F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Haletown]

I'm just wondering what would happen if Boeing put their XF-32 back in the game on their own....

Boeing shareholders would likely revolt  :nod:

 

[NavyShooter]

True enough....but part of the reason that Boeing was in the game was to build their jets cheaper....which seems to be something that hasn't happened with the F-35.

NS

 

[Sythen]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111219/japan-agrees-to-buy-f-35-fighters-to-replace-aging-jets-111219/

TOKYO — Japan's government says it has selected the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter to bolster its aging air force.

A Cabinet spokesman says the defence ministry will buy a total of 42 fighters starting next fiscal year, which begins in April.

Japan wrangled for years over whether to buy the F-35, Boeing F-18 or the Eurofighter Typhoon. Japanese officials took into account the quality of the plane as well as close U.S.-Japan military ties, said Noriyuki Shikata, deputy Cabinet secretary for public relations.

The F-35, also called the Joint Strike Fighter, is the Pentagon's biggest weapons procurement program and has support from allies including Britain, Australia, Canada, Israel and several European nations.

 

[observor 69]

F-35 production a troubling example of Pentagon spending
By Walter Pincus, Published: December 26
There are 56 F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters being assembled at Lockheed Martin’s facility in Fort Worth. But because only 20 percent of the testing for the most advanced fighter-bomber in U.S. history is completed, each will probably have to get million-dollar-or-more fixes later.

The F-35 is already the most costly U.S. weapons program underway at about $385 billion. But that figure may go higher with overrun of the per-plane contract price for the 56 craft being assembled — along with the future multimillion-dollar fixes likely to be required for them — and the 15 F-35s completed but not yet delivered to the military services.

The plane is being built with the most sophisticated stealth technology, but initial flight tests have turned up hot spots and cracks associated with metal and composites used on most new aircraft. The development of the software controlling the F-35’s major warfighting functions, the most complex ever planned for an airplane, has been delayed so that the last block will not be introduced to the aircraft until at least June 2015.

Earlier this month, Vice Adm. David J. Venlet, executive officer for the F-35 program, said in an interview with the online service AOL that he recommended slowing down current production lines to reduce the replacement costs that will be necessary in aircraft produced before testing is completed.

Production had already been slowed twice. Then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates pushed back the building of 122 aircraft in February 2010 as problems became apparent, and again in January as he lowered near-term production for another 124 planes, boosting future production needs.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) took the Senate floor on Dec. 15 and described the F-35 fighter program as “a mess.”

What upset the senator was not just that the cost of each plane had risen nearly 100 percent from its original estimate of $69 million to $133 million today, or the fact that testing was only 20 percent complete while more than 90 planes had already been bought, or the fact that software — key to 80 percent of the stealth plane’s warfighting capability — wouldn’t be ready for another four years.

It was, he said, that the Pentagon had “sold this program as a fifth-generation strike fighter that would — more so than any other major defense procurement program — be cost-effectively developed, procured, operated and supported.”

McCain faulted the Pentagon for using what he called “a concurrent development strategy to procure a high-risk weapon system.” Production of the first airplanes began as testing was in its infancy.

McCain said the Pentagon was attempting “generational leaps in capability” but at the same time moving before the underlying design was stable. Developing needed technologies and being able to integrate them remain risky and manufacturing processes are still “immature,” he said.

A Government Accountability Office report from April said the forecast was for “about 10,000 more [engineering design] changes through January 2016.” The GAO added, “We expect this number to go up given new forecasts for additional testing and extension of system development until 2018.”

Making this initially a cost-plus contract was “a recipe for disaster,” according to McCain, who noted that development costs alone have topped $56 billion.

At a time when government discretionary budgets — including defense — face sharp reductions over the coming decade, the F-35 story is a troubling example of Pentagon spending.

By January, when the new Defense Department budget will go up to Capitol Hill, it is expected that the current cost estimate per F-35 will again increase, while production will be slowed to limit future fixes.

At the beginning of the program, there were to be 3,000 F-35s built, since it would replace the fighter-bombers in each of the three services and also be sold to foreign allies.

For the Air Force, the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A would replace the F-16 and the A-10 and add to the stealth F-22A. The Navy’s version, the F-35C, was to be carrier-suitable and complement the F-18E/F Super Hornet. The Marines wanted the F-35B, a short takeoff and vertical landing version, to replace the F/A-18C/D and AV-8B Harrier aircraft.

In March 2004, when development problems caused the Defense Department to extend time and increase projected costs, the Navy and Marine Corps cut their number of the planes by 400, reducing the total U.S. purchase to 2,457.

The Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction commission in December called for eliminating the Marine Corps vertical-lift version, which has had serious development issues, and canceling 600 planes planned for the Air Force and Navy, using instead new F-18s or F-16s. The panel’s reasoning: The Pentagon “does not need an entire fleet with the stealthy capabilities” provided by the F-35.

In his new book, “The Wounded Giant,” Brookings Institution senior fellow Michael O’Hanlon calls for cutting the overall purchase to 1,250, canceling the more costly Navy version, reducing the Marine Corps F-35Bs by 10 percent or more, and limiting the Air Force to 800 F-35As. The difference would be made up by buying more F-16s and recognizing the role of unmanned aircraft.

There is a cautionary tale to be found in what happened to the F-22. When concept development of that stealth fighter began in 1986, the Soviet Union was the enemy and the Air Force needed 750 of the planes for the air-to-air superiority mission. By 1991, when the first development contract was signed, the Soviet Union had collapsed . By 2006, the Air Force cut its needs to 381 F-22s and added air-to-ground attack and intelligence-gathering capabilities.

In 2009, faced with several crashes and other problems, plus the oncoming F-35, Gates limited the purchase to 187 F-22s. Reasons given for ending the F-22 program were cost overruns and budget restraints.

Ironically, the last F-22 came off the Lockheed assembly line just two weeks ago and is to be delivered to the Air Force next year. Considered a more capable air-to-air combat fighter than the F-35, F-22s have been sent to the Pacific, where their intelligence-gathering is considered useful. Air Force testimony on Capitol Hill in May put the cost of the last F-22s at $153.2 million per aircraft and noted that upgrades were still being made to the plane’s software.

Changes in the 20 years between 1986 and 2006 caused a reduction of almost half the original F-22s sought. We should expect no less to happen between now and 2021. Prepare for that by limiting the F-35 purchases and looking into new technologies to plan what the future mix of manned and unmanned aircraft could be to meet the threats of 2031.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/f-35-a-troubling-example-of-pentagon-spending/2011/12/23/gIQAGINIJP_story.html?tid=pm_pop

Seems fairly straightforward but not so much when Fantino or Mackay do the talking.

MacKay and Fantino’s F-35 Communications Disconnect: Fantino Says There is A Plan B For the F-35 Purchase But He Doesn’t Reveal It. Meanwhile, MacKay Contradicts Fantino
Links to, or articles by this person are not allowed at Milnet Link to reporter removed by Staff

 

[WingsofFury]

So we'll end up with Super Hornets as a stop gap against any possible delay in F-35 acquisition...sure beats buying Typhoons at $150M a copy which will be retired in 2030 anyways.

After all, the two platforms - JSF's and Supers - are said to complement each other.

There isn't any other plane out there that meets the requirements set out in the SOR, and once production numbers of the aircraft are increased we'll see a lower cost platform that has significantly better air to ground capabilities than the Raptor and with sensor fusion capabilities which will allow for sharing of battlefield data with our allies on an even higher level than they currently do.

When you combine that with Super Hornets variants (-F, -G), Canada will finally have a multi purpose fleet which will bring fast air back to the prominent level a country like Canada needs.

And along the way we get new FWSAR, TAC Hel, et cetera...after all, one can't rely on 50 year old platforms forever....

 

[observor 69]

Just stumbled upon this video and decided to share. 

F-35B initial sea trial
http://www.yuma.usmc.mil/videos/videos.html

 

[PuckChaser]

Just stumbled upon this video and decided to share. 

F-35B initial sea trial
http://www.yuma.usmc.mil/videos/videos.html

Nice and smooth landing. On a side note, I love the mess menus at Yuma (right side of window at link)! Everything sounded tasty.

 

[HeavyHooker]

Not sure if this should be posted in a different thread but this is a very interesting article on F-35 vs X-47B (UCAV).  I am not going to farm for quotes either way but to have Super Hornets and X-47Bs when they come fully online sounds like the ideal to me.  Have a read...


http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/planes-uavs/are-pilots-or-robots-the-future-of-naval-aviation

 

[WingsofFury]

