The F-35 Discussion Topic (No Holds Barred II)

Focusing on the 1,763 number makes as much sense as focusing on the "trillion-dollar" life cost. The congress members who will vote on the last 500-600 of those aircraft are still sitting on school boards and local councils in Indiana and Idaho, or interning on the Hill.


Even the AF production rate, in and of itself, is not a giant factor. Plus or minus 20 jets shouldn't be the end of the world.


So if anything is scaring off foreign buyers (which Welsh seems to be something worth mentioning) it's not Dunford's comments.
 
Wouldn't this be the death spiral I read about? If they slowdown building them, they get dearer.
 
lastdingo said:
You should pay more attention to what many criticize about the F-35 program for real.

The unnecessary degree of complexity, for example. Or it failure to meet earlier claims about dates, quantities, prices, performances - which indicates that the bureaucracy intrested in having the program budget lied early on in order to get the program budget and the contractors who wanted to get the development and (pre-)production orders lied in order to get the turnover and profit.

There were so many 100% fantasy claims (a.k.a. lies) about sortie rates, costs per flying hour etc. by LM and program office that both deserve all criticism that they get.
What "unnecessary degree of complexity" would this be? Modern fighters are complicated by default.

In regards to the cost overruns and delays, that is unfortunately the norm and not the exception these days, but what do you propose to do about it? There are no other valid options to the aircraft here.

The valid criticism doesn't excuse the inane shouting from some corners of the internet. "Journalists" crying scandal when they finally notice a bit of information that has been public information for years (i.e. gun integration), playing loose with the facts so they fit the story, and doomsday prophesying about how the aircraft will destroy the USAF, USMC, RCAF, and anybody who comes into contact with the thing.
 
lastdingo said:
sferrin said:
It still amazes me how many people (who really ought to know better) continue to think something as complex as the F-35 program could possibly run as smoothly as the local McD's.

You should pay more attention to what many criticize about the F-35 program for real.

Isn't that suppose to be, "Fo' realz"? ::)

lastdingo said:
The unnecessary degree of complexity, for example.

Unnecessary? Do you actually have any frame of reference for that or just a lot of "they should make it more simplez 'cuz it's too complex"? How, specifically, could you meet the same requirements but "simpler"?

lastdingo said:
Or it failure to meet earlier claims about dates, quantities, prices, performances - which indicates that the bureaucracy intrested in having the program budget lied early on in order to get the program budget and the contractors who wanted to get the development and (pre-)production orders lied in order to get the turnover and profit.

Yep, they lied their asses off. It couldn't possibly be that the more complex a task is the more difficult it is to know all the unknowns right? It couldn't possibly be that building a cutting edge fighter vs just another 4th gen is just a bit more complex right? This is the kind of just plain clueless response that makes it difficult to have any patience at all with some people. If you have evidence that they knowingly misrepresented their position upfront then produce it. Otherwise you're just off into tinfoil hat territory.
 
LowObservable said:
Focusing on the 1,763 number makes as much sense as focusing on the "trillion-dollar" life cost. The congress members who will vote on the last 500-600 of those aircraft are still sitting on school boards and local councils in Indiana and Idaho, or interning on the Hill.


Even the AF production rate, in and of itself, is not a giant factor. Plus or minus 20 jets shouldn't be the end of the world.


So if anything is scaring off foreign buyers (which Welsh seems to be something worth mentioning) it's not Dunford's comments.

Which foreign buyers have cancelled their orders in favor of other aircraft? If anything I'd think it's the reverse. IIRC Japan and South Korea weren't planned buyers at the outset.
 
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1953

Gen. Welsh Makes Subtle Digs at A-10 Supporters, F-35 Critics

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. -- Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Mark Welsh has heard one too many times that his service doesn't care about close-air support missions.

"Really? I'm kind of tired of hearing that," he said Sept. 15 at the Air Force Association conference.

The Air Force has averaged about 20,000 CAS sorties per year for the last seven years. "At what point do we get a little bit of acknowledgement for that?" Noting that airmen who require protection serve on the ground, as well as his own son who is a Marine Corps infantry officer, Welsh characterized the notion that the Air Force puts a low priority on close-air support as "silly."

He has answered those who have told him to his face that the Air Force doesn't care about CAS by taking out his phone and showing them a picture of his son.

His comments come during a public debate over the retirement of the A-10 Warthog, a Cold War era aircraft that the service wants to retire to make way for the F-35 joint striker fighter. Congress so far is not allowing that to happen. While he did not wade into the specifics of the arguments, he ran a short video of a former A-10 pilot who is now putting the F-35 through close-air support test and evaluation.

Welsh said: "CAS is our mission. And we will continue to excel at it and we will continue to provide it wherever and whenever it is needed and with whatever we have available to us."

Another statement he disputed is "the F16 is better than the F-35."

"Really? Does someone want to debate this with facts?" He followed that up with another video of an F-35 pilot attesting to the new capabilities of the aircraft. "We have to make sure we don't get distracted by silly discussions here. This airplane is going to be a great airplane," he added, noting that it is not fully operational yet and is not expected to be until 2021.

Welsh only mentioned in passing the Air Force's top three acquisition priorities -- the F-35, the long-range strike bomber and the KC-46 tanker -- and instead highlighted some of the lesser known aircraft that he said must be modernized.

The first mentioned was the combat rescue helicopter, which he said is "tied to the fabric of our force. If we are going to send airmen across the line into harm's way, we have people, great people, who are willing to go get them if something goes wrong. And they need to be equipped in a way that allows them to get home, or maximizes their chances to get home. We have got to keep this program on track."

