweet

[brar_w]

And what is the great capability that the QE2 carriers will have even with a full complement of STOVL JSFs? The carrier costs have already doubled to over 6B Pounds .Read on

And who cares what the carriers cost on this thread? Is this a QE carrier thread? What capabilities does any carrier have? if you want to get into that discussion.

[NRao]

When even the Canadians start having second thoughts about the F-35, it really tells you something about what a terrible waste of time and money that programme has become.

And given that the US will not part with the software codes, the F-35 programme essentially ties the user lock, stock and barrel to US foreign policy.

A complete dud if ever there was one.

There are other nations that have pitched in (SK, Singapore, japan). {Tories given green light for F-35 jet decision

Jun, 2014:

A panel of independent monitors on Thursday gave its blessing to a still-confidential Royal Canadian Air Force report that evaluated the risks and benefits of purchasing four different warplanes and has been forwarded to the federal cabinet

}


They have APIs that are published for a client AF. Israel is one - F-35I.

A Turkey, not a dud.

[Philip]

The air complement of the QE2 carriers are STOVL JSF's and the comments about these aircraft,choice of them by the RN,costs,etc., is still an open debate in the UK.

[Viv S]

Impressive the JSF may be on paper,I think it will be some time after 2017 that "full spectrum" capability will be achieved.The USN is only getting its JSF act together in 2019.The definitive software level for the first step still hasn't been completed and each level of software must be perfected for capability to be increased step by step.

The F-35 enters service next year so its hardly 'on paper'. At Block 3F, the aircraft will be able to perform the entire gamut of air operations and will have a complete set of air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions. Bottom-line, in 2017 it'll be a perfectly combat worthy aircraft.

In subsequent blocks EW and radar functionality will be improved and that can be ported to the serving aircraft with a simple software upgrade.

RN's JSFs will be able to "perform" only after 2020.Pl. read the latest UK news items posted earlier reporting on the QE2 launch.

Are you aware that all the aircraft will be built to a common standard regardless of the country involved? (Exception being Israel which will be modifying its aircraft with add on gear). Meaning the RN/RAF F-35Bs will all be combat capable in 2017. Its only integration of UK-specific weaponry that will be pending. And that too only because there's no urgency (the QE will take some time to be operationalized after commissioning).

http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/aer ... er-program

1. That's based on data from 2013. 89% of the Block 2B software has been tested.

2. Even assuming the foreseen delay takes place, according to the GAO, Block 2B will come in Dec 2015 instead of Jul 2015. So?

As said before,US allies have little choice.They will be armtwisted to buy the aircraft if they want to "keep up with the Joneses".But the orders have been smaller,why production lines for SHs and F-16s are being kept open a little longer.

They have plenty of choice including other US-origin aircraft like the F-15SE. No takers. Every air force involved wants the F-35 and nothing else.

Korea Dumps Boeing F-15 For Stealth; F-35 Pacific Sweep Likely

“Our air force thinks that we need combat capabilities in response to the latest trend of aerospace technology development centered around the fifth generation fighter jets and to provocations from North Korea,” defense ministry spokesman Kim Min-seok told reporters today in Seoul.

To get some idea as to why capabilities trumped price — something Reuters and other news agencies said yesterday was not likely to happen because of South Korea’s fiscal situation — consider that 15 former South Korean Air Force chiefs of staff publicly argued that their country must buy a stealth aircraft.

With regard to the F-16 and SH - the last F-16 delivery to the USAF took place in 2003 IIRC, and the USN has not replaced even one F-35 with the SH (the production for the latter runs out in 2016).

The air complement of the QE2 carriers are STOVL JSF's and the comments about these aircraft,choice of them by the RN,costs,etc., is still an open debate in the UK.

The debate is about the F-35B v F-35C. Either way...

[Philip]

The US having spent hundreds of billions on the JSF ,with such a huge lobby for it,jobs assured for 30 years in supporting it,cannot dump it as there is no other option! F-22 lines are closed and that aircraft was tasked for a diff. role,to be the best air-dominance fighter in the sky. Whatever the cost the US will buy it for its services,but,the escalating costs are deeply worrying the Pentagon as it is eating up a huge amt. of the funds earmarked for the budget.Unless the teething problems are rectified according to the schedules revised umpteen number of times,a couple of years down the line some very hard choices will have to be made.The latest engine fire was very unfortunate,coming so late into the programme.from current reports,it may be the fact that hollow blades were used instead of solid ones in a weight-cutting exercise,as the aircraft is overweight.Such cost-cutting by shaving off material from the aircraft has also resulted in unexpected cracks in the airframe,spars,etc.From the latest USNI report,the problems may be more s eriosu than thought of before.

Pentagon Grounds All F-35s
By: Dave Majumdar
Published: July 4, 2014

An F-16 Fighting Falcon takes off while two F-35 Lightning IIs taxi on the flightline in a training mission April 24, 2014, at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. US Air Force Photo

This post was updated to include a comment from Lockheed Martin.

The Pentagon has formally grounded the entire Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter fleet after a June 23 fire that severely damaged one aircraft on take-off.

The fleet-wide grounding suggests that the cause of the fire is much more serious than the F-35 Joint Program Office initially suspected. In the immediate aftermath of the incident, the fire was thought to be a one-off event.

“The technical air worthiness authorities of the Department of the Air Force and Department of the Navy have issued a directive to ground the F-35 fleet based on initial findings from the runway fire incident that occurred at Eglin Air Force Base on Monday, June 23,” said Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby in a statement on July 3.
“The root cause of the incident remains under investigation.”

According to Kirby, the Pentagon has ordered additional inspections of the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine that powers the single-engine stealth fighter. Sources had suggested to USNI News that the fire—which occurred in the rear of aircraft—involved the engine and the integrated power package.

However, the latest information from the Pentagon suggests the problem stems from the engine — and could be the result either a manufacturing or design defect

“Return to flight will be determined based on inspection results and analysis of engineering data,” Kirby said. “Defense Department leadership supports this prudent approach.”

Pratt & Whitney officials said they were cooperating with the investigation.

“We are working closely with the Air Force Safety Investigation Board to determine root cause and to inspect all engines in the fleet,” said company spokesman Matthew Bates in an emailed statement to USNI News.
“Safety is our top priority. Since the incident is the subject of an investigation it is inappropriate to comment further.”

Lockheed Martin is also assisting.

“Lockheed Martin is working closely with the F-35 Joint Program Office and industry partners in supporting the AF investigation,” the company said in a statement provided to USNI News on Friday.
“Safety is our team’s top priority.”

Kirby insisted that US Marine Corps is still preparing to show off the short take-off vertical landing F-35B at the Royal International Air Tattoo and Farnborough International Air Show in Great Britain later this month despite the setback.

