JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2013 05:13

Britain:

April 12, 2013 :: UK, House of Commons :: The F-35 lightning II Joint Strike Fighter

Contents
1 Introduction 3
2 The UK option: From B to C to B again 4
3 Number of aircraft and basing 6
4 Timetable 6
5 Cost of the Joint Strike Fighter 7
6 The aircraft: STOVL versus Carrier variant 8
7 Interoperability 9
8 Weapons 10
9 Concerns about the F-35 11
10 Partner countries 13
11 Industry 14
12 The Catapults and arrestor gear debate 15
Appendix: Comparison of the F-35B and F-35C variants 17

The decision on the overall number of aircraft will not be made until the next Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) in 2015.15 The original planning assumption for up to 140 aircraft is not expected to be realised. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed in July 2012 the UK will order 48 aircraft (including the four test aircraft) with further numbers to be confirmed in the 2015 SDSR.16

The decision taken in May 2012 to use the STOVL variant rather than the Carrier variant will not affect the number of aircraft to be deployed on the Carrier. Twelve aircraft will be routinely on board the carriers with a potential surge to 36 aircraft if required.17

The F-35 force will be operated by both Royal Navy and RAF pilots.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2013 06:55

This version,which the USMC is also acquiring is supposed to be the first that will enter service.It has the greatest potential.There has been no VSTOL/STOVL fighter of note developed after the Harrier (and Yak-141).The Russian Yak 38 fighter ,inferior to the Harrier,saw an early retirement as Russia also lacked carriers.However,using its "stealth" intel capabilities,the US (LM) according to several reports,copied the basic concept of the Yak-141,"with a little help from my friends" (remember the Woodstock song?) ,the Russians,which became the F-35B,so say some that the F-35B was actually "born in the USSR"!

F-35B: Born in the USSR?
July 3 2013

he American F-35B the naval version of the Joint Services Fighter was not designed in Fort Worth, Texas, but in Moscow, Russia. The unique lift fan and vectoring tailpipe that allows the F-35B to perform vertical short takeoffs and landings (VTOL) was designed nearly three decades ago by Russias Yakovlev aircraft bureau for their supersonic multi-services fighter, the Yak-141.

Need for speedand more

A good example of Russias poor record in naval aviation was the Yak-38 jump jet. Unlike the highly successful British Sea Harrier, the Yak-38 was an apology of a fighter, being outperformed in almost every department by its Western rivals.

As part of the Soviet Navys massive expansion under Admiral Gorshkov, in 1975 Yakovlev was ordered to develop a highly versatile aircraft. Having an unprecedented blend of supersonic speed, vertical take-off and landing capability and extended range, its main role would be to defend the Soviet Naval Fleet and shipping lanes. The aircraft would not only operate from aircraft carriers, but also from wheeled landing and takeoff platforms that could be placed throughout the country, allowing the Russian Air Force to come into the picture.

Yakovlevs designers dumped the double engine configuration that was popular those days, as in the Yak-38 and the Sea Harrier. Says Military Today: http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/yak_141.htm) Instead they created a layout with a single engine, that could turn 95 degrees down with two additional vertical thrust engines, located in the middle of the fuselage, just behind the centre of gravity. These would turn on only during vertical take-off, vertical landing and hovering. The engineers had to stretch the body of the aircraft for aerodynamic stability.

Plane truth: 12 world records and still grounded

In 1977, the aircraft got the green light for full development. By March 1987 came the first flight and the first hover was carried out on December 1989. During April 1991 test pilot Andrei Sintsyn set 12 world records for VTOL aircraft that were recognised by the FAI. But trouble would soon bring down this highly promising fighter.

On October 5, 1991, a prototype aircraft crashed while attempting a carrier landing. Then came the funds crunch following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This meant that Yakovlev was on its own it now had to get funds from somewhere.

Enter Lockheed

Trying to stay airborne in the turbulent skies of a collapsing empire, Yakovlev started looking for a foreign partner. One of the successes it notched up was the development of the Yak-130 trainer in partnership with Aermacchi of Italy.

The other partnership was with Lockheed Martin. In the early nineties, the United States military decided to replace its F-16, F-18 and A-10 fighter-bombers with a common family of aircraft for all its three services that operated aircraft.

Lockheed Martin was one of the companies trying to land the multi-trillion dollar Joint Strike Fighter contract. Since American designers had no prior experience in VTOL development and the British Jaguar was outdated, they saw the potential in Yakovlevs design.

According to aviation analyst Bill Gunston, the Lockheed-Yakovlev partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until September 6, 1992, and was not revealed by Lockheed-Martin until June 1994.

Lockheed pumped in nearly $400 million. For Yakovlev the fruits of the partnership were three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics. Two prototypes of the planes were exhibited at the 1993 Moscow air show. None flew.