The next is the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, which has been a workhorse, he said. The Air Force can't meet combatant commanders' needs for the aircraft because they are old, and it takes a lot of money to operate. "It has been a phenomenal aircraft for us, but it is time to recapitalize this airplane."

The JSTARS recapitalization program is in the budget this year and "we are going to push hard to keep it on track and get this thing done," he said.

The EC-130 Compass Call electronic warfare aircraft, like JSTARS, has been a "silent hero" over the years, he said. It has been a workhorse in the counterterrorism mission, "but we need the capabilities it carries on a different platform, or on several different platforms. And we have to figure out how to do that," he said. If they have to be grounded for age reasons, "we're out of luck. That can't be the choice."

Also on his list is the E-3 Sentry AWACS. "We have to start thinking about recapitalizing this airplane as well. Airborne command and control is is a requirement that is not going anywhere." The Air Force is going to start work on a plan to replace it or recapitalize it this year, he said. The question will be where it fits into the funding flow, he added. "This is not a 'this year' problem but it is coming sooner than you think."

The last aircraft on his modernization list is the T-X training aircraft. "All these things need crews to fly them. We're not going to a 100 percent unmanned force anytime soon."

The T-X is in the budget and "we're going to push hard" for a 2024 initial operational capability, he said.

The overarching problem is funding. The demand for Air Force capabilities is going up, but the budget is not, he said. "And the flexibility we need to make the very hard decisions required is getting harder to come by. Holding onto the things that made us great in the past is not the best way to make us great in the future," he added, making another subtle dig at the A-10 supporters.

"For years we have enjoyed a capability advantage over every other air force on the planet. That capability gap is closing and it's closing fast. I'm not crying wolf. I'm just telling you the truth," Welsh said.
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1953

Gen. Welsh Makes Subtle Digs at A-10 Supporters, F-35 Critics

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. -- Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Mark Welsh has heard one too many times that his service doesn't care about close-air support missions.

"Really? I'm kind of tired of hearing that," he said Sept. 15 at the Air Force Association conference.

The Air Force has averaged about 20,000 CAS sorties per year for the last seven years. "At what point do we get a little bit of acknowledgement for that?"

Quoting Ian33's post from the Next Gen Bomber thread here:

"During the early days of Afghanistan campaign, my friend (British Commando) was attached to a US unit.

There were twelve of them, and they were on a peak looking down. They called for an air support and asked how many precision JDAM were available. 40 weapons were dropped in one overhead pass. This prevented the Northern Alliance troops getting massacred in the valley below, and allowed my friends and the team to really have utmost confidence in the available fire power.

I'm adding this as even in a low intesnsity conflict, high numbers of weapons are some times needed in one fell swoop."


I'm wondering how a pair of A-10s would have handled hitting 40 CAS targets almost simultaneously. My guess is "abysmally". The whole notion that "the USAF hates CAS and wants ground troops to die" is retarded beyond description. And yes, I've actually seen idiots claim the USAF wants ground troops to die, as well as others claiming the USAF doesn't care if they die.
 
sferrin said:
Yep, they lied their asses off. It couldn't possibly be that the more complex a task is the more difficult it is to know all the unknowns right? It couldn't possibly be that building a cutting edge fighter vs just another 4th gen is just a bit more complex right? This is the kind of just plain clueless response that makes it difficult to have any patience at all with some people. If you have evidence that they knowingly misrepresented their position upfront then produce it. Otherwise you're just off into tinfoil hat territory.


I see where you're coming from, but that's a poor excuse. Yes, Aerospace engineering is hard, but Skunkworks has arguably the best advanced concepts engineers in the world. One of the things that makes a good designer is knowing that there are unknowns, planning for the unknowns. Yes, you can. That's what weight margins, manager's reserves are for, it's nothing new, it's part of the best practices. The higher the risks, the higher the margins should be. Really, can anyone be surprised anymore when a VTOL aircraft ends up overweight? There are only seventy years of case studies to look at. If a team does not place a sufficient margin against a risk, i'm sorry, but that's their fault.


No, problems arise when in order to win a contract or keep the customer happy you shrink those margins and take risks. That usually happens at the management level, because most engineers i know will err on the side of conservatism. That's not going to change anytime soon, especially if we take as a valid excuse that "it's REALLY hard".
 
AeroFranz said:
sferrin said:
Yep, they lied their asses off. It couldn't possibly be that the more complex a task is the more difficult it is to know all the unknowns right? It couldn't possibly be that building a cutting edge fighter vs just another 4th gen is just a bit more complex right? This is the kind of just plain clueless response that makes it difficult to have any patience at all with some people. If you have evidence that they knowingly misrepresented their position upfront then produce it. Otherwise you're just off into tinfoil hat territory.


I see where you're coming from, but that's a poor excuse. Yes, Aerospace engineering is hard, but Skunkworks has arguably the best advanced concepts engineers in the world. One of the things that makes a good designer is knowing that there are unknowns, planning for the unknowns. Yes, you can. That's what weight margins, manager's reserves are for, it's nothing new, it's part of the best practices.

There are also "unknown unknowns" which "best practices" -for all the praise they get by the suits- don't and can't account for. It would be nice if everything could be done up in a pretty, accurate-to-the-minute-and-penny, bow before a dime got spent but that's just not reality.