“Preparations continue for F-35 participation in international air shows in the United Kingdom, however a final decision will come early next week,” Kirby said.

[Viv S]

The US having spent hundreds of billions on the JSF

Factually incorrect.

,with such a huge lobby for it,jobs assured for 30 years in supporting it,cannot dump it as there is no other option!

Factually incorrect again.

France has no alternative to the Rafale. Sweden has no alternative to the Gripen. Germany has no alternative to the Eurofighter.

The US in contrast, had the option of going for advanced/upgraded versions of existing aircraft;
i) F-15E,
ii) F-16E/F+
iii) Advanced SH (Int. variant).
iv) F-22 plus

F-22 lines are closed and that aircraft was tasked for a diff. role,to be the best air-dominance fighter in the sky.

The last F-22 was delivered just two years ago. It can't carry a 2000lb load internally but aside from that can be upgraded to be very capable at the strike role. (Better than any previous gen aircraft).

Whatever the cost the US will buy it for its services,but,the escalating costs are deeply worrying the Pentagon as it is eating up a huge amt. of the funds earmarked for the budget.

Flyaway Cost: $75 million

Unless the teething problems are rectified according to the schedules revised umpteen number of times,a couple of years down the line some very hard choices will have to be made.

Couple of years down the line, all this will be immaterial.

Block 2B - 2015
Block 3F - 2017

The latest engine fire was very unfortunate,coming so late into the programme.from current reports,it may be the fact that hollow blades were used instead of solid ones in a weight-cutting exercise,as the aircraft is overweight.

The aircraft will revert to solid blade adding a weight of 6 lb (<3kg) to the engine.

Such cost-cutting by shaving off material from the aircraft has also resulted in unexpected cracks in the airframe,spars,etc.From the latest USNI report,the problems may be more s eriosu than thought of before.

The cracking was found in the F-35B's bulkheads during durability testing. After 9,400 hours. Service life is 8,000 hours and its being tested to 16,000 hours.

The bulkheads are being redesigned for the F-35B. No impact on other variants. And this had nothing to do with 'shaving off material', similar bulkhead cracking has been observed even on the venerable F-16.

[Singha]

I wonder how the chinese are faring with the J-35? granted their goals for the plane will be MUCH less ambitious except the must-have raptor-killa all-black look but looking at the massive resources and expertise the US has to deploy on F22/JSF to get them battle ready makes me think the 5th gen is a whole new level of ballgame than even the 4.5th gen.

[brar_w]

The US having spent hundreds of billions on the JSF

Do you like being called out on factually incorrect and outright absurd statements that you make quite regularly on this thread?

annot dump it as there is no other option!

Cannot dump, yes. No other option, NO.

Here's why the F-35 cannot be dumped -

- Its 5th generation and meets the requirements of the 3 services
- Its Prices have come down considerably and are on track to be right where the program wants them (80 million at Full production)
- Its capabilities for the role are much superior to other options

Here are those other options -

- F-16 Upgrade (Line open)
- F-18E/F International (Line Open)
- F-15 Silent Eagle + (Line Open)
- FB-22 ( F-22 Line closed, yet all production tooling, F-119 tooling, video recordings of how to build production supplies, detailed production manuals preserved in warehouses in California for the future if required)

Whatever the cost the US will buy it for its services,but,the escalating costs are deeply worrying the Pentagon as it is eating up a huge amt

Lets go over it ONCE again since you have a short memory and keep regurgitating the same old.

LRIP 1 Cost 200+ Million
LRIP 7 Cost 112 Million

Escalating cost?

Now Early OS Cost estimate - 1.5 Trillion over 55 years (2500 jets)
Current OS Cost Estimate - 1.02 Trillion over 55 years (2500 jets)

Escalating cost?

If you scroll above you'll find that I have done a concurrency cost analysis as well, and those costs have come down substantially to a point that over 2500 aircraft they represent a whopping , eye popping 0.4 (Zero point four) %.

Unless the teething problems are rectified according to the schedules revised umpteen number of times,a couple of years down the line some very hard choices will have to be made

Teething problems? For a development aircraft. Yeah so uncharacteristic . As mentioned earlier, the F-16 has had 40+ Class A incidents during its development. The F-15 close to 2 dozen. The F-22A, had one major crash. The Gripen crashed twice during development. The F-16 had multiple fleet groundings, The Gripen was grounded in development until they fixed the FBW, The F-18E/F, a relatively simple program was also grounded. The F-22 was grounded on 2 different occasions during the testing phase. The F-35 despite being more complex then any of those jets, and having a STOVL variant that has performed more than 500 Vertical Landings has had just one Class A incident and that for a development program that is running in parallel with Operational training and the total fleet size is 100+. The Teething problems have had a uncharacteristic effect of flight safety in a very good way.

he latest engine fire was very unfortunate,coming so late into the programme.from current reports,it may be the fact that hollow blades were used instead of solid ones in a weight-cutting exercise,as the aircraft is overweight.Such cost-cutting by shaving off material from the aircraft has also resulted in unexpected cracks in the airframe,spars,etc.From the latest USNI report,the problems may be more s eriosu than thought of before

You will continue to read USNI reports but neglect what the man in charge is saying regarding the fact that this current incident is not going to have major impact. If it is indeed hollow blades then the solution is already known (Solid blades). The retrofit costs of these blades would be borne 50% by Pratt and 50% by the program. I do not think that they have yet narrowed down to hollow blades any how but we will see.

From the other thread

As said before,US allies have little choice.They will be armtwisted to buy the aircraft if they want to "keep up with the Joneses".But the orders have been smaller,why production lines for SHs and F-16s are being kept open a little longer.

So the F-16 line is being kept open till longer? When was the last time the USAF bought a brand new F-16? If international customers keep buying the jet what is the USAF to do, instruct Lockheed not to sell them and close the line? Do you realize how absurd your arguments are?

[TSJones]

Well, if he repeats the same arguments over and over again he is sure they will be accepted as proven truth.

[Philip]

Absurd facts? That the JSF engine caught fire,all versions have been grounded by the Pentagon (not by AWST,Axe,or any media outfit!) ,fault more serious than earlier thought? This is coming from the horse's mouth.What is really absurd is those who keep defending the indefensible,and ignore the facts that the JSF is way behind schedule,over a decade late,software glitches plague the programme,the most expensive fighter progamme in history,allies downsizing their orders and the IOC/FOC dates for the US services keep on stretching into the future.

On paper,it's great,futuristic,but it has to be perfectly developed,built,tested to the limit and found fit for combat at some reasonable cost.For that to happen there's still a long way to go. Just repeating ad nauseam the rosy projected performance isn't going to make it happen.

