F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[AlexanderM]

John McCain on the F-35.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/26/politics/f-35-delay-air-force/index.html


It kind of fits with this.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/21/politics/f22-raptor-congress/index.html

 

[MarkOttawa]

Looking up in Denmark:

F35 fighter jets recommended to Danish government by expert group - radio

Denmark should buy 28 of Lockheed Martin (Swiss: LMT.SW - news) 's F35 Lightning fighter jets to replace its present F16 jets, an expert group formed by the Danish Ministry of Defence has recommended to the government, according to local radio.

The group found that the Lightning was better than Eurofighter's Typhoon and Boeing Co (NYSE: BA - news) 's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in four priority areas: military combat, economy, strategics and Danish industrial cooperation with the producer, Radio24syv said citing sources close to the negotiations.

The expert group recommended that Denmark should buy 28 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, it said.

Denmark's decision will be closely watched, as several other nations also have to decide whether to replace their aged warplanes with Lockheed Martin Corp's brand new F-35 or play safe with cheaper, older-generation planes such the Super Hornets.

Now (NYSE: DNOW - news) it is up to the government and the political parties supporting the purchase of new fighter jets to decide which one to pick...
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/f35-fighter-jets-recommended-danish-113528127.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Still serious questions, esp. Block 4 software--at AvWeek:

Will The F-35 Learn From Past Missteps?

...congressional watchdogs are warning that risk lies ahead in the next increment of modernization, called Block 4, and that checks to ensure the program is accountable are lacking.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office has recommended that the Block 4 program, based on its cost, should be declared a major defense acquisition program in its own right. GAO’s Michael Sullivan said the F-22 program introduced similar upgrades within the overall program. “Then a $2 billion estimate for those new capabilities became $11 billion, and there was no accountability,” he said.

Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation, told senators that current plans for Block 4 need to be “scrubbed rigorously.”

“The program’s proposed ‘F-35 Modernization Planning Schedule’ is overly optimistic and does not properly align with the program’s current software development schedule, which is also unrealistic,” Gilmore says in his written testimony.

The program recently said Block 4 will require new processors at a cost of $700 million that must now be factored into fiscal 2018 budget plans. The first Block 4 software release is planned for late 2020, but it doesn’t propose to correct deficiencies to the previous Block 3F software. That kind of schedule adds risk, Gilmore says.

Whether the program has learned the lessons of its past acquisition problems, stemming from plans that proved to be too good to be true, remains to be seen.

“I see a number of unrealistic expectations with Block 4,” Gilmore said. “They should take a look at those issues. That will be a good test.”

Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) unsuccessfully attempted to add a provision to the defense authorization bill that would make Block 4 its own major acquisition program during the House Armed Services Committee’s April 27 markup. She drew a parallel to the F-22 program, saying the Pentagon initially resisted separating modernization from that advanced fighter effort. After billions of dollars in cost growth and delays, Congress stepped in to require F-22 modernization to be broken out in 2013. Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio), who leads the air and land forces subcommittee, argued that creating the separate program for the F-35’s Block 4 would add about $13 million to the program’s cost and delay delivery of the software by about a year. Overall the committee agreed with him, voting 41 to 20 to reject the amendment.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/will-f-35-learn-past-missteps

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Looking better for Super Hornet line too:

ANALYSIS: House panel approves funds for 11 F-35s and 14 F/A-18s

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II might be the world’s costliest and most divisive warplane, but there’s something to be said for the seemingly Teflon-coated Joint Strike Fighter’s resiliency.

On 28 April, just days after the developmental aircraft’s many flaws were enumerated at a Senate hearing, the US House Armed Services Committee agreed on a defence policy that would fund 11 more F-35s in fiscal year 2017 [starts Oct. 1, 2016], on top of the 63 aircraft already requested by the US services.

Congress, despite many members being vocal critics of the aircraft, has made adding money for F-35s something of an annual tradition, having also added 11 more Lightning IIs than requested in the current fiscal year 2016 defence budget...

Along with the 11 more F-35s, the House Armed Services panel also authorised funding for 14 more Boeing F/A-18E/Fs for the US Navy. If approved by the full Congress, those extra Super Hornet orders would help keep production in St Louis, Missouri humming at a sustainable level, even if some international orders don’t materialise.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-house-panel-approves-funds-for-11-f-35s-a-424747/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[PuckChaser]

Mark you seem to have your hope pinned on Super Hornet staying alive. Trudeau has started the process from ground zero again. We're looking at 2022-2023 at the earliest before we even sign contracts. Boeing is not going to keep the line open that long for 15 a/c here and there from the US. These purchases are stop-gaps as the F-35 isn't ready, and the US replaces it's a/c where we just retire them. IF Boeing bids Super Hornet, we're going to be paying a pretty penny to open the line, on top of 15% FMS surcharge that is waived for the F-35.