The real winner was Lockheed. Its designers had struck gold they had learned enough about lift plus lift cruise techniques from the Russians to design their prototype Joint Strike Fighter, known as the X-35, in preparations for a fly off between it and the Boeing X-32.

The similarities between the F-35B and the Yak-141 are not just in the engines, nozzles and fans. The two aircraft even look very similar in terms of appearance like twins separated at birth. This is hardly a coincidence because under the hood of the American plane is a Russian heart.

Military Today says Lockheed Martin possibly used experience gained from this project developing their own F-35 multi-role fighter.

The real truth may come years later if someone from the Russian or American sides sits down to pen down their memoirs. Until then, all we can say is if it looks like a Yak, flies like a Yak and acts like a Yak, it must be a Yak.

http://rbth.asia/business/2013/06/10/f- ... 47265.html

This version as said in earlier posts,offers the most potential if India ever wants to take a serious look at the JSF,For the IN and not the IAF,and if no naval FGFA version is developed It would be most useful for the IN's planned amphibious ships which hopefully will arrive sometime in the next decade.Great for ski-jump STOBAR carriers too,but at what cost? Will we be able to at that time afford it? Will the Rupee cross 100 to the almighty $ by then? That as they say is the Billion $ Q.Alternatively,India too can take good hard look at the Yak-141 ,follow LM's example and see what it can come up within in its own programmes or JVs.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2013 07:30

And Boeing used the Harrier team as consultants for their entry into the competition.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2013 08:07

We always miss the boat.A strategic mindset does not exist within the MOD/GOIs of the day .The few leaders who have understood this and taken required decisions in the country's interests have been IG,RG and ABV.See (naval td.) how the PRC have picked up the entire TU-22 production line ,which was on offer to us from Russia for a song for two decades, first offered to the IAF decades ago,which plumped only for the MIG-23 and then allegedly scuttled the IN's plans to acquire the same!

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 23 Aug 2013 14:42

JSF isn't an ideal plane either and hence won't be fulfilling all needs of the future.

Plus why bankroll US companies exactly- there is no independent logic to it. To say that US companies have expertise and therefore talents have to be bankrolled by others is like saying-since US has anti corruption laws therefore US companies paying bribes outside is how it is only what to do when litigation process within USA is there no.

Does it not look like a non-viable fighter already?

And there is no thread for US-specific FMS routed products to make a spectacle of questioning viability-in-future/money-pit-avoidance/etc

USA isn't a fragile country and can still run assembly lines of bomb trucks. Let's remember that.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 23 Aug 2013 20:03

I am still not sure of the purpose of this thread other than to politically play on the possibility of India buying a plane that as of yet has not reached it full development. Even if India did indicate an interest it would be years before anything happened or even knowing what model/block deveopment would be available at that point. So what's the point?

India is currently under going an economic scrunch right now so I don't see any rush from India to buy US planes at the moment. India still has to digest its C-17 amd P8I acquistions. Right now I think India should concentrate on those current acquisitions and let the JSF F-35 block/model changes take care of themselves.

If India wants to invest more of its resources I think right now an investment of drones, tactical missiles and radars would have more payback of scarce resources. The P8I and harpoons are going to take care of a lot of ocean for India. Automated drones communicating with P8I's and ground shore tactical centers are key in my view. Immediately. Now. This is what the US Navy is concentrating on. They don't plan on sending gigantic ships carrying 3000 men and expensive jets into the south China sea until everything is swept clean by subs, drones and P8's riding herd. Anything else would be suicidal. Just my humble thoughts. The Marines will be waiting back at Tinian, Saipan and Midway.

Addendum: The AirForce should have tactical fighters flying out of the Philippines, Okinawa, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Thailand and maybe somehwere from an Indian airbase (although that has yet to be decided diplomatically). Then there is Guam, Diego Garcia and Australia. If China wants a fight they had better pack their lunch basket.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2013 20:34

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Aug 2013 20:43

TSJ,monitoring the JSF's progress is a very valuable exercise for several reasons.Firstly,it was hoped and touted as being a magic bullet ,with its advanced stealth features,some even more advanced than the Raptor,which would be the gold standard for the US (USAF,USN,USMC) and exported in large number to its global allies (9 partners),in diff. avatars,making it the bird of choice for air dominance from 2020 onwards.It would send all 4++ gen fighters into the drink when confronted by them and offer an unparalelled advantage for air forces that possessed it.
On paper glorious.It also saw intense copycat activity from the PRC and other air forces wanting to develop their own stealth birds.Though Russian development has been in the works for at least two decades,with both MIG and Sukhoi bureaus developing their own concepts,"stealth" became the mantra for a winning advantage.