Costs:
Pentagon: Trillion-Dollar Jet on Brink of Budgetary Disaster By the way,this report on costs is a 2012 report!

http://www.wired.com/2012/03/f35-budget-disaster/

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the supposed backbone of the Pentagon’s future air arsenal, could need additional years of work and billions of dollars in unplanned fixes, the Air Force and the Government Accountability Office revealed on Tuesday. Congressional testimony by Air Force and Navy leaders, plus a new report by the GAO, heaped bad news on a program that was already almost a decade late, hundreds of billions of dollars over its original budget and vexed by mismanagement, safety woes and rigged test results.

Here is a Feb. 2014 updated "factsheet" of the programme.No doubt in the last few months some developments both positive and negative have happened,but it is a good condensed report on the JSF programme to date.

Fact Sheet: The F-35 “Lightning II” JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)

October 30, 2013, updated February 21, 2014

By Alexander Pearson, Updated by Andrew Szarejko

Click here for a PDF of this fact sheet.
1. BACKGROUND

The F-35 “Lightning II” Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is a multi-role, single seat, single engine strike fighter with next generation stealth technology developed by a consortium of defense companies led by Lockheed Martin. It is a “5th” generational aircraft designed to replace a variety of previous “legacy” generation aircraft such as the F-16 and FA-18 that currently make up the majority of combat aircraft within the United States military. To fulfill this designated role, the F-35 consists of three variants designated A, B and C. The F-35A is a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft designed for the US Air Force, the F-35B is a short take-off/vertical-landing (STOVL) aircraft designed for the Marine Corps and the F-35C is a carrier variant (CV) designed for the US Navy.

The F-35 program began after the Department of Defense awarded a contract to Lockheed Martin in late 2001 for their experimental X-35 strike aircraft design, which had beat out a design by Boeing. The F-35 was intended to provide a low-cost replacement to the aging fleet of strike aircraft within the US military, whose designs were in some cases over 30 years old. The first operational F-35s were scheduled to enter into active service in 2010. The total life cycle cost of the program was estimated at $1 trillion in 2001. However, this estimate has since soared to $1.5 trillion. This makes it the most expensive conventional weapons system in Pentagon history.
2. PROBLEMS
The F-35 has encountered a number of technical issues since the program began in 2001:

A number of serious issues have arisen including problems with the cockpit design, the helmet mounted display (HMD), heat damage resulting from the F-35's engines and cracks within the engine turbines. These issues led the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, Michael Gilmore, to warn against beginning early unmonitored flight training in late 2011.
Since the first US delivery of F-35s began in 2010, the plane has been grounded by the DoD on four separate occasions, first in March and August of 2011 and later in January and February of 2013.
The F-35B variant has been particularly problematic due to severe challenges faced in the development and reliability of its specialized vertical jet propulsion system. These challenges led to the then Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, to issue a two year suspension on development of the variant in January 2011.
A number of performance concerns were raised after testing began on early models of the F-35 in 2006. In air-to-air combat the plane was found to be less agile compared to other “legacy” aircraft and too lightly armored to fulfill its role in ground support operations. This led the DoD to reduce performance specifications across all variants in 2012.
The aircraft’s relatively short range of 600 miles compared to other “legacy” aircraft has also raised eyebrows. Such a range proves very limiting for carrier-based operations which require an aircraft’s range to be larger than that of the anti-ship missiles possessed by potential adversaries such as China. The development of high-range anti-ship missiles by China raises serious questions about the suitability of the F-35 as a carrier-based multi-role strike aircraft.
Development of the computer software for the aircraft has been incredibly slow and remains a real challenge for the entire program. The finalized version of this software is not expected to be completed until 2017.
Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors have lacked adequate quality management in terms of their rigor to design, manufacturing, and quality assurance. In a [September 2013 assessment, the Pentagon highlighted this problem, which it claims was flagged in over 363 of its findings.
There are concerns that the plane will be no match for fifth generation Chinese and Russian strike aircraft. For example, the Australian Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has stated; “I’m determined not to sign on the dotted line on the JSF until I am absolutely certain it’s capable of delivering the capability it promises”.
According to the most recent report issued by the Department of Defense's Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, the F-35 has cracked in numerous places in recent tests, possibly requiring a redesign to add additional weight and preventing more intensive testing from moving forward.
The same report is critical of the slow development of the software that makes up the F-35’s “information infrastructure,” the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which is still reported to be plagued by “serious deficiencies,” not least of which is the pilot’s inability to override the software in certain situations.

The F-35 has been plagued by schedule delays:

The technical issues with the aircraft have led to significant program delays. As of June 2013, the estimated start date for full-rate production has been delayed 7 years from 2012 to 2019.

The F-35 is egregiously over-budget:

In June 2013 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) claimed that the estimated total cost to develop and procure the F-35 at $395.7 billion, a significant increase from the original $233 billion estimate in 2001.
The average cost of one F-35 has increased from the original estimate of $81.7 million in 2001 to $137 million in 2012.
The latest Pentagon estimates put the 50-year life cycle cost of the F-35 at $1.51 trillion, greatly exceeding the estimate of $1.38 trillion only one year prior.
The operating costs of the three variants F-35 variants are on average 63% higher than the operating and support costs of the “legacy” aircraft that they are replacing.
Due to Lockheed Martin’s concurrent approach to procurement and testing, the F-35 program office has predicted retrofit costs over the 10 total annual procurement contracts to amount to $1.7 billion.

Technical problems, schedule delays and cost overruns have resulted in management turmoil:

In early 2010 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates fired the JSF Program Manager, Major General David Heinz, and withheld payment of $614 million to Lockheed Martin.

The participation of some allies who are partners in the program is in doubt:

Italy, suffering from the imposition of severe domestic austerity measures, cancelled 30 of its planned 120 F-35s in early 2012.
In 2012, Canada dropped its order of F-35s from 80 to 65. Following this reduction, senior Canadian officials acknowledged that they were also reconsidering the remaining purchase after estimates had shown that total life cycle costs would reach around $45 billion.
More recently in March 2013, the Danish government, which had originally planned on buying 48 F-35s, invited Boeing, Eurofighter and Saab to submit information for possible alternatives.

Large scale order cancellations by either the US or its allies may not radically lower the costs of the program:

The low cost resulting from the economies of scale achieved through the large number of planes ordered would be negated if orders were to be cancelled in large numbers. Fewer aircraft ordered would share the costs of production over the remaining aircraft which would drive up the price for each F-35 still on order.
The Pentagon has calculated that a cancellation of 40 aircraft would, for example, result in overall program costs increasing between $1 billion to $4 billion.