  United Technologies Corp., Pratt & Whitney Military Engines, East Hartford, Conn., is being awarded a $1,122,306,649 not-to-exceed undefinitized modification to a previously awarded advanced acquisition contract (N00019-10-C-0005).  A total of $358,597,078 is being obligated at time of award.  The contract includes both fixed price incentive and cost plus incentive contract line items.  This undefinitized modification provides for the Lot V Low Rate Initial Production of 21 F135 Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) Propulsion Systems for the Air Force; 3 Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) Propulsion Systems for the  Marine Corps; and 6 Carrier Variant (CV) Propulsion Systems for the Navy.  In addition, this modification provides for production non-recurring effort, non-recurring autonomic logistics effort and recurring sustainment effort for the U.S. Services and Cooperative Partner Participants.   Work will be performed in East Hartford, Conn. (67 percent); Bristol, United Kingdom (16.5 percent); and Indianapolis, Ind. (16.5 percent), and is expected to be completed in February 2014.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract was not competitively procured.  This contract combines purchases for the Air Force ($520,650,335; 46.3 percent); Marine Corps ($387,099,090; 34.5 percent); Navy ($166,710,445; 14.9 percent); and the Cooperative Partner Participants ($47,846,779; 4.3 percent).  The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md. is the contracting activity.

http://www.defense.gov//contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4693

Comes to:

CTOL = $24,792,873 each
STOVL = $129,033,030 each
CV = $27,785,074 each

This LRIP contract includes production engines, spare parts, program management, engineering support for production, sustainment and field support for the F135 engines.

http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?id=6433&h=Pratt%20&%20Whitney%20Awarded%20$1.12Bn%20Contract%20for%20F135%20Engine%20from%20US%20DoD

 

[aesop081]

Italian troubles...........

http://theaviationist.com/2012/01/06/defense-cuts/

F-35 targeted in potential military cuts. If Italy quits, will the stealth plane ever be affordable?

With a new set of austerity measures aimed at saving up to $25 billion to balance the budget by 2013 (and avoid a catastrophic default that would put the entire Euro-zone at risk) just approved, Italy could be soon compelled to review many of its future defense projects.

Even if the new Defense Minister, Adm. Di Paola pointed to a significant cut in terms of personnel, as the most important measure to preserve Italy’s capability to sustain current projects as well as internal and foreign missions, the amount of lawmakers among all political forces who advocate further weapon cuts has grown in the last few days.

The priority targets for cuts this days have been already identified: the Lockheed Martin F-35, that the Italian Air Force and Navy would like to use to replace the AMX, the Tornado and the AV-8B+ Harrier fleets (in other words, the only air-to-surface assets Italy can employ in Crisis Support Operations); and the Cavour, the second and most modern Italian aircraft carrier destined to be equipped with the much troubled F-35B, the STOVL (Short Take Off and Vertical Landing) version of the Joint Strike Fighter.

Dealing with the F-35, Italy has planned a purchase of 131 F-35s, worth about 15 billion Euro. Of those, 20-22 are supposed to be the Harrier replacement on the Cavour while the rest should be conventional A planes. The Air Force is interested in both the A and B version.

Both right and left-wing parties are becoming more critical about Italy’s involvement in the F-35 program arguing that the stealth fighter is a waste of money for a country on the verge of financial collapse. In their opinion, Italy should leave the program and lose the 2.5 billion Euro already invested in the development to save the 13 needed for production. Furthermore, “Italy is not about to attack anyone”, hence there is no need for such an expensive defense investment.

More or less the same words were used to criticize the aircraft carrier, that costs the Italian taxpayers 100,000 Euro each day (when docked; 200,000 Euro/day when on cruise).

For sure, the F-35 is a costly and uncertain program. However, some of its problems and delays deals with the advanced technology that this innovative aircraft integrates. Hence,  the decision to quit the program should be weighed heavily. If this aircraft survives, it will be the backbone of the U.S. attack fleet, replacing several aircraft types; if Italy confirms its involvement procuring “some” F-35s, it will have the opportunity to develop, operate and evaluate the future most advanced (and costly) combat plane.

Sooner or later Italy will be compelled to replace its ageing fleet of attack planes. Even if one of the Lessons Identified in Libya was the need for a light and cheap aircraft like the AMX to sustain long lasting air wars, current planes can’t live forever nor can be continuously upgraded to keep them in service for 3 or 4 decades.

When the moment arrives, there won’t be many options. One of them is using an upgraded Typhoon, a multirole non-stealth fighter plane of the so-called 4+ generation that, when required to replace the above mentioned Italian attack planes, will have to face 5th if not 6th generation manned and unmanned stealth fighters made of morphing metals and flight surfaces featuring some Star Wars-like equipment.

Nor the problem of replacing the Harriers on the Cavour should be underestimated. Since all the former RAF jump jets were purchased by the USMC, there will be few options if Italy quits: either second or third-hand AV-8Bs or a navalised Typhoon like the one offered to India (provided this version will ever be developed and compatible with the Italian ship).