 

[jmt18325]

Mark you seem to have your hope pinned on Super Hornet staying alive. Trudeau has started the process from ground zero again. We're looking at 2022-2023 at the earliest before we even sign contracts. Boeing is not going to keep the line open that long for 15 a/c here and there from the US. These purchases are stop-gaps as the F-35 isn't ready, and the US replaces it's a/c where we just retire them.

The F-35 will not be combat capable in a way that the Navy can use until at least 2022.  Further, if the Us keeps ordering small numbers of planes, the line won't close.

 

[Kirkhill]

Are we going to be ordering any F-35Cs?

I thought the F-35A was on track to achieve IOC by December of this year.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2016/02/29/USAF-preparing-for-F-35-initial-operational-capability-status/8151456776422/

 

[MarkOttawa]

Some actually like F-35C for RCAF what with hook for FOL ops plus probe and drogue refuelling--less need for new (or re-equipped) tankers  ;D.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[PuckChaser]

The F-35 will not be combat capable in a way that the Navy can use until at least 2022.  Further, if the Us keeps ordering small numbers of planes, the line won't close.

The Navy isn't going to buy planes right up until the F-35 is fully ready, squadrons will start to transition years before. That means they'll need less and less hornets every year, until it reaches a point that's not sustainable. Line is projected to shut down in 2018-19, pushed right a year due to F-35 delays. If you think our process is ready to build by then, I want what you're smoking.

 

[jmt18325]

The Navy isn't going to buy planes right up until the F-35 is fully ready, squadrons will start to transition years before. That means they'll need less and less hornets every year, until it reaches a point that's not sustainable. Line is projected to shut down in 2018-19, pushed right a year due to F-35 delays.

And now with Kuwait and Qatar?  Add to that the apparent need for more Growlers, and you're looking at post 2020.  The USN can't use a jet that isn't ready for combat for major carrier operations.  The transition will begin, no doubt, but with the delays for full combat readiness pushed back to 2022, combined with the new plan to operate the F-18 Super Hornet into the 2040s.  You get the picture.

 

[PuckChaser]

So we buy an a/c that's a generation behind everyone else, where only barely 2nd rate powers are going to use them, and we plan on using them 30 years after the US retires them? With a 15% surcharge per a/c on a price that is basically equal to the F-35? Man, what a great deal. We should get Western Star to build them for us, too.

 

[jmt18325]

So we buy an a/c that's a generation behind everyone else, where only barely 2nd rate powers are going to use them, and we plan on using them 30 years after the US retires them? With a 15% surcharge per a/c on a price that is basically equal to the F-35?

Based on current prices they are $40M less than the F-35.  They will be operated by the US to a time approaching the middle of the century (if not beyond) and longer by others.  We won't be keeping them until 2080.

 

[MarkOttawa]

PuckChaser: at USNI News;

Navy Digging Out Of Fighter Shortfall; Marines Still Struggling To Fly At Home
...
The Navy...will keep its Hornets and then Super Hornets in the carrier air wing until the 2040s...
https://news.usni.org/2016/04/26/navy-digging-out-of-fighter-shortfall-marines-still-struggling-to-fly-at-home

jmt18325: Qatar wants F-15Es:
http://fortune.com/2016/04/20/u-s-to-sell-fighter-jets-to-qatar/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[PuckChaser]

Based on current prices they are $40M less than the F-35.  They will be operated by the US to a time approaching the middle of the century (if not beyond) and longer by others.  We won't be keeping them until 2080.

$92M USD in FY2013 including FMS surcharge. F-35 is almost sub $100M USD now, and dropping as production ramps up. Cost isn't a reason to buy Super Hornet, its just as expensive, if not more due to the lowrate production its in.