Later versions of the F-35 are planned to have a capability to deliver nuclear bombs:

The Pentagon is planning to make Block 4A and Block 4B versions of the F-35A capable of carrying the refurbished B61 mod 12 nuclear gravity bomb by 2022. This would allow the Air Force to retain and forward deploy a dual-capable fighter aircraft, a role currently filled by the F-15E and F-16 in support of NATO commitments.
In July, the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee zeroed out the $10 million fiscal year 2014 request to assess B61 nuclear bomb integration onto the F-35.

Congressional Action in Fiscal Year 2014:

In June, the House Armed Services Committee killed an amendment that would have temporarily frozen funding for the F-35.
In August 2013, the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee placed spending restrictions on the program beginning in fiscal year 2015.
The fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 3304) authorized $2.6 billion for Navy and $3.4 billion for Air Force Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.
The Pentagon has reportedly reduced its fiscal year 2015 request from 42 F-35s to 34. This reduced purchase would include 26 planes for the Air Force, 6 for the Marine Corps, and 2 for the Navy.

3. THE FUTURE

Implementation of sequestration over the rest of the decade would eliminate an additional $450 billion in projected national defense spending. Given the size of the F-35 program it will be extremely difficult to shield it from cuts of this magnitude. Initial cuts include a reduction in 2015 purchases from 42 aircraft to 34.

Such cuts will meet stark resistance from a number of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. In late 2011 a bi-partisan group of 49 congressmen formed the Congressional Joint Strike Fighter Caucus. This group has received over $1.31 million in campaign funding from Lockheed Martin and many of its members’ constituencies benefit economically from the F-35 program as a result of job creation.

Cuts will also be strongly resisted by some quarters within the Pentagon, who feel that a 5th generation fighter is necessary to maintain US military competitiveness.

All Corrective Actions Requests (CARs) articulated in a 2012 Department of Defense Inspector General report are scheduled to be addressed by April 2014.

Alexander Pearson is a Fall 2013 intern at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Andrew Szarejko is a Spring 2014 intern at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

GAO Issues More Cost Warnings For F-35
Mar 24, 2014

Lower-than-expected reliability threatens the future of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, along with doubts as to whether the Pentagon can afford the planned production rate, according to the latest report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

The program’s continued failure to develop and test mission software on schedule will also either result in delayed initial operational capability (IOC) dates, or in further reductions to the capability delivered at IOC, the report predicts.

Another gem.

n past years, a prime example of both dangers is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive weapons system in history. The plan to buy the fighter plane — what the Air Force said would become the “backbone” of American air dominance — was so poorly conceived it amounted to “acquisition malpractice” as the Pentagon’s top acquisitions official said in 2012.

[brar_w]

That the JSF engine caught fire,all versions has been grounded by the Pentagon

Do you play like this on purpose? I was referring to the absurdity to the fact that you have suggested in your last post that :

The US having spent hundreds of billions on the JSF

Please continue.

That the JSF engine caught fire,all versions has been grounded by the Pentagon

So? Is grounding abnormal for a development program? Was the F-22 not grounded? What about the F-16? F-15? Gripen? F-18?

ault more serious than earlier thought?

remains to be seen, since no one formally knows what was "earlier thought" other then speculative articles in the media.

What is really absurd is those who keep defending the indefensible,that the JSF is way behind schedule,over a decade late,software glitches plague the programme,the most expensive fighter progamme in history,and the IOC/FOC dates for the US services keep on stretching into the future

Lets take issues one by one

that the JSF is way behind schedule

Is it the only fighter behind schedule? Was the F-22 not late? What about the F-16? or the Eurofighter? Compared to these programs, the F-35 is much more complex both as an aircraft and as a program.

software glitches plague the programme

Software glitches have plagued every SI effort till date anywhere in the world. That is the reason why software is not taken from development to operational usage and passes an extensive phase of testing for debugging. Its how software is developed. More software and the longer the debugging takes. Find me one Systems integrator that can claim with 100% guarantee that they will write millions of lines of codes for cutting edge, previously impossible capability and require absolutely no debugging.

the most expensive fighter progamme in history

Again, a GOOD PUNCHLINE.

Lets do some math again. I promise to keep it extremely simple.

Lets say the JSF gets cancelled. The US decides to buy 2500 Rafale's from France @ a cost of 60 million a pop. Lets say the export customers also decide to buy a 1200 more @ the same price. The overall cost of procurement comes close to 200 Billion. That makes the Rafale the most expensive fighter progamme in history

Get it? The reason the JSF is the most expensive program in history is that the entire USN Hornet fleet and USAF F-16 and A-10 fleet and the USMC Harrier and Hornet fleet is being replaced by the JSF. The sheer size of the fleet means that any fighter that replaces all of these automatically becomes the most expensive acquisition program for fighters in the history of mankind.

and the IOC/FOC dates for the US services keep on stretching into the future.

IOC dates have remained steady since 2010. It still is 2015 (next year) for the B version, 2016 for the A version and late 2018 for the C version.

On paper,great,futuristic,but it has to be perfectly developed,built,tested to the limit and found fit for combat at some reasonable cost.For that to happen there's still a long way to go.

One more year for IOC, 2 more for Air force IOC.

[Philip]

The "hundreds of billions" is there in the reported post.I'm merely the postman.Secondly,the US's allies who manufacture fighters do have alternatives-as mentioned ,the Rafale,Typhoon and Gripen and their planned upgrades. The poor unfortunates are those like Japan,SoKo,Oz,SPore and other smaller European nations with little or no stake in the EF,who by virtue of being US/NATO allies are faced with Hobson's choice.
Thirdly,when official US agencies like the GAO,Pentagon,reputed analysts,etc.,express serious doubts about performance (testing parameters drastically reduced to enable markers to be achieved by lower standards), timeframes,costs of acquisition and the still unknown cost of operating and maintenance,does it all still sound so hunky-dory ,God's greatest gift to combat aviation as is being made out to be? Surely one can be more realistic and conservative and acknowledge that there are serious problems plaguing the programme.Here I'm not being partisan,I would say the same if the FGFA,LCA or any other programme was similarly afflicted if and when so much open info is available.

As they say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating",for any programme.Let's wait and see how the current fighter programmes under development both east,west and our very own desi birds pan out from their intended goals and parameters on time,cost and performance.

[brar_w]

The "hundreds of billions" is there in the reported post

100's of Billions is going to be the overall acquisition and development cost once each and every fighter that the services desire has been procured. The number is around 390-400 Billion at the moment. The Program has NOT SPENT 100's of Billions already on the program, once the acquisition phase of the program is completed with each and every one of the 2500 odd F-35 (A, B and C variants) acquired, then you can come and claim that 100's of Billions have been spent.