However,the exceptionally ambitious programme ran into major problems,dev. delays,cost-overruns,MRO costs,etc.,which has set back the programme by several years.In the meantime,over-emphasis upon stealth as a "magic bullet" was gradually losing favour as anti-stealth developments were being developed,plus the role of UCAVs gained huge importance as the weapon of choice in pursuit of "terror".The JSF in particular,placed a lower emphasis upon dogfighting and if carrying underwing munitions ,degraded its stealth advantage leading air forces/nations that had singed up for it question its procurement or the numbers ,given the huge cost per unit too.As the USN's CNO said,a "bomb truck" could do the business in several situations.

We too are engaged in the FGFA JV with Russia,a programme heavily dominated by Russia given our late entry into the project.However,we are considerably better off than the US "partners" in the JSF,who have severely limited access to the tech in the bird.In our venture,we will be able to insert India-specific tech as we've done with the Su-30MKis,as well as tech being developed for our ambitious AMCA programme,shelved for the moment until ii is perfected and enters service with the IAF.

With China unveiling two stealth birds,mirroring the US,the stakes for India are very high in our possessing a superior stealth aircraft than the Chinese birds for the IAF.China is relentless in its pursuit of mil. superiority "uber alles".So a careful monitoring of the JSF programme,will enable us to avoid many of the pitfalls that that programme is experiencing,allowing us to save precious time and money in achieving our goal of possessing a great 5th-gen stealth bird,that is affordable and can be built well and maintained without massive input and bills.If the JSF succeeds ,at least the STOVL version,it could be a valuable acquisition for the IN for our carriers and ampib. ships in the future,as the US will do its utmost to see sales increase.Therefore,monitoring the progress of that variant is of keen interest to us as we develop our perspective plans.

PS;There are a few key factors to be examined .

1.Original performance /capabilities and those actually delivered.

2.JSF capabilities vs 4++ gen fighters which are being offered as cost-effective alternatives (F-15,F-18SH + Eurocanards).

3,JSF capabilities vs current stealth fighters under development/flying. FGFA/T-50,Chinese fighters,F-22.

4.Costs per unit of each variant plus MRO estimates.

5.Weaponry to be carried by the JSF and its rivals.This is crucial,as BVR missiles,LR stand-off missiles make or break the mission.Ultimately,it is not the "beauty of the beast/bird" that matters ,but what it can seriously deliver on the battlefield and at what price.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Aug 2013 21:19

I am still not sure of the purpose of this thread other than to politically play on the possibility of India buying a plane that as of yet has not reached it full development. Even if India did indicate an interest it would be years before anything happened or even knowing what model/block deveopment would be available at that point. So what's the point?

.....................

Good question. Thought I was the only one to think along those lines.

A few days/weeks ago, when I started to research the F-35 I had no clue. Today, I am inclined to get the A for the IAF. Since I do not expect either the US or Russia to part with any top notch technologies (they may say they will) -ves: political influencing, etc (but then India has based her entire strategic lift + naval patrolling on the US!!!!!), +ves: supply chain, production (imagine producing 50+ F-35s a year), perhaps testing (in some aspects) and maintenance.

As far as timing, cannot say, BUT, the UK may decline 90 F-35Bs and there is a possibility that the Netherlands may decline 85 F-35As. Both are level A partners, so early delivery (around 2020). At an average cost (for A and B ) of about $100 mil. India is thinking about investing $5.5 Billion in the next phase of the FGFA - so the funds are there. Start a line in India. Technically should work out. The stoppers: those acronymed agreements to sign and potential political harassment.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 23 Aug 2013 23:28

Everybody is harping on the cost. What about the capability. Range, endurance, ability to penetrate air defences.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Aug 2013 08:56

NR,hypothetically,even if the F-35 is going to be seriously considered,goes through an elaborate assessment overview,then selected,the maze of bureauacracy and red tape that exists will stifle the decision.Look at the one year it has taken for the yet unfinished signing of the Rafale contract.The CISMOA and other intrusive agreements which you mentioned that will accompany the deal is another.Finally,the variant with lesser capabilities will have to be compared with what the FGFA brings with it.The USMC variant has no competition being a STOVL bird.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Aug 2013 18:00

Yes, I said that keep those agreements aside. They are a non-starter.

BUT, by extension, others too have similar things: Russia strangles India over cost, France is known for it (M2K upgrades).

So, my suggestion is that India START infusing funds - seriously (not fund something and take a cut out of it) (and please have dedicated project managers, etc) - internally. Seems to me that the major issues are pretty much resolved. India - again my read (and I could be wrong) - needs to overcome the last 20-15-10% (materials, miniaturization, etc).

I think a lot of things are falling into place. When core technologies are mature enough they themselves have a force of their own that no human can control. It happens.