AeroFranz said:
The higher the risks, the higher the margins should be. Really, can anyone be surprised anymore when a VTOL aircraft ends up overweight? There are only seventy years of case studies to look at. If a team does not place a sufficient margin against a risk, i'm sorry, but that's their fault.

See above. It's easy to Monday-morning quarterback things from afar. Everything works as advertised when you don't have to deliver.

AeroFranz said:
No, problems arise when in order to win a contract or keep the customer happy you shrink those margins and take risks. That usually happens at the management level, because most engineers i know will err on the side of conservatism. That's not going to change anytime soon, especially if we take as a valid excuse that "it's REALLY hard".

You're right. Supersonic fighter design is just as predictable as flipping a burger. Judas.
 
"Lockheed Martin and Roketsan to Develop Mid-Range Cruise Missile for the F-35 "

Source:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lockheed-martin-and-roketsan-to-develop-mid-range-cruise-missile-for-the-f-35-300144009.html

LONDON, Sept. 16, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) and Turkish company Roketsan signed a contract to cooperatively develop the SOM-J missile for integration into the F-35 internal weapons bay. SOM-J is a new generation air-to-surface standoff cruise missile.

The contract enables the companies to move forward with their Technical Assistance Agreement, making the SOM-J missile available to international customers. SOM-J integration into the F-35 is scheduled for Block 4. Early live flight testing will be conducted on Turkish F-16s.

"SOM-J integration on the F-35 will enable pilots to engage targets from long ranges while maintaining the aircraft's critical stealth capabilities," said Frank St. John, vice president at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control.

"This contract signing, and subsequent approval of the Technical Assistance Agreement, continues our strong relationship with Lockheed Martin," said Emin Alpman, chairman of the board at Roketsan. "Offering SOM-J to the international F-35 marketplace will bring critical business to Turkey and provide an important capability to allied nations."

SOM missile development began in 2006 and entered service with the Turkish Air Force in 2011. SOM-J is a smaller version of the subsonic SOM missile, which employs a 500-pound warhead and has a required range of more than 100 nautical miles. The SOM-J missile uses Global Positioning System as its primary guidance and is aided by inertial, terrain-referenced and image-based navigation systems, as well as an imaging infrared seeker.

Lockheed Martin has been an industrial partner of Turkey since 1984 and is committed to continued partnerships with Turkish industry to offer affordable defense systems.
 

Attachments

  • F35_SOM-J800.jpg
    F35_SOM-J800.jpg
    84.3 KB · Views: 54
"US air force considering new 2,000lb rocket-propelled penetrating weapon"
20 May, 2015 BY: James Drew Washington DC

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-air-force-considering-new-2000lb-rocket-propelled-penetrating-412565/

The US Air Force’s chief scientist says the high velocity penetrating weapon (HVPW) its research laboratory has designed for internal carriage on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is ready to transfer to a development and production programme.

The air force research laboratory has been testing a 2,000lb-class, rocket-propelled bomb for attacking fortified targets like underground bunkers and tunnel networks, but unlike traditional gravity bombs, this new kinetic weapon is rammed into the ground like a pile driver instead of being accelerated naturally by gravity.

Very little has been said about the programme since its inception in 2011, but according to the air force’s Dr David Walker, HVPW has been “very successful” and is now part of a study into future “hard-target munitions” requirements, which includes an examination of Boeing’s 30,000lb Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) as well as other traditional bunker-busting ordnance.

Walker says the laboratory has proven that the concept works, but the questions now is what to do with it, and how much is the air force is willing to spend to field such a capability.

“The idea is to get a heavy weapon effect with a much lighter weapon and a more compact weapon,” he told Flightglobal at a recent defence science and technology exposition at the Pentagon. “That technology, we’ve proven that the concept works.

“The analysis of alternatives will determine what we’re going to do and how much actual funding we’ve got to go forward.”

The air force initiated the high velocity penetrating weapon programme with the aim of developing a compact, penetrating weapon with more punching power than traditional BLU-109 and BLU-113 bombs. The compact and relatively light-weight weapon design allows it to be carried internally on stealthy, fifth-generation aircraft, or increase the loadout of bunker-destroying munitions on legacy combat jets.

“[It’s] not just with the F-35, but for our entire fleet,” Walker says. “How can I get a much more compact, lighter-weight capability which allows me to have more carriage? It’s very important in the future to have that capability.”

The air force has not said whether it would install the air force’s new void-sensing fuse produced by Orbital ATK, but that would seem likely. The smart fuse can count the number of layers or levels the bomb has penetrated and detonate at the correct one. The alternative is a traditionaltime-delayed fuse.

The test and evaluation programme for HVPW was due to wrap up in late 2014. The main industry partners on the programme were Boeing, Lockheed Martin, MBDA Missile Systems and Raytheon.
 

Attachments

  • yourfile.jpg
    yourfile.jpg
    17.8 KB · Views: 96
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1953

Gen. Welsh Makes Subtle Digs at A-10 Supporters, F-35 Critics

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. -- Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Mark Welsh has heard one too many times that his service doesn't care about close-air support missions.

"Really? I'm kind of tired of hearing that," he said Sept. 15 at the Air Force Association conference.

The Air Force has averaged about 20,000 CAS sorties per year for the last seven years. "At what point do we get a little bit of acknowledgement for that?"

Quoting Ian33's post from the Next Gen Bomber thread here:

"During the early days of Afghanistan campaign, my friend (British Commando) was attached to a US unit.