Secondly,the US's allies who manufacture fighters do have alternatives-as mentioned ,the Rafale,Typhoon and Gripen and their planned upgrades

You yourself are the one raising the issue of NO ALTERNATE and now you are debunking your own self. Which PARTNER is getting out of the F-35 in favor of those "alternatives" that you suggest?

I'm sure 10 or 15 years from now the Rafale, Gripen and Typhoon will look far more competitive compared to the F-35 despite of the fact that the F-35 has destroyed these 3 4.5 gen birds in the export market and things are only going to get favorable for 5th generation birds as time elapses. The shelf life of 4.5th generation is far less then 5th generation. If you believe that the trend of export will be reversed in the coming years, you are in for a great surprise.

The poor unfortunates are those like Japan,SoKo,Oz,SPore and other smaller European nations with little or no stake in the EF,who by virtue of being US/NATO allies are faced with Hobson's choice.

Those air forces like ROKAF, Japan and the likes rejected legitimate 4.5th generation choices in favor of 5th generation. They themselves are developing 5th generation fighters for the future and have rejected the idea of pursuing a 4.5 generation aircraft even for their nascent aerospace industry.

hirdly,when official US agencies like the GAO,Pentagon,reputed analysts,etc.,express serious doubts about performance (testing parameters drastically reduced to enable markers to be achieved by lower standards), timeframes,costs of acquisition and the still unknown cost of operating and maintenance,does it all still sound so hunky-dory ,God's greatest gift to combat aviation as is being made out to be?

Show me equivalent reports for the PAKFA? You won't find them. Auditors and accountants publish REPORTS that reflect transient status of the program. They do not pass judgement. Its unfortunate that folks jump onto these reports and pass judgement as if nothing will ever be rectified through the regular common process of testing and glitch elimination. If you have time go through the F-16 and F-22 development history. You'll find similar GAO reports. These reports by their entire purpose are there to give a ball by ball coverage of what is happening. Nothing ever is hunky dory. These same reports were used by idiots just last year to claim that the F-35 will never be able to trap on a carrier. Guess what? Its trapping perfectly after they rectified the glitch and sea trials should occur in a few months. GAO reports are transient by there very nature, and are open and fully transparent. This is not replicated in russia for example so some that are ignorant take it that the russian programs all are smooth and glitch free while every report, line by line is picked up in the US media, highlighted and talked about even after much of these problems are rectified. The good thing is that the Air force and other services, the Pentagon and the Politicians in the US know the nature of GAO findings, and as such they do not act as alarmist on many of these especially when rebuttals are provided by the program office for the more pressing issues raised in these reports. Those rebuttals have been provided in the media, and some have been posted in this very thread by myself and others.

Surely one can be more realistic and conservative and acknowledge that there are serious problems plaguing the program me.

The problem comes not from KNOWING the problems, but understanding them. Regurgitating GAO report after report, or DOT&E report after report is not going to lead to a better understanding of the issues at hand. Perhaps some good literature on US design programs of the past is required. A decent book on the F-16's Development history, or that on the F-15 or the F-117. Things have to be taken and put into proper perspective while taking into account that the jet is in developmental testing at the moment. If everything went right at the DT phase, there would be no need for DT at all and programs can transition straight from the prototype stage to operational stage. That the program is being looked at through the prism of the F-22, or Rafale development cycle is also unfortunate. In reality the JSF is a much much more complex system then these 2 both in terms of the variants, their performance and the capability expected at IOC.

I'm not being partisan,I would say the same if the FGFA,LCA or any other programme was similarly afflicted if and when so much open info is available.

Then go and file RTI applications for FGFA information . The point is that its sickening to have the same reports come up every few weeks. The thread is full of the same reports, raising the same points despite of rebuttals being provided for the same, and despite the fact that rebuttals exist on most of these issues on the internet and in the media (even on this forum). That your entire effort is concentrated on finding reports that malign the program without getting to the bottom of what is happening, why its happening and what is being done is main problem.

As they say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating",for any program me.

No its only for the JSF, as I do not see you adopt this sort of attitude in the PAKFA thread.

[member_23694]

Those air forces like ROKAF, Japan and the likes rejected legitimate 4.5th generation choices in favor of 5th generation.

MAY BE all your points above are correct but Sorry Sir, I don't agree with the above quote.
All these countries and others which plan to induct F 35 for now are all historically ONLY US warplane operators (in most cases).
Do you really think Japan or ROKAF will dump F 35 in favor of say Rafale even for free. No way. They either make their own or buy US planes.
Israel, UK (it tested its nukes in US ), Japan, ROKAF, Australia , Turkey buying F 35's is hardly something to be surprised about, so where is the question of F 35 destroying say a Rafale in export market . Any new market for now for F 35?

[brar_w]

All these countries and others which plan to induct F 35 for now are all historically ONLY US warplane operators (in most cases)

Do you think its only the Europeans that offer 4.5th generation jets to these customers?

http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/export-var ... ifferences

4.5th generation features -

* Apg-82 AESA (largest AESA radar in the west)
* IRST
* Avionics racks, ICP upgrade, FBW,
* RCS reduction treatment
* Internal Weapon pods
* Infra Red MAWS and The best available towed decoy in the market

Then there is this :

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/bds/me ... _brief.pdf

* AESA radar with enhanced modes
* 5th generation cockpit
* Internal weapons carriage
* RCS reduction
* CFT's (No need to carry RCS degrading pods)
* Only 4.5th gen or 5th gen aircraft in the world to offer Gallium Nitride AESA EW Pods post 2020

The point is that they had 4.5 generation options available, and could do a number of things. They chose the more expensive 5th gen options. They also had the option of developing less risky 4.5 generation fighters in house, yet are going in for stealthy 5th generation fighters. Its a matter of threat and counter-capability. When China is developing 2 5th generation fighters, acquiring sophisticated IAD from Russia (S400) and developing highly capable SAM's and IAD's of its own no competitor in its right mind will adopt a strategy of acquiring or developing a 4.5th gen fighter if given an option to pursue just one such fighter. Japan and Korea have gone in for a 5th generation fighter procurement and are developing a 5th generation fighter in house. As 5th generation and advanced 4.5th generation fighters proliferate in the coming years, no air force looking to counter these threats is going to suddenly start buying more 4.5th generation jets. The best time to sell 4.5th generation jet is NOW, when there is no immediate 5th generation jet available for export from any nation. Once the F-35 and the PAKFA go operational especially considering the formers expected rate of production there would be legitimate 5th generation options and at quite competitive prices compared to 4.5th generation capability being produced at a snails pace.