I have nothing against the FGFA or the Russians, BUT, I am vehemently against leaning on them - or for that matter anyone else. There is a natural exception - where nations come together to do things because circumstances provide such a situation (not that the nations planned it out or anything like that) and that exception will come into play with the US - so yes, I do expect more and more "stuff" to happen with the US. In fact, there should be two surprises (latest and greatest techs and procurement) waiting to happen in the next few years ......... let us see.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 24 Aug 2013 18:13

Well there is also question of competition and we shouldn't be backing off it, in fact we should participate in competition- instead of buying run of the mill A/B/Cs from countries all 9 perhaps that lecture others on competition.

About the cost factor, it the job of govt and not IAF and everyone interest to worry. The government shouldn't offshore it like uninterested party from far away la la land.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 25 Aug 2013 02:41

Philip wrote: With China unveiling two stealth birds,mirroring the US,the stakes for India are very high in our possessing a superior stealth aircraft than the Chinese birds for the IAF......

I read sometimes back some nationalist writing that AMCA is useless hence it should be discarded. Some suggestion.

In other words china is held in awe for unveling 2 stealth birds, while even one desi Stealth bird is not digested by our errrm free advisors.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 25 Aug 2013 02:59

without kaveri, no amount of projection going to help against china. better get that program back on table.. and that too all india-genously. no firang participation at all. we have kids from school to masters in the lab.. need investments and computing power. get the kaveri++ going fast track.

dismantle gtre,or reorg the institution first.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2013 06:18

Aug 22, 2013 :: Lockheed eyes 40 percent savings on next F-35 logistics contract

(Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) said it is close to an agreement with the Pentagon for a more portable and 40 percent cheaper version of the operations and logistics system that controls the F-35 fighter, the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program.

Lockheed aims to finalize a contract with the Pentagon's F-35 program office in coming weeks that will pay for development of lighter units to operate the new warplanes when they are deployed or based on ships, company officials told Reuters late on Wednesday.

Lockheed began work on the project last month using its own funding to ensure that the new system would be ready by the first quarter of 2015, in time for the Marine Corps to start using the F-35 B-model in combat by the middle of that year.

The Lockheed is developing and building three variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter for the U.S. military and eight partner countries: Britain, Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands. The U.S. development and procurement program is expected to cost $392 billion.

The Pentagon had been projecting that it would cost an additional $1 trillion to operate and service those planes over 55 years, but recently slashed its forecast by more than 20 percent to $857 billion.

As it developed and started producing the new planes, Lockheed has also been building a computer-based system, the Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS, that will serve as the management "backbone" for the global fleet of F-35s - a project large enough to qualify as a major weapons program on its own.

ALIS got a lot of attention last year after Navy "hackers" uncovered a cyber vulnerability during a planned security test. Industry and government officials say it has made progress since then, although they are still trying to drive down the cost.

Built using many commercial off-the-shelf software systems, ALIS enables daily operations of the F-35 fleet, including mission planning and flight scheduling to repairs and scheduled maintenance, as well as the tracking and ordering of parts.

Technicians use ruggedized portable computers instead of paper manuals to check all the plane's systems, and far more rapidly repair any gaps in its radar-evading stealth coatings.

The system includes a giant server based at Lockheed's Fort Worth, Texas facility, where the jets are built; one separate gateway system for each country that uses the F-35; and individual computer units for each squadron of planes.

Military officials have pressed for a more "deployable" version of those individual computer units since the new planes will eventually be used on a variety of Navy ships and at other locations around the world, where space is limited.

Mark Perreault, Lockheed program manager for the F-35 ALIS system, declined to give the overall value of the contract being negotiated with the Pentagon, but said each of the new standard operating units (SOU) would be far cheaper.

"The projected overall acquisition cost of an SOU is going to be greater than 40 percent reduced," Perreault told Reuters in an interview near the Pentagon.

The new operating units will weigh just 1,000 pounds (455kg), about half of what they weigh now, and each will be broken down into smaller, more portable components. Eventually more than 150 such systems will be purchased, mostly at the new lower price.

The Pentagon's F-35 program office had no comment on the discussions with Lockheed. It said the portable version of ALIS must be affordable and meet the military's needs.

Tom Curry, another key Lockheed official on the ALIS program, said that while the ALIS system was not perfect Lockheed was making good progress in maturing the system. He said the company had developed a preliminary way of safeguarding security through an "air gap" that requires personnel to manually transfer data between the classified and unclassified systems.

The fix, called a "sneaker patch" by the Marines, takes up to 45 minutes now for each F-35 flight, but that will be cut to a few minutes in an updated version of ALIS planned for delivery in the summer of 2014, according to Lockheed officials. They said additional security changes will be phased in over time.

The ALIS system is already used to operate and maintain F-35s at eight locations, including Edwards Air Force Base in California and the Marine Corps air station in Yuma, Arizona, which will receive the first of the newer more portable units.