There were twelve of them, and they were on a peak looking down. They called for an air support and asked how many precision JDAM were available. 40 weapons were dropped in one overhead pass. This prevented the Northern Alliance troops getting massacred in the valley below, and allowed my friends and the team to really have utmost confidence in the available fire power.

I'm adding this as even in a low intensity conflict, high numbers of weapons are some times needed in one fell swoop."


I'm wondering how a pair of A-10s would have handled hitting 40 CAS targets almost simultaneously. My guess is "abysmally". The whole notion that "the USAF hates CAS and wants ground troops to die" is retarded beyond description. And yes, I've actually seen idiots claim the USAF wants ground troops to die, as well as others claiming the USAF doesn't care if they die.


I've argued against this mindset in locations too, and it's amazing the number of people who think, for instance, that F-16s can't fly "slow enough" for CAS.
 
Jeb said:
I've argued against this mindset in locations too, and it's amazing the number of people who think, for instance, that F-16s can't fly "slow enough" for CAS.


The Air Force already tried using F-16s for CAS. They failed miserably.


Edit: However, once again, it becomes what type of CAS are you referring to? As Quellish has pointed out before, there are three distinct variations. I see the USAF and Welsh in particular as intentionally conflating them for his/The Air Forces own purposes.
 
The USAF uses F-16s for CAS all the time.


If you're talking about mounting the 30mm in a centerline pod for CAS, then you're making the classic mistake of equating CAS with the need for a big gun.
 
Sundog said:
Jeb said:
I've argued against this mindset in locations too, and it's amazing the number of people who think, for instance, that F-16s can't fly "slow enough" for CAS.


The Air Force already tried using F-16s for CAS. They failed miserably.

Really? How is it that they do CAS today then? Let's be honest now. What you're referring to was the attempt to mount a GAU-13 in a pod on the centerline of an F-16. THAT is what gave them problems. Not having a 7-barrel 30mm gatling gun does not preclude an aircraft from being able to perform CAS. But while we're on the subject, how well do YOU think a pair of A-10s would have been able to prosecute 40 different time-critical targets in the CAS environment simultaneously?
 
sferrin said:
See above. It's easy to Monday-morning quarterback things from afar. Everything works as advertised when you don't have to deliver.

Not from that afar. You know where I work. If you google my company name and "VTOL", you will see we're in a competition to build an X-plane for a government agency. We too have to deliver based on our claims. We try not to embarrass ourselves too much because, you know, ethics and a healthy sense of decency.

sferrin said:
You're right. Supersonic fighter design is just as predictable as flipping a burger. Judas.


We're coming up on the 70th anniversary of the first supersonic flight. I sure hope there are no more basic supersonic design principles left to discover.
 
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1959

Lasers on aircraft by 2020 USAF says
 
AeroFranz said:
Not from that afar. You know where I work. If you google my company name and "VTOL", you will see we're in a competition to build an X-plane for a government agency. We too have to deliver based on our claims. We try not to embarrass ourselves too much because, you know, ethics and a healthy sense of decency.


When's the last time you guys built a supersonic STOVL stealth jet? Right then. . .

AeroFranz said:
We're coming up on the 70th anniversary of the first supersonic flight. I sure hope there are no more basic supersonic design principles left to discover.

Wow. Clearly there's no reason for any aircraft to be late or over budget anywhere for any reason. How's that viewpoint jive with reality? Presumably all that there is to figure out about ships has long been done but they still manage to go over budget with those. And a myriad of other things right there with them. What's more likely, that every contractor on the planet is a bunch of liars or that there are limits to how accurately one can estimate, and that that only goes down as complexity increases?[/quote][/quote]
 
Another statement he [Welsh] disputed is "the F-16 is better than the F-35".


Nobody ever said that. A test pilot has said the F-16's E-M is better than the F-35's. A lot of people might argue it's better value for money. But nobody makes the point Welsh is disputing. He knows that and his speechwriters know that.
 
LowObservable said:
Another statement he [Welsh] disputed is "the F-16 is better than the F-35".


Nobody ever said that. A test pilot has said the F-16's E-M is better than the F-35's.

Where? Oh right, in the "dog fighting trials". ::)
 
"A Solution to America's F-35 Nightmare: Why Not Build More F-22s?"
by Dave Majumdar

September 16, 2015

Source:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/solution-americas-f-35-nightmare-why-not-build-more-f-22s-13858

America’s F-35 clearly has its share of problems. Such challenges only compound the U.S. Air Force’s real dilemma: not having enough dedicated air superiority fighters as potential competitors like Russia and China beef up their own capabilities. The problem stems from the fact that the Air Force’s Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor fleet was terminated after only 187 aircraft were built–less than half of the 381 jets the service needed as a bare minimum.

Speaking to reporters at the Air Force Association convention in National Harbor, Md., just outside the capital, Air Combat Command commander Gen. Hawk Carlisle said he would love to see the Raptor back in production. “I dream about it every night,” Carlisle said.

Indeed, the Raptor has proven to be a formidable warplane with its unique combination of stealth, speed, maneuverability, altitude and sensors. It’s simply the best air superiority fighter the United States has ever produced and it was a foolish, shortsighted decision to end its production run prematurely.

But while many within the Air Force would dearly love to see the Raptor back in production, it is not likely to happen. The first problem is that while Lockheed and the Air Force supposedly made every effort to carefully squirrel away the tooling and instructions for building the F-22, problems have emerged when maintenance crews have attempted to pull the equipment in order to repair damaged jets.