Above all, Italy should remember how much the decision to keep the F-104 in service for 40 years has cost to the Italian Air Force, equipped with a jurassic fighter almost useless in real operations not even capable to ensure an effective air defense service at home. When it became evident that the amazing Starfighter could not be updated any more two gap fillers had to be hired until the Eurofighter Typhoon became available. A costly and painful move.

Although it’s still unclear whether Italy will simply downsize its procurement or withdraw from the program, what’s certain is that every canceled Italian plane will increase the costs of the remainder making their unit price if not unaffordable, less affordable.

Unit price depends also on the foreign sales. U.S. have commitments from allies to buy as many as 500 jets. Moreover, Japan has selected the F-35 as the future F-X and Lockheed Martin will build 42 stealth planes for the JASDF, a breath of fresh air that would be completely wiped out by an Italian withdrawal.

The Economist has already warned that the program is in danger of slipping into the “death spiral” where increasing unit costs would lead to cuts in number of ordered plane, leading to further costs that would boost order cuts.

In the meanwhile, the average price of each plane in “then-year” dollars has risen from $69m in 2001 to $133 million in 2011, a price that has been already declared unaffordable by Pentagon’s top weapons buyer Ashton Carter who talked to the Senate Armed Services committee in May 2011.

 

[a_majoor]

What everyone who is thinking of pulling out of the F-35 program has to answer is what aircraft can be purchased to fill the capability gap that will be left?

the F-35 STOL trials were interesting, considering the small size of the USS Wasp compared to conventional aircraft carriers. Various navies have small "Harrier carriers" or helicopter carriers in service, this version of the F-35 would provide even small navies with a big seaborne punch, if they were willing to invest the resources for a new capability.

 

[WingsofFury]

Next Generation Fighter Capability
Project Management Office
(NGFC PMO)

Enjoy some reading, and have a gander at Page 9!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What everyone who is thinking of pulling out of the F-35 program has to answer is what aircraft can be purchased to fill the capability gap that will be left?

the F-35 STOL trials were interesting, considering the small size of the USS Wasp compared to conventional aircraft carriers. Various navies have small "Harrier carriers" or helicopter carriers in service, this version of the F-35 would provide even small navies with a big seaborne punch, if they were willing to invest the resources for a new capability.

While this seems to be the most problematic of the versions, the aircraft it would replace has always been a bit dicey as well. As a niche role this might be where the F-35 shines and be worth the costs.
I am having serious doubts about it's more conventional role. As I see it the main selling point is the sensor system and weapon control system. The aircraft itself without the above is not that much of a leap ahead other than a lesser radar profile.
I guess one of the questions to be asked is what is the cost difference between a Super Hornet and F35 both equipped with the same level of sensors and weapon systems? Or what does the airframe of the F35 bring to the table that another aircraft can't for cheaper?

 

[PuckChaser]

We don't know how much those sensor/weapons systems cost. To retrofit a Super Hornet it might cost more than the F35 outright. Radar profile and sensor/weapons systems seem to be where upgrades are being had.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It would not surprise me if Boeing was already looking at producing a model of Super Hornet with the same level of sensor arrays and fire control as the F35, it would be a smart business move I suspect. As  I understand it even the first F-35's won't have the full package for at least 5 years after delivery.

 

[aesop081]

It would not surprise me if Boeing was already looking at producing a model of Super Hornet with the same level of sensor arrays and fire control as the F35, it would be a smart business move I suspect. As  I understand it even the first F-35's won't have the full package for at least 5 years after delivery.

Super Hornet international roadmap.........

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Link and quote removed, as they refer to David ********.

 

[aesop081]

That is only part of the future development plan for the Super Hornet and is certainly a good place to start integrating more advanced sensors without the risks of retrofit to the existing SH design. With the international roadmap, the SH design is already in flux and open to customer requests. If we wanted DAS in a SH.............

 

[The Bread Guy]

Super Hornet international roadmap.........

More on that here, FYI:

Engineers from U.S. behemoth Boeing are offering further glimpses into the so-called “international road map” variant of its F-18 Super Hornet, starting with its two shoulder-mounted conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) and numerous Enclosed Weapons Pods (EWPs).

The details are emerging as Boeing and rival Lockheed Martin, with its Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), move from being cut out of the Indian Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft and look to non-JSF partners like Japan for new business.

Several other air forces also are looking around for new fighters and will evaluate not only radar and avionics performances, but also how the fighters fare in both beyond-visual-range and close combat. Boeing has been promoting F-18 improvements under its international road map concept since last year, but it continues to dribble out more information as potential non-U.S. customers like Japan are targeted.