Israel, UK (it tested its nukes in US ), Japan, ROKAF, Australia , Turkey buying F 35's is hardly something to be surprised about, so where is the question of F 35 destroying say a Rafale in export market . Any new market for now for F 35?

What do you mean by a new market? By definition a new market is one where the F-35 has not existed before. They are all new. Do you mean a non traditional F-16 market? So are you claiming that the Euro Canards did not wish to penetrate any F-16 market when they developed the fighter? Bottom line is still that the Rafale has had ZERO customers, and we will the first buying it (whenever that happens). Only other option for the rafale is the middle east where the US will not offer the F-35 until the IDF IOC's with the jet. The farther out these middle eastern nations push their fighter decisions the more lucrative the F-35 looks for them.

so where is the question of F 35 destroying say a Rafale in export market

So basically the Rafale is not destroyed because Dassault expected zero or maybe 1 or two customers? Interesting bit of logic. The way things are going the euro canards are not going to be much of a competition but for the Gripen because the latter smartly targets the low OS cost market. Just wait till the PAKFA matures and is marketed. There are 5 5th generation fighters operational or in testing out of which 3 are available for sale or will be soon. We along with South Korea, Turkey, Japan are developing 5th generation jets. That would make a total of 9 5th generation jets in the coming years. Still think that the future is going to see the euro canards trump the JSF in the export market?

Its about growth and ROI. The F-16 is 40 years+ old and the F-16I and block 60 are very highly capable upgraded birds with a lot of features that even some of the current Euro canards lack yet air forces like the IAF are in favor of buying fighters like the rafale or the typhoon because they are younger and have much better growth prospect going into the future. Now fast forward to 2054, do you see the Rafale, Typhoon and the Gripen making it with extensive upgrades or do you see the F-35 in its second or third iteration flying against a credible opposition? Simply put, 5th gen designs have a greater longivity as a platform, 4.5th ten jets that flew in the 80's or early 90's won't be worth much in 2040's.

Its not that these nations never entertained the idea of 4.5th generation. The USAF studied various upgrades and design changes to 4th generation jets that would put them squarely in the 4.5th generation category. Remember these ?



They decided to only bring in evolutionary changes into 4th generation fleets rather then develop dedicated 4.5th generation version of the existing 4th generation designs. Things like modern RWR's, MAWS and AESA were brought in while the emphasis shifted towards 5th generation. China seems to have done the same. Russia is also heavily committed to 5th generation and the scope of its modernization requires it to buy 4.5th generation jets along side because it has to bring its air force up from all ends since it was pretty dormant in the last decade or more. All those nations that need to counter these weapons are all slowly falling into the 5th generation bracket including several (majority) NATO members, Pacific air forces.

[brar_w]

Interesting Configuration



http://www.janes.com/article/34213/sing ... ce-by-2020

[TSJones]

Truly the JSF is going to carry an unbelievable range of weapons internally.

[Philip]

SPEAR is defined as a "Light Naval Strike Missile".It is subsonic and cannot be classified as in the same class as existing Western subsonic anti-ship missile such as Exocet,Harpoon ,etc. Neither is it going to be anywhere in the same league as BMos or BMos-M.For the JSF to have true capability to destroy warships FFG/DDG size,it needs to have missiles mentioned above,which can only be carried underwing ,defeating its stealth chracteristics.Range too will be less than the air-launched Exocet,between 25km to 70KM.Nowhere near the BMos's 250-300KM+ range and heavy warhead,not to mention its killer kinetic factor.

However,it offers a good option for smaller multi-role helos that cannot carry Exocet and the IN is looking for a new light missile for its helos.SAAB is also touting its RBS 15 air and sea launched versions.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/lig ... le-012879/
Light Naval Strike: MBDA’s FASGW-H / ANL Missile
Mar 27, 2014

Firm decisions have yet to be made on the final Spear configuration, but MBDA says it will be about 2m (6.5ft) long, carry a multi-effect warhead and use a multimode seeker. The high subsonic-speed weapon will also feature INS/GPS guidance, and be able to receive mid-course updates via an onboard datalink.

The basis of the concept is now in an assessment phase study for the UK Ministry of Defence's Spear Capability 3 requirement. This activity is due to conclude in 2014 with an airframe and propulsion system demonstration using a representative weapon design.

"We are on track, and continue to mature the technologies," says business executive Adrian Monks. However, MBDA acknowledges that the UK's recent decision to revert to the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B "brings some challenges", as the type's weapons bays are shorter than those found on the carrier variant F-35C previously favoured by London.

MBDA plans to contract a European supplier to develop a new, lightweight, two-round rail launcher for the Spear missile, and says it has also identified a number of potential engine suppliers.

Details:

FASGW-H/ ANL : The Missile
MBDA video
The program’s goal is a 110 kg missile with a 30 kg warhead, one capable of sinking or disabling Fast Attack Craft (FAC) in the 50t – 500t ton range, and damaging corvettes or frigates. The choice of guidance modes should also allow it to be used for precision attack more generally. Boost and sustain rocket motors are both compliant with naval safety requirements, and steps have been taken to ease integration by minimizing changes to shipborne handling equipment, magazines, etc. that currently handle the Sea Skua and AS.15TT missiles.

The ANL (Anti-Navire Leger) missile will rely on inertial navigation + Imaging Infrared (IIR) guidance, creating a fire-and-forget weapon that won’t alert its targets by broadcasting a radar signal. A radar altimeter looks down, to keep the missile skimming just above the waves and make it harder for defensive radars to pick up. ANL can be fired in either Lock-on Before Launch or Lock-on After Launch modes, and a bi-directional datalink allows updates and retargeting in flight.

As a comparative illustration, the semi-active radar homing AS.15 and Sea Skua aren’t fire and forget, while the Exocet’s active radar guidance will trigger a ship’s ESM defensive electronics.

Range isn’t given, but given its size, the ANL’s range is very likely to be shorter than the Exocet’s 70 km/ 38 nm, and is said to be longer than the Sea Skua’s 25 km/ 13.5 nm. The Sea Skua represents the rough minimum, in order to keep the launching helicopter beyond the reach of short range air defenses expected on FAC, corvette, and light frigate opponents.

Development will be led by European missile giant MBDA, who has branches on both sides of the English Channel and is owned by BAE, EADS, and Finmeccanica. They’re also the manufacturer of larger helicopter-launched anti-ship missiles like the AM39 Exocet and Marte Mk2, and shorter-range missiles like the FASGW-L/ LMM and laser-guided 127mm Zuni rockets.