One recently retired Air Force official with direct knowledge about the service’s efforts to repair two damaged Raptors said that they faced severe difficulties with retrieving the correct tooling. In one example, Air Force maintainers needed to build a particular component from scratch to replace a severely damaged part for an F-22. The crews went into the Conex boxes where the tooling and instructions to build the part were allegedly stored, but to their considerable surprise and aggravation, the container was empty. The same pattern repeated itself several times—and as of the last time the source checked–the issue remains unresolved. The bottom line is that even if the Air Force wanted to, it may not be physically possible to restart the line—at least not without a huge additional investment in time and money.

The second factor to consider is that the Raptor’s avionics were dated even before the jet was declared operational in December 2005. While the Raptor is the most advanced operational warplane in the Air Force’s inventory, its computer architecture dates back to the early 1990s. The core processors run at 25MHz–since it took so long to get the jet from the design phase to production. Moreover, the Raptor’s software is particularly obtuse and difficult to upgrade–which is partly why integrating the AIM-9X and AIM-120D missiles onto the aircraft has been so problematic. The jet’s avionics would have to be completely revamped for a production restart, not just because they’re obsolete, but also because the jet’s antique processors and other components haven’t been made in decades. That would be a very expensive proposition at a time when the Air Force’s budgets are shrinking.

The third factor to consider is that the basic F-22 airframe design originates from the 1980s. The Raptor, as of this year, has been in service for a decade. The technology is old—stealth, propulsion, avionics and airframe design have come a long way since the F-22 was designed. If the Air Force were to invest several tens of billions of dollars into an aircraft, it has to ensure that those technologies are still relevant to threats decades from now. By 2035, the Raptor will have been in service for 30 years—most of its systems would be hopelessly obsolete by then.

The reality is that the Air Force likely will never restart the Raptor production line. The technology is dated and the jet may not be relevant to the threat environment past the 2030s–especially if one considers that PAK-FA and J-20 are both around the corner. The Air Force has already started laying the groundwork for a next generation air superiority capability it is calling the F-X. We don’t yet know how it will shape up, but it will surely be designed to fight the threats of tomorrow.
 
Because the F-22 line is GONE. (And if you think the first batch was expensive. . .) May as well ask why we don't build more B-2s.
 
Business News | Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:18pm EST
"U.S. to mothball gear to build top F-22 fighter"
WASHINGTON | By Jim Wolf

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/13/us-fighter-usa-lockheed-idUSTRE7BC09T20111213

Even as the last F-22 fighter jet rolls out of flag-draped doors at a Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) assembly plant on Tuesday, the Air Force has taken steps that leave open an option to restart the premier plane's production relatively cheaply.

The Air Force is preserving the hardware used to build the jet, not scrapping it, although it insists this is solely to sustain the fleet over its projected 30-plus years' "lifecycle."

The F-22 is "easily the most capable fighter aircraft ever built, period," said Richard Aboulafia, a combat plane expert at the Teal Group aerospace consultancy.

"You don't know what the economy and the strategic picture will look like in a decade," he said. "And if one gets better and the other gets worse, you could see a restart."

A lunchtime ceremony feting F-22 program employees will mark the emergence of the 187th and final production model from the Marietta, Georgia, plant, 14 years after the most advanced and most costly per-plane U.S. fighter began flight tests.

F-22 supporters maintain it was terminated prematurely.

The fleet, as conceived during the Cold War, was to have been 750. That dropped to 381, then 243, before former Defense Secretary Robert Gates capped it at 187 in a belt-tightening move over program backers' strong objections.

A total of more than 30,000 jigs, fixtures and other "tooling" used to build the plane are being logged into a database and tucked into containers, some custom built, for long-term storage at Sierra Army Depot, Herlong, California.

The hardware is valued at $2 billion to $3 billion, according to Lockheed, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier by sales.

The Sierra depot's high desert climate, low humidity and mild temperatures, are optimal for systems that might be needed to build components to support the fleet, or perhaps one day resume production.

Arms production lines have shut in the past only to be brought back, including aircraft such as the submarine-hunting P-3, U-2 spy plane and B-1A bomber resurrected as the B-1B.

Lockheed is under Air Force contract also to preserve the shop-floor know-how used to manufacture the fighter. It is accomplishing this through a video library of "smart books," DVDs designed to capture such things as how to hold a tool for best results.

The two-pronged preservation effort puts Lockheed in a "great position" to resume production if asked to do so, said Jeff Babione, the company's F-22 program general manager.

But Lockheed, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier, has not been given any reason to think that such a request will come, he added in a telephone interview on Friday.

Bringing back the F-22 line would take less than $200 million, "a fraction of the costs seen in previous line restarts of other weapons systems," Alison Orne, a Lockheed spokeswoman, said by email, citing preliminary analysis.

The Air Force said government-owned F-22 production is being stored "for the sole purpose of sustaining the F-22 fleet" over its lifetime.

"No F-22 parts, tooling or related items are being stored for the purpose of preserving the option of restarting F-22 production," Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force spokeswoman, said in an email.

She said the Air Force had commissioned a RAND analysis to assess tooling preservation options at congressional direction. The study concluded that saving the hardware "may significantly ease the execution of future F-22 sustainment needs, and the storage of that tooling can be provided at relatively low cost."

CUTTING EDGE

The radar-evading F-22 "Raptor" entered service in 2005, designed to own the skies on the first day of a conflict because of its low observability, high maneuverability plus sensor advances that make it the top gun for air-to-air combat.