($1 = 0.6421 British pounds)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2013 06:22

Aug 20, 2013 :: F-35C Completes First In-Flight Refuel With USAF KC-135

NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md., Aug. 23, 2013 – On Aug. 20, an F-35 Lightning II carrier variant (CV) refueled from a U.S. Air Force KC-135 for the first time. With the completion of this test, the F-35C joins the A and B models in proving that all three variants of the F-35 can be refueled from a common tanker platform, despite different methods. The aircraft, known as CF-1, was piloted by Lt. Col. Patrick Moran. Earlier this month, the Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 101, the Navy's first F-35C Lightning II carrier variant aircraft squadron, completed its first flight at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs about 116,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation's net sales for 2012 were $47.2 billion.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 25 Aug 2013 06:37

Great photo NRao! You can clearly see the gun outlet on the side.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2013 06:44

Was wondering what that is.

Also, under the chin is the optical whatever It is.

Do they not compromise on the RCS?

BTW, the more I read up the more I am impressed with these Turkeys.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2013 07:02

Aug 20, 2013 :: What South Korea Means for the F-35's Future

Defense industry insiders and investors have closely watched Lockheed-Martin's (NYSE: LMT ) F-35 fighter program for years now. Optimism around the craft's stealth and abilities has given way to concerns over its rising costs amid today's era of cash-strapped budgets. Investors have already worried about what sequestration could do to the F-35's future, but now we're finally seeing the effects of the F-35's expense in a new arena: foreign sales.

According to Reuters, reports have circulated that South Korea's leaning strongly toward choosing Boeing's (NYSE: BA ) F-15 Silent Eagle over Lockheed's F-35. The contest to supply the country's military with a modern superiority fighter has drawn plenty of attention, given the amount of cash at stake: $7.4 billion to the winning bidder, in exchange for 60 jets. Boeing, Lockheed, and EADS (NASDAQOTH: EADSF ) , which has entered its Eurofighter Typhoon in the competition, have looked neck-and-neck in the race -- until now.

What would a potential failure in South Korea mean to Lockheed's future?

Costs add up

To be clear, Lockheed's not out of this race just yet. While Boeing's rumored to have taken the lead, Lockheed has asserted that it will continue to go all-out in its attempts to win the contract. EADS isn't going away, either, even with Boeing's advantage, as the European competitor looks to sell the South Korean government on the Eurofighter's cost advantages.

Cost is a huge player here. South Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration, or DAPA, has stuck by the requirement that bids arrive at or under that $7.4 billion mark. Reportedly, Lockheed's F-35 hasn't cleared that crucial hurdle. If Lockheed can't find a way to lower the aircraft's costs, it can kiss this lucrative contract goodbye.

The immediate implications of losing South Korea's bid aren't as dramatic as that multi-billion dollar figure might seem. 60 planes is astronomically less than Lockheed's projected 2,443-plane fleet for the Pentagon. Work on that plan has already made its way to Lockheed's sales, where $175 million in year-over-year F-35 sales growth in the most recent quarter helped offset falling revenue from other aircraft in Lockheed's largest division

So far, things look good for the plane – even if South Korea shows Lockheed the door. But those same costs that have given the Koreans pause could come back to haunt Lockheed in a big way in the future.

Orders under fire

Let's start abroad. Lockheed hopes that international customers will drive a big portion of the F-35's sales in coming years, particularly as the Pentagon raises production over time. The company's CEO, Marillyn Hewson, expects around 50% of orders over the next half-decade to come from abroad. That number's likely to diminish in the wake of South Korea's decision, but there's a chance the F-35 won't meet all its expected orders in other nations, as well.

Cost concerns have already pushed Turkey to delay its first purchases of the aircraft, although the country has stuck by its plan to purchase 100 of the jets. Australia's followed the same model; last year it delayed it first purchases of the F-35, despite announcing its commitment to the fighter this May . Italy slashed its own orders of the craft by more than 40 jets earlier in the year, citing savings as a big reason behind the decision. The Netherlands has also considered cutting its orders of the F-35 based on cost concerns.

Delays and cancellations are driving up the cost of each plane even further, which has likely drawn the attention of the cash-conscious governments in Europe and Japan that have signed on to purchase the fighter. While it's extremely unlikely that any country will actually cancel its investment in the F-35 program, South Korea's reports confirm that the F-35 isn't flying as high as it needs to in foreign markets. That won't help Lockheed's top line as it looks to fight back against sales declines for other aircraft, such as the aging F-16 fighter.

Worse, the Pentagon could still follow Italy and diminish its own F-35 orders. The DoD's pushed its international partners to stick by their orders of the plane for a good reason: Cancelling orders in the near term will make it even more costly for the Pentagon, already struggling to find ways to trim its own sequestration-ravaged budget, to acquire its next-generation fighter mainstay.

We've seen this before. The Pentagon subjected Lockheed's own F-22 Raptor to significant order cuts, paring down its initial request for 650 of the high-tech stealth fighters to a final construction of just 195 aircraft. A similar reduction of the F-35's orders will take a big bite out of Lockheed's future sales, just when it needs all the cash it can get to fight back against budget cuts.