Britain had been planning to replace its Sea Skua missiles by 2012 – 2014, but that won’t be possible. France’s timeline was more leisurely, aiming only to equip its NH90-NFH helicopters by 2020. The missile’s actual in-service data may end up coming around 2018, which will force Britain to either extend the service life of its Lynx Mk8 helicopters and Sea Skua missiles, or do without the capability until the new missile is ready for use from its new AW159 Wildcats.
Malaysian Sea Skua
click for video

Exports aren’t a major focus yet, but ANL will be the standard strike missile option aboard future AW159 maritime helicopters, and will compete for every NH90-NFH naval helicopter customer. Customers for its predecessor missiles offer another opportunity. Saudi Arabia was the only AS.15TT export customer, but Sea Skua has been exported for helicopter and shipborne use to Brazil, Germany, India, Kuwait, Malaysia, Pakistan, South Korea, and Turkey.

ANL’s competitors include MBDA’s own Marte Mk2/S, which will compete for NH90 orders, and Kongsberg’s popular Penguin missile. China’s TL-6 also sits in this category, but isn’t likely to compete because its integrated helicopters are unlikely to overlap.
Contracts & Key Events

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... 35-373453/

The basis of the concept is now in an assessment phase study for the UK Ministry of Defence's Spear Capability 3 requirement. This activity is due to conclude in 2014 with an airframe and propulsion system demonstration using a representative weapon design.

"We are on track, and continue to mature the technologies," says business executive Adrian Monks. However, MBDA acknowledges that the UK's recent decision to revert to the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B "brings some challenges", as the type's weapons bays are shorter than those found on the carrier variant F-35C previously favoured by London.

MBDA plans to contract a European supplier to develop a new, lightweight, two-round rail launcher for the Spear missile, and says it has also identified a number of potential engine suppliers.

[brar_w]

SPEAR is defined as a "Light Naval Strike Missile".It is subsonic and cannot be classified as in the same class as existing Western subsonic anti-ship missile such as Exocet,Harpoon ,etc.

Wasn't talking about Spear but the Meteor in the picture.

FFG/DDG size,it needs to have missiles mentioned above,which can only be carried underwing ,defeating its stealth chracteristics

Other missile options include the LRASM , which will be externally carried but that does not matter since it is a stand off weapon with range in excess of 600 km (closer to 800km). If required a Mini version can be developed. Follow on to the LRASM will see a JSOW body weapon compete which is compatible with the internal bays. Yet another option is the Turkish SOM which is both an anti ship and anti land target missile, UAI compatible (like the JSM block II) and in development specifically for internal carriage of the F-35.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file ... &mode=view

http://www.janes.com/article/37434/stan ... e-for-f-35

Initially the main drivers of F-35's anti shipping role would be the export partners since the USN CONOPS has the Super Hornet doing the Anti shipping role using the LRASM because the SH had taken over this mission upon induction from the F-18 Hornets. The USN would probably carry on using the SH with the LRASM and keep the F-35C's open for more penetrative strikes into IAD territories in line with its capabilities. Partners have options both in the JSM and the SOM, both of which will be available @ block4 with future versions plug and play on all F-35's due to UAI switch that will occur for the JSM in block II and the SOM from the initial internal carriage weapon.

[Viv S]

SPEAR is defined as a "Light Naval Strike Missile".It is subsonic and cannot be classified as in the same class as existing Western subsonic anti-ship missile such as Exocet,Harpoon ,etc. Neither is it going to be anywhere in the same league as BMos or BMos-M.

SPEAR is neither of those things. It is just a program -

SPEAR Capability 1: Paveway IV
SPEAR Capability 2: Brimstone 2

SPEAR Capability 3: Under development missile.

And the weapon in question is primarily a high speed analogue to the SDB-2. Like the Brimstone it can be used against FACs. The comparison to the Harpoon, Exocet or BrahMos however is absurd. It was never intended to substitute them.

And the F-35 has a naval weapon in the Kongsberg NSM and will also be able to employ the JSOW in an anti-ship role.

Nowhere near the BMos's 250-300KM+ range and heavy warhead,not to mention its killer kinetic factor.

All well and good but the BrahMos-M cannot be carried internally by any fighter, never-mind the regular BrahMos.

[Victor]

Many here have not understood that the JSF was designed from the outset with future COST SAVINGS in mind. The stealth part is just to keep it at the cutting edge for decades. If the US just wanted plain ol' "stealth" they could have got F-22 Mk2 very quickly and with far fewer hassles. The F-35 will be superior to and replace at least the A-10, F-16, F-18 & AV-8B in the USAF, USMC and USN leading to massive savings in training, maintenance and manufacturing that will be unlike anything seen so far. In 10 years, it will not only be the most advanced aircraft flying but also the cheapest to make and operate. This means it can be made in numbers that will swamp any known current or future opponent. Game over. In this scenario, the current bumps in cost and development, no matter how sharp, are mere pimples over the longer term perspective and the Americans know it. No way are they crazy enough to give up on it.

[brar_w]

And the F-35 has a naval weapon in the Kongsberg NSM and will also be able to employ the JSOW in an anti-ship role

I do not even think that the USN plans to certify the Harpoon for the F-35 (i could be wrong). The Plan firmly is to transition to the LRASM program that will have an operational missile before the F-35 IOC's with the USN. Since the LRASM would be plug and play thanks to its UAI interface there would be no need to integrate it onto the F-35 post block 4 (when the F-35 gets UAI software patch). Post 2019 once 200 or so LRASM's are acquired the program will open up to competition (LRASM is a special needs weapon). Competing for this would most likely be the JSOW ER version which would be F-35 compatible. Long term plans for the USN are secretive, but the main area of interest is LONG RANGE smart targeting (500-1000 km range) and as such the weapon's stealth degradation (if it comes to that) is hardly a concern.

[brar_w]

[youtube]1M2LPOTlU4c#t=76[/youtube]

UK F-35B Rolling landing simulation



More on software builds from AIR International F-35 Special Edition July 2014

"The F-35 Lightning II is a software-driven aircraft with 8.1 million source lines of code for airborne operation, four times the amount used for the F-22 Raptor – the world’s first fifth-generation fighter.

Development of the F-35 is based on iterative builds of software known as ‘Blocks’. The software controls all of the aircraft’s functions: flight controls, radar, communications, navigation and identification, sensor fusion, electronic protection, electronic warfare, electronic attack and weapons.

All Blocks are a continuation of the previous build. For example, Block 2B expands on the infrastructure and initial sensor work included in the previous Blocks and adds sensor modes, weapons and data link capabilities. Sub-sets are contained within each Block: there are eight in Block 2B. Specific requirements are integrated in each Block by Computer Software Configuration Items. Concurrent development is ongoing within mission systems and vehicle systems: the two major components of the aircraft’s airborne software.