Its cutting-edge capabilities, including agility, engine thrust and flight controls, "cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter aircraft," according to a U.S. Air Force fact sheet on the plane, which has not yet been used in combat.

The F-22 represents the high end of a tactical fighter mix that advocates say is critical to defend worldwide U.S. interests over coming decades alongside the F-35, a less capable, less costly, Lockheed stealth fighter now in early production.

The Pentagon currently plans to buy more than 2,440 F-35s for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps at $382.5 billion through 2035, its costliest purchase ever.

The current "program acquisition unit" cost of the F-35A model for the Air Force is $111 million, including "mission systems" and sustainment.

By contrast, the last production lot of four F-22s cost $153 million each, according to Lockheed, not including amortized research, development and maintenance that experts say would add more than $200 million apiece.

RESTART BUTTON?

Advocates of a larger F-22 fleet have cited emerging Russian and Chinese stealth fighters as well as the spread of sophisticated surface-to-air missiles that can home in all but the hardest-to-detect fighters.

The F-22 was barred from export sales to protect its high-tech secrets.

Michael Wynne, who was forced out as Air Force secretary in 2008 after disagreeing with Gates over the production cap, said by email that Japan and Australia would "immediately partner" to restart the line if Congress lifted the F-22 export ban.
 
sferrin said:

When's the last time you guys built a supersonic STOVL stealth jet? Right then. . .



Grasping at straws. It's like saying GM has no business expressing technical opinions on supercars because they don't make them. It's still a car, the same laws of physics, the same engineering practices apply.
My company has designed and built a few VTOL aircraft, so we have learned lessons and have opinions on them.
[/size]
sferrin said:
Wow. Clearly there's no reason for any aircraft to be late or over budget anywhere for any reason.[/size]



"Clearly" I must have early onset Alzheimer because i don't remember saying that. Please do not put words in my mouth.


[/size]
sferrin said:
How's that viewpoint jive with reality? Presumably all that there is to figure out about ships has long been done but they still manage to go over budget with those. And a myriad of other things right there with them. What's more likely, that every contractor on the planet is a bunch of liars or that there are limits to how accurately one can estimate, and that that only goes down as complexity increases?


[/size]
You keep bringing up troubled acquisition programs across the spectrum of acquisition and claiming "that's ok because it's the norm". You really don't see anything wrong with that line of thought? I will give you a hint - on April 15th, every year, you and me are paying for it.
 
A blast from the past!


"Incoming JSF Chief Targets Bad Relationship With Lockheed, Partners"
Sep 17, 2012 Amy Butler | AWIN First

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/incoming-jsf-chief-targets-bad-relationship-lockheed-partners


The incoming director of the F-35 program says that a poor relationship between the Joint Program Office, customers and prime contractor Lockheed Martin is the biggest threat to the success of the stealthy, single-engine fighter.

“It is the worst I have ever seen” in a career of managing complex Pentagon programs, including the contentious KC-46A downselect between Boeing and EADS last year, says U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan. The notoriously forthright general officer spoke Sept. 17 at the Air Force Assn. conference outside Washington, in a small room overflowing with onlookers.

Bogdan says he plans to break down the barriers among the partners immediately upon taking over the program office. For the time being he is the deputy until the Senate approves his nomination for the leadership position. “We have got to shed our baggage,” he says of program staffers who are unwilling to move forward more productively.

The F-35 has been characterized for years by contentious and protracted contract negotiations. Talks on low-rate initial production (LRIP) lots 4 and 5 have each taken more than a year, a situation that Bogdan says is unacceptable given the partners have worked together for 11 years.

LRIP 5 negotiations are still ongoing, and Bogdan notes that there is more actual cost data from previous lots to help with pricing going forward. But the high final costs of previous lots may not be “how much you want to pay” for the aircraft, he notes. This could mean that Bodgan intends to follow a similar approach that applied to the Boeing KC-46A contract, where the manufacturer effectively operates at a loss up front on the program, on the assumption it will make up the revenue once production gets into full swing. That is unlikely for the F-35 until later in the decade.

He also notes that as negotiations get bogged down, “We can just slow down,” a luxury the joint program office has owing to the excessive concurrency between development and production. A swift program pace has always been a goal of Lockheed’s as the company seeks to speed production so that it can produce in greater numbers and begin making more revenue.

Bogdan says that as of now he is “not all that concerned” that the proposed merger of European aerospace giants EADS and BAE Systems could perturb the F-35 program. He declined to provide an official view on the issue, but said that nothing to date has raised a red flag on why the deal couldn’t go through because of BAE’s heavy involvement with the F-35. The British company manufactures the aft fuselage in the U.K.

Meanwhile, Bogdan is looking to revamp plans down the road for the F-35 sustainment program. He opens the door to competing all or part of the sustainment of the massive aircraft program in the hopes of introducing innovation and affordability. It has largely been assumed that Lockheed Martin would have a virtual monopoly on contractor sustainment activities. “The basic strategy on the way we are going to sustain this program has got to change,” he says.

For example, Lockheed Martin produced the Autonomic Logistics and Information System (ALIS), a comprehensive system that manages everything from mission planning to aircraft diagnostics and parts supply. “It is so crucial to operating this [aircraft] that it is frightening a little bit, because if it doesn’t work, this airplane doesn’t work,” Bogdan says. He intends to see if there are ways to introduce competition into the sustainment — from opening up work to contractors or allowing for more activity from the Pentagon’s depot system.