The F-35's a much more versatile craft than the F-22, to be sure, and it fills a crucial need for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. It's unlikely the Pentagon or Congress will axe the program entirely, as some have predicted. However, for a Defense Department scrambling to find cash under every couch cushion, ramping up production of the aircraft and fulfilling its lofty acquisition goals may very well prove too costly to complete.

Storm clouds gathering

South Korea's award is only a minor part of Lockheed's global goals for the F-35, but a loss to Boeing's older, cheaper F-15 could be a harbinger of cuts and delays from international partners. That'll be enough to start up a vicious cycle of cost increases on a per-plane basis – increases that could critically threaten the aircraft's lofty future with the Pentagon.

Lockheed's betting a lot on the F-35, but after South Korea, the skies are looking a lot stormier for this high-profile fighter of the future.

Lockheed's looking to conquer the world's defense industry with the F-35, but it'll have to climb some giant mountains in order to do it. Fortunately, your global investing ambitions don't face such resistance: Profiting from our increasingly global economy can be as easy as investing in your own backyard. The Motley Fool's free report "3 American Companies Set to Dominate the World" shows you how. Click here to get your free copy before it's gone.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2013 08:27

f-35B Internal, very nice, but too big a picture to inline:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... f_F-35.jpg

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2013 08:36

F-35 JSF Weapon Carriage Capacity

Do not have a date on this article (yet).

Does the Joint Strike Fighter have an internal gun? What are the weapon loads? It does not seem to have as much internal space as the F-22.
- question from Nicholas

The primary purpose of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is to fulfill the ground attack duties now performed by aircraft like the F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-18 Hornet, and AV-8B Harrier. In other words, the JSF is often referred to as a "bomb truck" that will attack ground targets once the skies have been cleared of any enemy fighter threat by dedicated air superiority fighters like the F-22 Raptor and F-15 Eagle.

The biggest driver behind the overall design of the JSF is affordability. The military needs to purchase a large quantity of this class of aircraft to complement larger and more capable planes like the F-22 and F-18E/F Super Hornet that are too expensive to buy in large quantities.

It is these two factors--its mission as a ground attack platform and the need for low cost--that largely dictate the size, layout, and weapons carriage capabilities of the F-35.

Since the F-35 is primarily intended to be a replacement for the F-16, it is not surprising that the JSF is of roughly the same overall dimensions as the older craft. The F-22, by comparison, is much larger and comparable in size to the F-15 that it was designed to replace. The overall sizes of the F-16, F-22, and the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) version of the F-35 that will be purchased by the US Air Force are compared below.

Internal weapons

External weapons

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2013 08:44

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 25 Aug 2013 09:48

NRao wrote:Was wondering what that is.

Also, under the chin is the optical whatever It is.

Do they not compromise on the RCS?

BTW, the more I read up the more I am impressed with these Turkeys.

You can clearly see the Pitot tube in the pic. It establishes what the air speed is It is heated by the way, so it won't ice over. i made the mistake of grabbing one on an A-4M right after a mission. Owwwwwwwwwwwww!

The electro optical target sensor (EOTS) which is directly underneath plane next to the pitot tube is described thusly:
a laser designator and tracker for guiding laser-guided bombs. The pod also features a third-generation FLIR receiver and a CCD television camera. FLIR allows observation and tracking in low light / no light situations, while the CCD camera allows the same functions during day time operations.

According to wiki Pakistan has them for their f-16s(on f-16s and f-15s, it's called the sniper pod).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2013 09:56

According to wiki Pakistan has them for their f-16s.

Well, well. You certainly do not understand the need for Pakistan to have "strategic depth".

I would not worry.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Aug 2013 11:31

Quote from NR's post.

Lockheed's betting a lot on the F-35, but after South Korea, the skies are looking a lot stormier for this high-profile fighter of the future.

Ultimately the "bean counters" will have their way. The SoKo Sept. decision is a key one for the JSF.Expect LM to conduct a "full-press" court to get them to change their mind. I see a connection with optimistic reduced cost estimates being trundled out right now to help influence the SoKo decision! However,I can't see the US cancelling or reducing greatly their planned number,already down by several hundreds. They have to recover developmental costs and unless they operate the aircraft in decent number,foreign buyers will be few and far between.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2013 11:36

You are back to extraction only that which backs your view. Expected that.

Bean counters are there in all nations and vendors. just look at Russia. Less than a billion ship cost India around 2.5 billion. May be the guys at lm took lessons from them. Who knows

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 25 Aug 2013 12:56

Who knows. At least Russia didn't give pukis F-16 even when the only country for which pukis give excuse of and aim against is India.