Along those lines, Boeing’s concept for a newer Super Hornet is intended to improve the basic airframe in terms of thrust/weight ratio, acceleration, agility, maneuverability, combat persistence, low-observable characteristics and sensor capabilities.

As Aviation Week & Space Technology and sister publication Defense Technology International have reported this year, to extend the F-18’s range without having to carry drag-inducing underwing fuel tanks, the new Super Hornet could rely on two CFTs. According to a preliminary calculation of a Super Hornet fitted with two CFTs and a belly-mounted conventional, external fuel tank, the aircraft would have the same combat radius that now only can be achieved with three external tanks. This is partly due to the position of the CFT’s center of gravity (CG), which is relatively close to the aircraft’s CG. The placement also cuts the amount of trim work and trim drag generated by the horizontal stabilizers.

Furthermore, the CFTs should not require modification of the flight control software, Boeing says, although confirmation will not come until wind tunnel and flight testing are carried out. The first test efforts are to be completed by the end of year with another round in 2012, the engineers say.

Along with the CFTs, Boeing also has been promoting replacement of the F-18’s wing and fuselage pylons and hardpoints with Enclosed Weapons Pods (EWPs), each of them able to host four AIM-120 missiles, a 2,000-lb. bomb or two 500-lb.-class weapons ....

 

[aesop081]

Ok, that i didn't see coming.....

(note the "partial mistake" in the first paragraph. I say "partial" because the USMC is indeed getting a small quantity (80) of the C-model)

http://rt.com/news/f-35-design-flaw-917/

A design flaw in the US Marine Corps version of the F-35 Lightning II, which prevents it from landing on an aircraft carrier, could see the highly advanced vehicle grounded indefinitely.

The F-35C, also known as the carrier variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (CV JSF), is one of several fifth-generation fighters developed under the JSF program. New documents reveal that the aircraft has a crucial flaw, which could prevent it from ever being able to land on a vessel.

A Pentagon Concurrency Quick Look Review (QLR) of November 2011 says that all eight run-in/rolling tests undertaken at NAS Lakehurst in August 2011 to see if the F-35C could catch a wire with the tail hook have failed. The tail hook is meant to catch one of several wires stretched across the deck, after which a special arresting engine kicks in to quickly slow the aircraft down.

In the case of the F-35C, the decades-old trick doesn’t work. The tail hook is located too close to the main landing gear, so the springs supporting the arresting cable don’t have enough time to raise it after the wheels run over it for the hook to engage.

In fact, the F-35C has the shortest distance between the tail hook and the wheels among a dozen past and current aircraft deployed by the US Navy, the report says, making the CV JSF “an outlier.”

The flaw seems to be inherent to the design, and engineers simply cannot relocate the hook without a major overhaul of the construction, which is likely to be too costly for today’s cost-conscious Pentagon. At the same time, Lockheed Martin, which produces the F-35, said as early as 2007 that all variants of the vehicle were “mature and ready for production.”

Other major problems with the F-35 the QLR mentions are the high latency of the helmet-mounted display, fire hazards associated with emergency fuel-dumping, and the low reliability of the novel Integrated Power Package unit.

Constant delays and the skyrocketing costs of the F-35 program make it look like a money pit, according to industry experts. The total development costs of F-35 have exceeded $40 billion and are expected to reach some $56 billion by late 2016. Former US defense secretary Robert Gates expressed the Pentagon's frustration and even mentioned the possibility of the cancelation of the program.

The average cost of the F-35 jet has risen to $156 million and the cost estimates for 2,443 aircraft the US intends to purchase is $382 billion.
The US is the primary customer and financial backer of the pricey program, but the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark contributed over $4 billion towards the development costs of the program.

In 2011, after the US military had stated that "no country involved in the development of the jets will have access to the software codes," Turkey put on hold its planned purchase of 100 F-35 jets. All other states taking part in the program also expressed dissatisfaction with that unilateral US decision. The UK specifically indicated they might cancel its entire order of F-35s without access to the coding.

A total production quantity of around 3200 is planned for the F-35 program, of which 2443 are intended for the US Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.
The F-35 is being built in three different main versions to suit various combat missions: the F-35A, a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) model intended for the US Air Force and other air forces; the F-35B, the short take-off and vertical landing model of the aircraft; and the F-35C, a carrier model that features larger wings with foldable wingtip sections.

A fourth model, the F-35I, is an export version for Israel with unique Israeli features installed in them. The US had reportedly agreed to allow the Israelis to install their own electronic warfare systems and missiles in their F-35s in the future.