The latest software release on ALIS, Block 1.3, has been late because security vulnerabilities were discovered. They are being fixed and Bogdan says the problems should be validated by the middle of November, just as the U.S. Marine Corps plans to stand up its first F-35B squadron at Yuma, Ariz. Without the software improvement, the Marine jets will be grounded there, which would be a “tragedy,” Bogdan says.

Furthermore, the problems with the 1.3 software also have held up delivery and payment of the latest aircraft out of the F-35 final assembly line at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth plant.

The F-35 will be the frontline fighter for the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy and eight partner nations. Israel and Japan also have signed on for foreign military sales.
 
AeroFranz said:
sferrin said:

When's the last time you guys built a supersonic STOVL stealth jet? Right then. . .
Grasping at straws. It's like saying GM has no business expressing technical opinions on supercars because they don't make them. It's still a car, the same laws of physics, the same engineering practices apply.

More like saying Ferrari has no business expressing technical opinions on mining trucks. Just because they both have wheels doesn't mean there's a whole lot of relevant experience.

AeroFranz said:
My company has designed and built a few VTOL aircraft, so we have learned lessons and have opinions on them.

You've learned lessons on small VTOL aircraft. Not supersonic, STOVL, stealth aircraft. And no, they are not the same.

AeroFranz said:
"Clearly" I must have early onset Alzheimer because i don't remember saying that. Please do not put words in my mouth.


Your whole position is that there is absolutely no valid reason for something being delayed or over budget; that fraud or incompetence is at play every time. I'm saying you're wrong.

AeroFranz said:
You keep bringing up troubled acquisition programs across the spectrum of acquisition and claiming "that's ok because it's the norm". You really don't see anything wrong with that line of thought? I will give you a hint - on April 15th, every year, you and me are paying for it.

Where did I say it was "okay"? I said it shouldn't surprise anybody. If you want cutting edge aircraft there is going to be risk. Period. There's no way around it. I think, when it comes to national defense, taking risk to gain advantage is acceptable. In that regard, yes, bumps along the way are acceptable. If I were buying a warmed over F-15 and there were unexpected difficulties, that would be another matter. [/quote][/quote][/quote]
 
...the man in charge of the F-35 told us, "basically the program ran itself off the rails."


When Bogdan took over the F-35 program a year ago, it was behind schedule, over budget and relations with the plane's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, bordered on dysfunctional.

David Martin: How would you characterize the relationship between the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin?

Chris Bogdan: I'm on record after being in the job for only a month standing up and saying it was the worst relationship I had seen in my acquisition career.

From "The F-35" which aired on Feb. 16, 2014. David Martin is the correspondent. Mary Walsh, producer

Source:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-60-minutes/



https://youtu.be/jq7i68jrzDo
 
Is there a defense company the DoD hasn't had a bad relationship with at one point or another? (And no AeroFranz, I'm not saying that means it's okay.)
 
sferrin said:
Is there a defense company the DoD hasn't had a bad relationship with at one point or another? (And no AeroFranz, I'm not saying that means it's okay.)

I have to take Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan at his word that it was the worst relationship he had ever seen in his acquisition career and that the program had run itself off the rails.
 
sferrin said:
I'm saying you're wrong.


And that summarizes my thoughts in your regards too. I think we can copy and paste the conversation next time the subject comes up (because it always does) and spare additional efforts.
 
I think, when it comes to national defense, taking risk to gain advantage is acceptable. In that regard, yes, bumps along the way are acceptable.

Sure, as long as you've mitigated that risk and you have an alternative if the whole thing falls in a screaming heap. They've failed to do that, arrogance or stupidity or both has left them with the classic all or nothing, too big to fail project.
 
"DoD report claims Marine F-35B is not ready for combat"
By Matthew L. Schehl, Staff writer 7:45 p.m. EDT September 15, 2015

Source:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/15/dod-report-claims-marine-f-35b-not-ready-combat/72332738/

It turns out the Marine Corps' new F-35B joint strike fighter jet isn't as battle-ready as officials claim, according to a report published by a government watchdog group.

Despite Marine officials declaring in July that the F-35B Lightning II had reached "initial operational capability," a recent internal Pentagon report obtained by the Project On Government Oversight details critical shortfalls during May sea testing aboard the amphibious assault ship Wasp.

"The [test] did not — and could not — demonstrate that the ... F-35B is operationally effective or suitable for use in any type of limited combat operation, or that it is ready for real-world operational deployments," J. Michael Gilmore, director of the Pentagon's Operational Test and Evaluation Office, wrote in the scathing memo, dated July 22, which POGO received through the Freedom of Information Act.

In order to qualify for operational combat readiness, Gilmore claims the Marine Corps' fleet of joint strike fighters needed to meet a readiness rate of 80 percent. But mechanical and electronic problems meant the planes barely met a 50 percent readiness level during the demonstration, he said.

In a thorough review, Gilmore found that over the 10 days of flight tests:

The strenuous demands of an operational combat environment weren't sufficiently replicated.
Key combat mission systems, including one that provides missile launch warnings, were absent from the aircraft tested aboard the Wasp.
Crews constantly struggled to keep six aircraft flying.
The Marine Corps was only able to complete 70 percent of planned flight hours.

Those findings glaringly contradict Marine Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford's July 31 pronouncement that the testing completed by Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 demonstrated initial operational capability.