Come to think of how crazy and totally inhuman the idea of arming the pukis is. The psychos could fly the F-16 and nuke some oasis in desert - humans, flora and fauna as puki behaviour under some arbitrary excuse. And what weapons pukis have - submarines and what else - all funded to spite at India from across the border.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 25 Aug 2013 13:09

The overall programme cost is so bizarre.. its $1.5 TRILLION

the-f-35b-sticks-a-1-5t-vertical-night-landing

With that money we can develop and produce 4 different kinds of stealth aircraft and a dozen types of ucavs and will still be left with a money to support our space research/exploration for the next 20 yrs...

Watch the above video, its a celebration of how military-industrial complex can suck public money at an outrageous scale with little benefits on ground.

shame

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Aug 2013 19:38

The Gorky's cost estimate bungling is well known.We also inspected the ship for years before taking a final decision,thinking that the existing wiring could be used,when it had to be totally redone.We also insisted on firebricks instead of asbestos cladding for the boilers.As a former chief said,for the price being paid today,we cannot buy a new carrier from any other country.$2.5B is cheap.Cats alone cost about $2 Billion.Check out the costs of the QE carriers and other western ones.

Anyway,this is the JSF thread.Costs are going to make or break the project,at lest fro foreign potential buyers.Cheaper alternatives are being touted and that too from local manufacturers.There will be pressure for more Rafales,Gripens and Typhoons instead from EU nations,as they continue development apace with their UCAV projects.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Aug 2013 21:29

Samay wrote:The overall programme cost is so bizarre.. its $1.5 TRILLION
the-f-35b-sticks-a-1-5t-vertical-night-landing

With that money we can develop and produce 4 different kinds of stealth aircraft and a dozen types of ucavs and will still be left with a money to support our space research/exploration for the next 20 yrs...

Watch the above video, its a celebration of how military-industrial complex can suck public money at an outrageous scale with little benefits on ground.

shame

We need to be more careful when we post.

In MArch, 2013 the estimated total cost had ballooned to $1.5 Trillion. However, three days ago, the same government group revised the cost to $857 billion. Again, these are estimated life cycle costs.

AND, more importantly, we tend to forget the number of planes the US is EXPECTED to order:

Code: Select all

USAF A 1763 
USN C 260 
USMC B 340 
USMC C 80

That is 1763 As, 340 Bs and 340 Cs.

That is a boat load, that is expected to replace some 4 or more planes.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Aug 2013 06:50

Anyway,this is the JSF thread.Costs are going to make or break the project,at lest fro foreign potential buyers.Cheaper alternatives are being touted and that too from local manufacturers.There will be pressure for more Rafales,Gripens and Typhoons instead from EU nations,as they continue development apace with their UCAV projects.

As always a URL for alternatives would be appreciated. The ones I have seen spread them over more time - cost distribution.

Since the profiles are so different I very much doubt that the older ones would suffice.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 26 Aug 2013 12:09

NRao wrote:
We need to be more careful when we post.

In MArch, 2013 the estimated total cost had ballooned to $1.5 Trillion. However, three days ago, the same government group revised the cost to $857 billion. Again, these are estimated life cycle costs.

AND, more importantly, we tend to forget the number of planes the US is EXPECTED to order:
Code: Select all
USAF A 1763 
USN C 260 
USMC B 340 
USMC C 80 
That is 1763 As, 340 Bs and 340 Cs.

That is a boat load, that is expected to replace some 4 or more planes.

Talking about numbers.
^that is about 2443 planes (excluding exports and profit)
cost of each JSF if it is taken as $160 mn in todays money and whose cost will eventually decrease to $100 mn by the time last lot is produced, at $160mn per plane the production cost comes to be $390 bn. if we account equal amount for spare parts till the production is complete, then total comes out to be $780 bn .

So, this leaves $630 bn as only developmental cost, which is and will always be bizarre, for a single aicraft.
(Assuming that they havent learnt anything from the F-22 raptor programme,existing engine tech,avionics etc., and had to develop everything again from scratch)
If this isnt a theft by MI complex ,then what is it?

Btw, what is the total development cost of Pakfa, FGFA, F22,J20 all combined ?

Added Later.. please go through this link (also there are always hidden costs which are never shown to public)
link.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Aug 2013 12:31

Yes, the "cost" wrt a jsf is rather high. To be expected. Lm made a huge mistake about 10 years ago. And the trillion dollar quote you had was right until about a week ago.

Also most if not all foreign orders are fms - cost has a totally diff meaning there.

I am learning too.

On a diff note, This plane was designed for a very specific purpose. Does not fit for India as far as I am concerned, IAF could change and put it to good use granted.

On cost you are right to be concerned. Just that be aware that projections are being revised downwards as we post.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 26 Aug 2013 12:53

NRao wrote: ..
And the trillion dollar quote you had was right until about a week ago.

Also most if not all foreign orders are fms - cost has a totally diff meaning there.
..
Just that be aware that projections are being revised downwards as we post.