Mark: I mentioned the 2040 year earlier. That's due to bringing a Squadron down, replacing a/c with F-35, and then bringing it back to the Fleet. They won't ever reduce line squadrons, so they need Super Hornets because they'd never get that may F-35Cs fast enough to do everyone at once. We're buying an a/c now to last us until likely 2070. 30 years after the last major country stops using the Super Hornet. Sounds like we'd be in the same boat as the Marines are in now, for 30 years.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

PuckChaser: at USNI News;

jmt18325: Qatar wants F-15Es:
http://fortune.com/2016/04/20/u-s-to-sell-fighter-jets-to-qatar/

Mark
Ottawa

Are they new builds or rebuilds?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Colin P.: New.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[HB_Pencil]

And now with Kuwait and Qatar?  Add to that the apparent need for more Growlers, and you're looking at post 2020.  The USN can't use a jet that isn't ready for combat for major carrier operations.  The transition will begin, no doubt, but with the delays for full combat readiness pushed back to 2022, combined with the new plan to operate the F-18 Super Hornet into the 2040s.  You get the picture.

This attitude is starting to change within the US Navy significantly, driven heavily by the F-22 in Syria. Even in its limited communications abilities, the sensor fusion avionics has operated better than expected. In specific instances the F-22's has reduced the potential role the US Navy has played the conflict. If you follow US Intra-service politics, this is usually the biggest driver of US Navy policy: they don't want to lose out on their portion of the budget pie because another service can do it better. Its also clear that the OSD believes that the Super Hornet purchases should be wound down: Ash Carter's December memorandum saw an increase of 31 F-35Cs, with a push to end F/A-18 production. A lot of Navy personnel who were previously resistant to such a move have acquiesced in the last few months.

The transition towards F-35 over F/A-18E/F has been reinforced by the Russian deployment of the Su-35 and S400 systems to Syria, which has displayed some of the vulnerabilities of legacy platforms (in what was previously a relatively benign threat environment). If you look at the USN's Future CONOPS, Super Hornets will be relegated to a secondary role as manned weapon carriers. We're seeing a glimpses of this in Syria with F-22s, where the aircraft is taking over the role of the widebody C2ISR platforms like JSTARS. That's going to be replicated in our north if we go with the Super Hornet, where operational and tactical decisions would likely be subordinated to capabilities with significantly superior battlefield awareness.

I think its really important to explain this: The F-22 and F-35 may well be revolutionary capabilities in terms of how they operate in the battle space. Going with anything but F-35 basically puts us into a much diminished state for our future fighter capability. Certainly 4th generation aircraft will persist till the 2040s, but their role in these areas will be ever diminishing and relegated to auxiliary functions. It is absolute folly that we would consider going with one of those capabilities, especially considering their higher acquisition, upgrade and possibly maintenance costs.

(edit) Oh look, Denmark agrees:

http://www.klassekampen.no/article/20160429/ARTICLE/160429898

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=no&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.klassekampen.no%2Farticle%2F20160429%2FARTICLE%2F160429898


None of this should be surprising. Many of the people in Canada who are actually familiar with the program have been saying all of this for the past six years, frankly the public has been surrounded by a reality distortion field when it comes to fighter capabilities and procurement.

 

[AlexanderM]

Likely the reason the F-22 may be making a comeback and may be made available to the Allies.

 

[HB_Pencil]

No, that's largely a congressional effort that will fail for a number of reasons. The most significant is the line startup costs, which  would be exorbitant. Right off the bat they will likely require a massive EMD effort to get the F-22 a new avionics system. The F-22 is a closed loop system: while its sensor fusion capabilities are impressive, it can't transmit that information to other aircraft, and its limited in its interoperability. Its really a mark of how valuable the technology is. The F-35's system is significantly more powerful, both in terms of its potential and raw computational capability. It has Link 16 out of the box and an much more open architecture that allows for easier update of its technology... we're already seeing a technological refresh... where the USAF has struggled to get even modest upgrades included on the F-22.

Moreover there is a question whether the F-22's added capabilities are worth the tens of billions it would cost to restart the lines.
A lot of F-22 pilots will make clear that they don't think the aircraft's aerodynamic performance is not what makes them special: There's a presentation by David Berke who has flown Hornets, Raptors and now the Lightning and he's adamant that the least impressive aspect of the F-22 is its maneuverability. So while the F-35 has poorer maneuverability, but basically a much more robust sensor and communication system, it may be an acceptable tradeoff for the US Military.

(edited for some bad typos and brevity)

 

[Lance Wiebe]

A question for those much more knowledgeable about aircraft than I am.
Everything I read lauding the F35 goes on about the software and it seems a lot of the push for the F35 is the sensor suites. The aircraft itself does not seem all that special in terms of capabilities. But sensors are sensors, correct? Can the sensors and computing system not be put in to any aircraft? Can those sensors and computers be put in to say, the F22, or, for that matter, the C17, or even the CF188?