Block by Block
Throughout this publication there is reference to the different Blocks of software – some are already in service, others are yet to be released. The following overview provides the main aspects of each different build.

Block 0.5 provided the infrastructure with some initial sensor capabilities. Blocks 1A and Block 1B added to that. Block 2A and Block 2B provided further capability. Block 3i will include some new capability and will operate on new hardware: the updated integrated core processor which runs faster and offers increased memory storage. Block 3F will give more sensor modes, datalink, and the capability to carry more types of weapon.

Block 1 comprises 76% of the source lines of code required for full combat capability. Block 1A was a training configuration, while Block 1B provided initial multi-level security.

The final Block 2A build was released in June 2013 to specifically enhance training. It includes mission debrief capabilities and increases functionality to the fusion engine, as well as enhancing sensor integration, initial datalinks, and basic electronic warfare and electronic attack capability.

Block 2B has an additional 500,000 lines of code. It adds new electronic warfare and radar operating modes, an initial weapon capability (AIM-120 AMRAAM missile, GBU-12 laser-guided bomb and GBU-31/GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions) and expanded data link capabilities.

The development and integration sub-sets within Block 2B are 2BR1 (the initial flight test release), 2BR1.1, 2BR2, 2BR4, 2BR4.1, 2BR4.2 (completed in February 2014), and the final flight test releases 2BR4.3 (completed in March 2014) and 2BR5 (completed in May 2014).

The last two are problem report clean-up fixes for the aircraft’s mission system and offer no new capability. Block 2BR5 will remain in flight test with Lockheed Martin until the end of the final quarter of 2014.

The US Marine Corps plans to declare its F-35 initial operating capability in 2015 with Block 2B. Block 3i is an intermediate version that the US Air Force will use to work up to its full operational capability with Block 3F.

Development of Block 3i is on-going. Its integration is scheduled to run until mid-2015 – this will be after the flight test phase finishes because the last Block 3i integration phase will include updates for air vehicle systems that will cut into Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) lot 8.

Block 3F is the final build for the F-35’s initial operational test and evaluation phase: once certified it will be used by all three US services, the UK, Norway and the Netherlands. It will have 8.1 million lines of code. Of that total approximately 98% is already developed; 89% of which is currently in flight test at Fort Worth.

The build is designed to give the F-35 full combat capability including datalink transfer of imagery, more sensor modes and additional weapons: AIM-9X Sidewinder missile, GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb Increment I, GAU-22/A Cannon and the UK’s Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM)."

[rajanb]

Interesting read and I am sure there will be interesting comments.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... 20July%209

Enjai!

[NRao]

Senate shrugs off F-35 grounding

[member_23694]

Interesting read and I am sure there will be interesting comments.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... 20July%209

Enjai!

Enjoyed . Did someone say JSF as junk strike fighter. Sorry bad joke . Please don't mind

[brar_w]

Interesting read and I am sure there will be interesting comments.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... 20July%209

Enjai!

Lets take it point by point

whose costs have soared to an estimated $112 million per aircraft.

LRIP 1 F-35A cost - 200+ million
LRIP 7 F-35A cost - 112 Million
LRIP 8 F-35A cost - Soon to be decided



Surely the prices are soaring as the article suggests

Effectively saying that the most expensive warplane in American history is too dangerous to fly is a huge public relations blow for the Pentagon, which has been under fire for years for allowing the plane's costs to increase even as its delivery time continued to slide right.

I am willing to give the author some benefit of the doubt as she may be an amateur but for the purpose of clarification here are some of the other development aircraft that were grounded

- F-16 - 40+ Class A incidents including many crashes and many groundings
- F-18 - Groundings both for the classic Hornet and the Super Hornet
- F-22 - 1 Crash and 2 groundings during development and more during operational usage
- F-16 - Grounded as recently as a few months ago with the IDF
- F-15 - More then 2 dozen Class A incidents during development and testing including multiple groundings
- SAAB Gripen - 2 crashes during development and testing phase both followed by grounding

Compared to these the F-35 has 3 variants, one of which is complex STOVL supersonic aircraft with more than 500 Vertical landings till date. The F-35 currently has 100+ aircraft delivered both with the test force, and operational squadrons of the US and partner nations. Despite of all this this is the first Class A incident for the program in more than 15,000 fleet hours of flying. Better safety record then all of the aircraft listed above in developmental testing.

I can dig about other programs but the bottom line is that grounding due to safety concerns are the norm especially in an operational jet. The F-35A that caught fire was an operational jet, with an operational squadron over at Eglin AFB, and as such the same procedure regarding safety have to be followed as would with any other aircraft in the fleet.

People have short memories

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuFmTPdIE2k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM6v6SDo2gQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JkcrtvN60s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6yVU_yYtEc

The Pentagon intends to spend roughly $399 billion to develop and buy 2,443 of the planes.

Again, the amateurish article fails to put the price in proper perspective. A decent upgraded 4.5th gen F-18E/F International/Advanced Super Hornet would cost around 70-80 per aircraft and would not be able to operate from LHD's, nor have the capability of the F-35. As a comparison the Rafale program cost the French 60+ Billion for less then 200 aircraft.

operating costs are expected to exceed $1 trillion.

Again, at least this author did not refer to the F-35 as the Trillion dollar jet as is becoming fashionable among the uninformed media.

The O&S cost of the F-35 fleet of more than 2400 jets has fallen from 1.5 trillion to 1.02 trillion as testing has progressed and more has been known. Just recently the program head told the media that he expects that by the time the program testing is complete (so far 60% complete) he expects a 30% reduction in O&S estimates out of which 9% have already been realized and reflected in the 1.02 trillion cost. If his predictions are true the O&S costs would be closer to 800 Billion for 2500 jets for 55 years of Operations and sustainment. This involves inflation, fuel and the entire gamut of running an air force.

Again the author makes no attempt to try to find out and publish the O&S cost projections for a fleet of 2500 Advanced Super Hornets and added Growlers (To protect the no stealthy Shornets). Such a fair and balanced approach to reporting

The Pentagon has offered little information about the cause of the fire or whether the Marine Corps' version of the plane, the F-35B, had been cleared to participate in the Royal International Air Tattoo and the Farnborough International Airshow in the U.K. next week.

So the Author does not wish to familiarize with the standard operating procedure of aircraft incident investigation in the USAF and wishes to quite openly demonstrate her ignorance of it in the article. The USAF is not obligated to share the direct findings of an ongoing investigation until the investigation is complete, and the report submitted to the concerned authorities including the political establishment.

[NRao]

Interesting read and I am sure there will be interesting comments.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... 20July%209

Enjai!

All Eyes on F-35: Flying or Not, JSF Will Dominate Farnborough