Not able to understand any of this. How can this happen in USA?

There should be at least clarity on cost factor- when US & allies are world renowned for financial sector.

More like sales pitch for product at hand using account management. Where are the details? Say what is the need for US to do this and what is the reputation for US & allies renowned the world over for financial sector?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Aug 2013 19:44

Aug 21, 2013 :: CSPAN :: One hour video :: F-35 Lightning II Program

* LM VP interviewed. An ex f-18 pilot for 20 years. Could be a better sales rep for the company
* There is good info in this video for those who want to learn
* People call in and ask questions - good representative questions - : )
* Visit to the cockpit @ 20 min (Fighter demo center in VA)
* Helmet @ 40 min (very nice presentation)
* china cheating addressed at @ 47 min
* Costs: Very interesting thinking, including one guy who thinks "it will die a very slow death" (due to lack of funding) - must make one person here very happy
* Hmmmm....... Cost went from $81 mil (in 2001) (per CSPAN here), to $161 mil today ................. and

* Very interestingly he actually expects more nations to join this party

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Aug 2013 19:50

The $85 million per plane is in 2018 year $, $75 million in today's dollars.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 26 Aug 2013 19:51

I would note that a lot of the development cost is a sunk cost already paid for by the US government and may not be reflected in future foreign sales. Just sayin'.

Also, I am not sure the Marine version of the F-35 is meant for strategic, stand alone projection of power. I think it will be used to support Marine troops and provide air cover from enemy planes for them as well as to strike armor and hardened targets. I don't see it being used for deep strike missions. It is instructive to note that the Marines are being required by the US Navy to purchase 80 of the C models in order to participate in defense of the fleet and the missions required by the Navy. The Navy is boss in this instance because the Marines rely on the Navy for logistics. Just my thoughts.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Aug 2013 20:14

TSJones wrote:I would note that a lot of the development cost is a sunk cost already paid for by the US government and may not be reflected in future foreign sales. Just sayin'.

Most, if not all, foreign sales seem to be FMS ................... So, whatever the DoD negotiated for. {He just confirmed that all foreign purchases are FMS.}

But, I can see the cost going down.

And, I can actually see more partners joining the program. Specially if the politics can be isolated, that would be a huge challenge.

Also, I am not sure the Marine version of the F-35 is meant for strategic, stand alone projection of power. I think it will be used to support Marine troops and provide air cover from enemy planes for them as well as to strike armor and hardened targets. I don't see it being used for deep strike missions. It is instructive to note that the Marines are being required by the US Navy to purchase 80 of the C models in order to participate in defense of the fleet and the missions required by the Navy. The Navy is boss in this instance because the Marines rely on the Navy for logistics. Just my thoughts.

None of them are for strategic purposes. At most they will be wired in the future for tactical purposes. That too provided they succeed in the first phase of a conflict (from a F-35 PoV, it would be the 2nd phase if the total war is considered).

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Aug 2013 21:58

Aug 26, 2013 :: Exclusive: United Tech, Pentagon in $1 billion-plus deal for F-35 engines - sources

(Reuters) - Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp, has reached an agreement in principle with the Pentagon on a contract to build 39 engines for a sixth batch of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, three sources familiar with the deal said on Monday.

The agreement - which Pratt had expected to reach over a month ago - is valued at more than $1 billion, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

The Pentagon agreed on the terms of a contract for the sixth and seventh orders of F-35s with Lockheed Martin Corp, which builds the jets, in late July. The government buys the engines separately from Pratt & Whitney, which is the sole producer of engines for the radar-evading warplane.

The negotiations between Pratt and the Pentagon's F-35 program office had focused only on engines for the sixth batch, with separate discussions planned for a seventh batch of F135 engines.

Pratt President Dave Hess had told Reuters in June that he expected to reach a deal with the Pentagon within 30 days on the next engine contract, reflecting a cost reduction of less than 10 percent.

No further details were immediately available about the new agreement in principle, which the sources said was reached by Pratt and government officials last week but which has yet to be announced.

Officials at Pratt and the Pentagon's F-35 program office had no immediate comment on the deal, whose terms will now be finalized in coming weeks and months.

Pratt has said the cost of the F135 engine it builds for the F-35 fighters is down about 40 percent from 2001, when the program began. The company finalized a $1 billion deal for a fifth batch of 35 engines with the Pentagon in May.

The sixth engine contract includes 39 engines - 36 for F-35 planes and three spares, according to Pratt & Whitney.

Hess told Reuters in June that F-35 engine sales would account for more than 50 percent of the company's military engine revenue in coming years, when production ramps up, reaching $2 billion by around 2018.

Hess said that last year, military engine revenue accounted for about $4 billion of Pratt's total revenue of $14 billion.

Shares of United Technologies were up 0.6 percent at $103.41 on Monday morning on the New York Stock Exchange.