At the time, Dunford wrote in a statement that the F-35B was "capable of conducting close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort and armed reconnaissance as part of a Marine Air Ground Task Force, or in support of the Joint Force."

In a written rebuttal provided to Marine Corps Times by Marine public affairs officer 1st Lt. Sarah Burns, the Corps acknowledges the factual accuracy of some of the report, but disagrees with its conclusions.

For example, Gilmore's report calls for the full participation of 20 aircraft in order for a Marine air combat element to be combat ready. But the Marine Corps has never done that during operational testing with other aircraft, Burns said.

Integrating a full air combat element with 20 aircraft would be fiscally impractical, she said. During this testing, the Marine Corps wanted to prove that the non-test version of the F-35B "could be operated and sustained aboard an L-class ship," she said.

"We successfully did that," Burns wrote. "The extensive testing we have done verified expected F-35B capabilities: successful missile shots; successful steel-on-steel, air-to-ground deliveries; and three successful sea-trials."

The Marine Corps is on track to fully test a completely integrated aviation combat element when VMFA-121 begins predeployment training ahead of its planned move to Iwakuni Japan, slated to take place in 2017.

Gilmore's report isn't the first to criticize the F-35B project. Racking up $400 billion of taxpayer money, the controversial program has been beset by delays and cost overruns since Lockheed Martin was awarded its development contract in October 2001.

The Marine Corps is on target to purchase 340 F-35Bs.
 
"Marines Will Not Comply With Gilmore's F-35B Testing Recommendation"
Posted September 16, 2015, by Lee Hudson

http://insidedefense.com/defensealert/marines-will-not-comply-gilmores-f-35b-testing-recommendation

The Marine Corps will not comply with a recommendation made by the Pentagon's top weapons tester for additional operational testing of the F-35B aircraft, calling it "fiscally impractical," according to a service statement.

On July 22, the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation J. Michael Gilmore issued a report on F-35B OT-1 that took place in May. The document was recently obtained by The Project On Government Oversight.

In the report, Gilmore recommends the Marine Corps conduct another F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing deployment with a full aviation combat element and a more aggressive set of demonstration objectives, especially for mission systems employment and weapons integration.

"The duration underway should be longer than 10 days of flying, perhaps up to a month, and broken into a separate operations phase and then maintenance demonstration phase," Gilmore said. "Major maintenance demonstrations should not be conducted during the operations phase."

Marine Corps spokeswoman 1st Lt. Sarah Burns wrote in a Sept. 15 statement to InsideDefense.com that Gilmore's review "was done with our full cooperation, and with unfettered access to information and operations" during the May embarkation aboard the amphibious assault ship Wasp (LHD-1). "Although some of the report is factually accurate, the Marine Corps does not agree with all of the conclusions and opinions in the report," she added. "In some instances, the report contains statements that do not provide proper context or qualifying information, possibly leading readers to form inaccurate conclusions."

One such statement is Gilmore's contention that F-35B operational testing would have to include the rest of an embarked Air Combat Element. Burns said the service will have an opportunity to test the F-35B with a fully integrated ACE when Marine Fighter Attack Squadron-121 begins pre-deployment training in 2016 or 2017.

"Integrating a full ACE in an operational test is fiscally impractical, and the Marine Corps has not done that in operational testing with any previous type/model/series aircraft before their first deployment," she wrote. "During OT-1, we wanted to prove that non-test F-35B aircraft could be operated and sustained aboard an L-class ship. We successfully did that."

Gilmore's report noted that the scope and conduct of OT-1 was "sufficient, however, shipboard reliability and maintainability are likely to present significant near-term challenges for the Marine Corps given the present state of maturity of the F-35B."

"In spite of the fact that most mission system problems could be safely ignored during this deployment, and even though the Marine maintainers had rapid, ready access to spare parts from shore and the benefit of the expertise of embarked contractor maintenance personnel, aircraft reliability was poor enough that it was difficult for the Marines to keep more than two to three of the six embarked jets in a flyable status on any given day," the report reads. "The challenges will be substantially tougher when the aircraft first deploys operationally, where working mission systems will not be optional, and where maintenance is likely to be more challenging due to the presence of the rest of the ACE."

OT-1 allowed the Marine Corps to document the maintenance crew's ability to conduct scheduled and unscheduled day and night maintenance activities as well as confirm the suitability of F-35B maintenance support equipment for shipboard operations, according to the service.

"The extensive testing we have done verified expected F-35B capabilities: successful missile shots; successful steel-on-steel, air-to-ground deliveries; and three successful sea-trials," Burns wrote. "The F-35B can provide close air support in threat environments where our current platforms would not survive, and the synthetic aperture radar gives us a through-the-weather targeting capability where the majority of our legacy targeting systems are simply ineffective."

Burns wrote that data collected and lessons learned during OT-1 will lay the groundwork for F-35B deployments aboard Navy amphibious carriers since the aircraft reached initial operational capability on July 31. -- Lee Hudson

172119
 
Evidence of what? The operational success of F-35?
Scott, why didn't you start the conversation by saying you were clairvoyant? I would have apologized right away ;) . Silly me for trying to express my opinion as an aerospace professional in the conceptual design sector.


Anywhoozle...any tips on the superbowl?
 
What does Ferrari know about mining trucks?


Or, as Enzo probably regretted saying, what does a tractor manufacturer know about sports cars?
 

Attachments

  • Miura.jpg
    Miura.jpg
    159.5 KB · Views: 108

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom