The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[InvisibleDefender]

Official USAF news story on AF-09 arrival and 19 photos - http://www.eglin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123264052

 

[bobbymike]

Senators Ask Panetta for Estimate To Terminate JSF

DefenseAlert, July 14, 2011 -- The two leading members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have formally requested an estimate of the cost of terminating the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, according to a letter addressed to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta today.
---------------------------------

 

[sferrin]

Senators Ask Panetta for Estimate To Terminate JSF

DefenseAlert, July 14, 2011 -- The two leading members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have formally requested an estimate of the cost of terminating the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, according to a letter addressed to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta today.
---------------------------------

That must get China, Russia, and Bill Sweetman all giddy inside. I said it before though, once the F-22 was safely dead, the pols would turn their attention to the F-35. Hopefully the politicians are smarter than that though. (And maybe I'll find a crock of gold buried in my backyard too.)

 

[Triton]

Senators Ask Panetta for Estimate To Terminate JSF

DefenseAlert, July 14, 2011 -- The two leading members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have formally requested an estimate of the cost of terminating the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, according to a letter addressed to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta today.
---------------------------------

And how many times have we had rumors of the termination of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program? A cost estimate of termination is not an advocacy of termination.

 

[bobbymike]

Senators Ask Panetta for Estimate To Terminate JSF

DefenseAlert, July 14, 2011 -- The two leading members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have formally requested an estimate of the cost of terminating the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, according to a letter addressed to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta today.
---------------------------------

And how many times have we had rumors of the termination of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program? A cost estimate of termination is not an advocacy of termination.

Well "rumors" and an actual letter to the Secdef requesting termination costs when combined with the current fiscal circumstances is a lot different.

A lot of politicians are wanting to slash defense spending NOW all of a sudden two Senators request this information from the Secdef on the largest, most expensive procurement program [that has been having cost and testing issues], well it is cause for some concern.

 

[LowObservable]

P was a little Pig,
Went out to take a walk;
Papa he said, 'If Piggy dead,
He'd all turn into Pork!'

- Edward Lear

However, it's not just "cost and testing issues". Everyone's got those.

It's a decade-and-counting of rosy promises, and pooh-poohing and suppressing critics, followed by failure to execute, and late and reluctant disclosure of delays and overruns.

Without that, the critics would have no ammunition.

 

[sferrin]

P was a little Pig,
Went out to take a walk;
Papa he said, 'If Piggy dead,
He'd all turn into Pork!'

- Edward Lear

However, it's not just "cost and testing issues". Everyone's got those.

It's a decade-and-counting of rosy promises, and pooh-poohing and suppressing critics, followed by failure to execute, and late and reluctant disclosure of delays and overruns.

Without that, the critics would have no ammunition.

And I suppose you think cancelling the F-35 would get us a replacement that is better for less money and sooner? No? That's the problem. Lots of people out there screaming with the torches and pitchforks, but just as cluelessly as the mob, they have no answers.

 

[shedofdread]

Whilst I'm no great fan of the F35, it's probably the best bet at the moment for it's intended purpose so I do hope this is but the bluster of fools.

Some time ago, I made a rather lighthearted comment re looking for viable Buccanneer airframes. However, taking the above posts into account, it would be awfully tempting to mount a search for a set of drawings for the dear old Buc...

S
(despairing of the modern world...)

 

[Arjen]

LowObservable:

It's a decade-and-counting of rosy promises, and pooh-poohing and suppressing critics, followed by failure to execute, and late and reluctant disclosure of delays and overruns.

I think that sums it up nicely.
sferrin:

And I suppose you think cancelling the F-35 would get us a replacement that is better for less money and sooner? No?

Sooner? If an existing design is ordered, possibly. There's still considerable development to be done on the F-35.
Better? Throw enough money at another design, see what happens. It might be an aircraft more suited to customers' needs.
For less money? Much has already been spent, money that won't be returned.

Better for less money and sooner? All at the same time? Anyone ought to know better than that, and I don't see LowObservable claiming that.

Questions to ask: how much needs yet to be spent on the F-35? What else can be bought for that (still-to-be-determined) amount of money? So far, most, if not all, predictions by the manufacturer and its primary customer have been 'optimistic'. Looking at the manufacturer's and primary customer's track records, I'm not inclined to take any of their promises at face value.

 

[sferrin]

LowObservable:

It's a decade-and-counting of rosy promises, and pooh-poohing and suppressing critics, followed by failure to execute, and late and reluctant disclosure of delays and overruns.

I think that sums it up nicely.
sferrin:

And I suppose you think cancelling the F-35 would get us a replacement that is better for less money and sooner? No?

Sooner? If an existing design is ordered, possibly. There's still considerable development to be done on the F-35.
Better? Throw enough money at another design, see what happens. It might be an aircraft more suited to customers' needs.
For less money? Much has already been spent, money that won't be returned.

Better for less money and sooner? All at the same time? Anyone ought to know better than that, and I don't see LowObservable claiming that.

Then what is his point? If we wanted more of the same we'd have never started the F-35 program in the first place.

 

[Arjen]

Then what is his point?

You'd have to ask LowObservable. My point is this: F-35 is late and over-budget. Perhaps good money is being thrown after bad, and the whole project should be shelved: money might be better spent on other aircraft. Manufacturer and primary customer have been less than reliable sources of information, and politicians are asking questions. Rightly so.

 

[sferrin]

My point is this: F-35 is late and over-budget.

That's nothing new in defense procurement.

Perhaps good money is being thrown after bad, and the whole project should be shelved: money might be better spent on other aircraft.

The only way to advance the industry is to keep moving forward. You can't build P-51s forever just because they're cheaper.

Manufacturer and primary customer have been less than reliable sources of information, and politicians are asking questions. Rightly so.

Politicians should ask questions but I'd prefer they were politicians familiar with engineering, manufacturing, and war, not clueless lawyers looking for cheapshots for their latest soundbites.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Arjen]

My point is this: F-35 is late and over-budget.

That's nothing new in defense procurement.

The F-35 is setting new standards in that particular field. If I may add, so were LM in the 'optimism' field when they were 'predicting'.

The only way to advance the industry is to keep moving forward.

Moving forward without regard for timeliness *or* cost-effectiveness, in this case.

You can't build P-51s forever just because they're cheaper.

I'll be careful not to make that mistake. Shall we go for transglobal range, all-aspect stealth, railgun, lasers, VTOL, ±16G manoeuvering limits and a Nespresso in the cockpit then?

I'd prefer they were politicians familiar with engineering, manufacturing, and war, not clueless lawyers looking for cheapshots for their latest soundbites

I take it you've met the gentlemen.

 

[GTX]

Can we end this slanging match now folks? There is a lot of speculation and comments from people who are not in possession of any facts and therefore we will see no useful comment here but a lot of useless posting!

Regards,

Greg

 

[LowObservable]

Greg - I disagree vehemently.

A lot of people are in possession of very relevant facts. There are classified elements to F-35, as there are to many programs, but this is 2011, not 1981, and stealth is no longer magic.

And the belief that stealth is magic, and justifies any cost, and can't be remotely understood by the great unwashed, has got us in a boatload of trouble since 1985. How much has been spent on 20 bombers and 140 single-mission fighters, both with O&S and upgrade bills that are through the roof?

Sferrin - I agree that if we tried to reproduce the F-35 it would be unaffordable. The costs and compromises were baked into the requirements from Day 1. An aircraft that has a high level of stealth, plus competitive fighter flight performance and versatility, is going to be expensive, even before you decide that you need a STOVL jet that fits an LHA/LHD deck and elevators.

However, that nasty-tasting cake (to continue with the baking analogy) was covered over with the sweet frosting of optimistic, and indeed entirely fictitious, PowerPoints and projections. Today (1) nobody can afford to build and operate this jet as their total fighter force and (2) there are lots of aircraft that will do many of today's envisaged fighter missions (CAS, Day 2 strike, homeland defense) as well or better, for equal or less money.

Given the amount spent so far, it may be possible and reasonable to continue the F-35A as a 24/7 stealth strike aircraft for use against things such as mobile missiles and air defense systems. Meanwhile, there will be a need to upgrade (maybe with new production) older designs for the missions that they already do well. I agree that it is not optimal to be using early-1970s designs, but this is a direct consequence of the fact that the USAF pretty much stopped thinking independently about fighter design 17 years ago.

The F-35B should be terminated immediately, because its added military value in any conceivable joint-force scenario will never justify its acquisition and O&S. It should have been cut back to tech demonstration in 2004.

The F-35C could be continued as an adjunct development program, but not procured until LM can guarantee that it will provide better capability than an UltraBug for a commensurate increase in LCC.

 

[sferrin]

The F-35B should be terminated immediately, because its added military value in any conceivable joint-force scenario will never justify its acquisition and O&S. It should have been cut back to tech demonstration in 2004.

For a while the Harriers were the only aircraft available there in Libya (unless you wanted to tank a thousand miles just to get to the warzone). Simply hand-waving away a requirement doesn't fly. The USMC and DoD has stated a need for STOVL for the LHD/As. Saying "we should cancel the program because I deem it unnecessary" well, do you really think anybody is going to consider that a strong arguement?

Older designs are just that- older designs. Even against a near peer today they'd remain grounded until B-2s and F-22s took down the IADs and swept the skies of Flankers. Give it another 20 or 30 years (well inside the timeframe the F-35 will be the bulk of our fighter forces) and the proliferation of the T-50, J-20 (and likely it's single-engine F-35 analog little brother) will make the skies all the more dangerous for 4th gen aircraft. The Typhoon would end up using it's vaunted speed and manueverability dodging AAMs "from the blue" from the moment it entered the warzone until it was either shot down or ran out of gas. I can't help but question the motives of anybody who would say "let's build more old stuff, everything will be fine" when it's perfectly obvious why we shouldn't. Reminds me of the fighter mafia whining about the F-15 and F-22. Ask yourself why we still aren't flying around with cannon-armed day-fighters.

I predict once the F-35 has entered service and dispelled all the BS generated by certain individuals in the media the UK will find a reason to retire the Typhoon ASAP and go with an all F-35 force.

 

[Arjen]

I predict once the F-35 has entered service and dispelled all the BS generated by certain individuals in the media the UK will find a reason to retire the Typhoon ASAP and go with an all F-35 force.

That's one we'll just have to sit out.

As for there being no other Harrier replacement, I keep wondering if tying up the Harrier replacement in such an all-encompassing package was wise. The way it is now, the F-35B is the least secure of its future of the subtypes.

 

[LowObservable]

Arjen - The decision to roll the Harrier replacement into JSF was taken because it was portrayed as a freebie in terms of costs, complexity and scar weight - a portrayal that was wildly optimistic.

Sferrin - Seriously, if the situation today is as you describe it, we're already stuffed. To suppress modern defenses, the B-2 force is too limited in sortie generation and target coverage, and the F-22 can only bomb on coordinates and is a long way (and lots of money) from being able to do much else. So by your reasoning we won't be in any shape for an air war until 2018.

This bad thinking is an inevitable consequence of buying into the 5thGenerationTM nonsense - driven, as I pointed out to GTX, by the aura of magic around stealth.

An F-22, an F-15SG/K, a JSF and a Gripen all provide different mixes of capability. Some are stealthy, some are not. Some are more versatile than others, and some better at BVR and close-range air combat than others.

Even the F-22's survivability concept is not like that of a B-2, or like that of an F-35 - and if you don't realize this, it's not a matter of not having the right clearances, it's because you are not paying attention. An F-35 is as like an F-22 as an A-7 was like an F-4.

Lumping them together as 5thGenerationTM is and was a marketing gimmick and attempt to give the impression that the F-35 was a sort of discount-priced F-22 - and as such helped kill off the F-22 and reduce numbers to the point where upgrades are likely to be unaffordable. Nice job FW - the only air-combat kill we may ever see from JSF!

And if the Harriers were the only aircraft available for Libya the operation would not have been launched. And while there may be a need for STOVL aboard the LHA/LHD, if the solution is not practical or affordable we need to rewrite the requirement, this time with sanity mode selected.

I'm not going to respond to any discussion of anyone's motives, and I would like to see your apology to other board users for that irrelevant comment.

 

[Sundog]

L.O., I couldn't agree more. Maybe we can get some Su T-50's and and put our avionics and engines in them? Just kidding, but that is the route we should have gone for the F-35; something "semi-stealthy, but not to the point where it bankrupts the rest of your forces. We do need some all out stealth systems, but IMHO, they should be an F-111 class strike aircraft designed specifically for taking out SAMs and ground based RADAR and letting less stealthy systems handle the rest. Reportedly all of the services are crapping themselves over what the actual maintenance costs will be for the F-35. That's without them operating in a wartime theatre. How stealthy will they actually end up being in a full blown war? The F-35 isn't a bad plane, IMHO, it's just it was peddled as a low cost panacea plane, and it's anything but that.

 

[sferrin]

Arjen - The decision to roll the Harrier replacement into JSF was taken because it was portrayed as a freebie in terms of costs, complexity and scar weight - a portrayal that was wildly optimistic.

Sferrin - Seriously, if the situation today is as you describe it, we're already stuffed. To suppress modern defenses, the B-2 force is too limited in sortie generation and target coverage, and the F-22 can only bomb on coordinates and is a long way (and lots of money) from being able to do much else. So by your reasoning we won't be in any shape for an air war until 2018.

This bad thinking is an inevitable consequence of buying into the 5thGenerationTM nonsense - driven, as I pointed out to GTX, by the aura of magic around stealth.

An F-22, an F-15SG/K, a JSF and a Gripen all provide different mixes of capability. Some are stealthy, some are not. Some are more versatile than others, and some better at BVR and close-range air combat than others.

Even the F-22's survivability concept is not like that of a B-2, or like that of an F-35 - and if you don't realize this, it's not a matter of not having the right clearances, it's because you are not paying attention. An F-35 is as like an F-22 as an A-7 was like an F-4.

Lumping them together as 5thGenerationTM is and was a marketing gimmick and attempt to give the impression that the F-35 was a sort of discount-priced F-22 - and as such helped kill off the F-22 and reduce numbers to the point where upgrades are likely to be unaffordable. Nice job FW - the only air-combat kill we may ever see from JSF!

And if the Harriers were the only aircraft available for Libya the operation would not have been launched. And while there may be a need for STOVL aboard the LHA/LHD, if the solution is not practical or affordable we need to rewrite the requirement, this time with sanity mode selected.

I'm not going to respond to any discussion of anyone's motives, and I would like to see your apology to other board users for that irrelevant comment.

So boiled down you'd have us either cancel our only stealth aircraft in production or reduce it's numbers so much that we can't afford to buy them and cancel them anyway? This while Russia is moving forward with the T-50, China is moving forward with the J-20, and likely will introduce another stealth fighter in the next few years? And you think this is a *good* plan?

 

[seruriermarshal]

F-35 Flight Test Update 5

The previous installment of the F-35 Flight Test Update wrapped up with the F-35 program reaching 1,000 cumulative flight hours during an AF-1 and AF-4 formation flight at the US Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards AFB, California, on 8 March 2011. Since then, the program has completed more than 200 additional flights and, as of late June, had surpassed 1,400 flight hours and 1,000 total flights. Five F-35s have surpassed 100 total flights, and sixteen F-35s are flying at four locations, the newest of which is not a test facility, but is the 33rd Fighter Wing, the F-35 training center at Eglin AFB, Florida. A total of twenty-five pilots have flown the F-35, and twenty-one of them are currently flying the aircraft.

F-35A AF-1 expanded the flight envelope to Mach 1.53. F-35C CF-3 joined the test force at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. CF-2 began jet blast deflector testing at Lakehurst, New Jersey, in preparation for carrier trials. By mid-2011, the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing variant had logged ten times more vertical landings than in all of 2010. F-35B pilots have also performed more than 230 short takeoffs since arriving at NAS Patuxent River in late 2009.

15 March 2011
100th Short Takeoff
Lockheed Martin test pilot David Nelson was at the controls of F-35B BF-1 as the aircraft completed the 100th short takeoff for the F-35B fleet. The milestone occurred on Flight 102 for BF-1 from NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. The 1.3-hour flight included two short takeoffs, one slow landing, and one vertical landing.

17 March 2011
100 Flights For AF-2
US Air Force test pilot Maj. Scott McLaren was at the controls for Flight 100 of F-35A AF-2. The 1.3-hour flight from Edwards AFB, California, included 360-degree loaded rolls and positive-g maneuvers.

7 April 2011
First STOVL Mode For BF-4
US Marine Corps test pilot Lt. Col. Fred Schenk put F-35B BF-4 into STOVL mode for the first time on Flight 43. The flight took place at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland.

21 April 2011
100 Flights For BF-3
Lockheed Martin test pilot David Nelson was at the controls for Flight 100 of F-35B BF-3. The flight originated from NAS Patuxent River, Maryland.

22 April 2011
Edwards Adds A Pilot
US Air Force Maj. Steven Speares became the twentieth pilot to fly the F-35 when he took off from Edwards AFB, California, in F-35A AF-1 for a 1.6-hour test mission. The mission was Flight 122 for AF-1.

27 April 2011
BF-4 Completes First Vertical Landing
The fourth F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing jet, BF-4, descended to its first vertical landing at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, with Marine pilot Lt. Col. Fred Schenk at the controls. This was Flight 47 for BF-4.

Pax Adds A Pilot
Marine Maj. Richard Rusnok became the twenty-first pilot to fly the F-35 when he took off in F-35C CF-1 from NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, for a 1.5-hour test mission. The mission was Flight 55 for CF-1.

29 April 2011
CF-2 First Flight
Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti was at the controls for the first flight of F-35C CF-2 from NAS Fort Worth JRB, Texas.

BF-3 Completes First Vertical Landing
Lockheed Martin test pilot David Nelson was at the controls of BF-3 on Flight 102 as it became the fourth short takeoff/vertical landing F-35B to complete a vertical landing at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland.

6 May 2011
AF-8 First Flight
The third production model of the F-35 Lightning II, F-35A AF-8, completed its inaugural flight from NAS Fort Worth JRB, Texas, with Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti at the controls.

AF-7 Delivered To Edwards
Air Force Maj. Scott McLaren flew F-35A AF-7 on a three-hour ferry flight from NAS Fort Worth JRB, Texas, to Edwards AFB, California. The ferry marked Flight 7 for AF-7.

F-35 STOVL Mode Gear Up
Marine Lt. Col. Fred Schenk took the F-35B into STOVL mode with landing gear up for the first time. The test, which occurred on Flight 118 for the aircraft, was part of the envelope expansion for the F-35B.

10 May 2011
200th Short Takeoff
Lockheed Martin test pilot David Nelson was at the controls of F-35B BF-1 as the aircraft completed the 200th short takeoff for the F-35B fleet. The milestone occurred on Flight 121 for BF-1 from NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. The 1.2-hour flight included two short takeoffs, one slow landing, and one vertical landing.

12 May 2011
100th Vertical Landing
The F-35B fleet at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, completed 100 vertical landings as BAE test pilot Peter Wilson touched down in F-35B BF-1 on Flight 123 for the aircraft.

13 May 2011
AF-6 To Edwards
Air Force Lt. Col. Hank Griffiths was at the controls of F-35A AF-6 for a successful 3.6-hour ferry flight to Edwards AFB, California. AF-6 is the first production F-35 Lightning II. Griffiths is the director of the F-35 Integrated Test Force at Edwards.

AF-9 Makes First Flight
The fourth production model of the F-35 Lightning II, F-35A AF-9, completed its inaugural flight from NAS Fort Worth JRB, Texas, with Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti at the controls. AF-9 is one of the first two F-35A production aircraft that will be delivered later in 2011 to Eglin AFB, Florida, where it will be used for pilot and maintainer training.

16 May 2011
CF-2 Delivered To Pax
Marine Lt. Col. Matt Taylor landed F-35C CF-2 at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, for the first time. Taylor ferried the second F-35C on a 2.9-hour flight from Fort Worth, Texas. The ferry was Flight 6 for F-35C CF-2. The second F-35C joined five other F-35s operating at the test site.

21 May 2011
First F-35 Airshow Appearance
F-35C CF-2 successfully completed the first F-35 public flyby at the Joint Base Andrews NAF Washington Joint Services Open House airshow in Suitland, Maryland, during the opening ceremony. The appearance was Flight 7 for CF-2, which was piloted by Navy Lt. Cdr. Eric Buus.

CF-3 First Flight
Lockheed Martin test pilot Dan Canin was at the controls for the first flight of F-35C CF-3. The flight, from NAS Fort Worth JRB, Texas, lasted 0.7 hours. It was cut short due to weather.

25 May 2011
Most Flights In One Day
The F-35 program completed the most flights in one day with a combined total of ten flights at all three flight test locations.

Al Norman, the F-35 chief test pilot, completed his first F-35 flight. Norman flew F-35A AF-4 on a one-hour mission from Edwards AFB, California. The mission was Flight 31 for AF-4.

31 May 2011
AF-1 Reaches Mach 1.53
Lockheed Martin test pilot Jeff Knowles flew F-35A AF-1 to Mach 1.53, the fastest speed to date for the F-35 fleet. The milestone was achieved during a flutter test flown by Knowles from Edwards AFB, California.

2 June 2011
Edwards Adds Another Pilot
Vince Caterina, a US government test pilot, became the twenty-third pilot to fly the F-35 when he took off from Edwards AFB, California, in F-35A AF-2 for a 1.6-hour test mission. The test mission was Flight 128 for AF-2.

3 June 2011
CF-3 To Patuxent River
Lockheed Martin test pilot Dan Canin ferried F-35C CF-3 to NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, during a 2.9-hour flight from Fort Worth, Texas. The ferry was Flight 5 for CF-3. The aircraft joined six other F-35B/Cs being flown at the US Navy flight test center.

13 June 2011
Pax Adds A Test Pilot
Navy Lt. Chris Tabert became the twenty-fourth pilot to fly the F-35 when he flew F-35B BF-3 on a 1.1-hour mission from NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. The mission was Flight 115 for BF-3.

20 June 2011
1,000th F-35 Flight
Air Force Lt. Col. Leonard Kearl was at the controls for the 1,000th F-35 flight. The 1.8-hour flight, completed in F-35A AF-6, originated from Edwards AFB, California.

25 June 2011
CF-2 To Lakehurst
Navy Lt. Cdr. Eric Buus ferried F-35C CF-2 to the Naval Air Engineering Station at Lakehurst, New Jersey, where the aircraft will undergo jet blast deflector ground testing. Jet blast deflector testing ensures the aircraft is compatible with jet blast deflectors installed on US aircraft carriers.

 

[seruriermarshal]

First F-35 arrives at Eglin Air Force Base

"EGLIN AFB — The first F-35 landed Thursday to applause and cheers at the 33rd Fighter Wing.

The first production model of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter arrived at Eglin Air Force Base at about 1:15 p.m. from Lockheed Martin’s production facility in Fort Worth, Texas.

“This is an extremely exciting day for us. We’ve been waiting two years for this day,” said Col. Andrew Toth, 33rd Wing Commander, as he waited for the Joint Strike Fighter to arrive. “Having it here is just outstanding. There are a lot of smiles out here today.”

The jet is the first of 59 set to arrive at the base. Five other F-35s are expected to be delivered to Eglin Air Force Base by the end of the year.

Toth said maintenance training on the fighter jet will begin immediately and flight training is projected to begin this fall. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps personnel will all be training to fly the plane.

“Over the next couple years we will be able to conduct a fully integrated program,” he said. “It will be the first of its kind.”

Lockheed Martin Delivers First F-35 Production Jet For Training To Eglin AFB

"EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla, July 14th, 2011 -- The first Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] production model F-35 Lightning II to be assigned to the 33rd Fighter Wing arrived here today at 1:18 p.m. CDT after its more than 90-minute ferry flight from Fort Worth, Texas. The aircraft, known as AF-9, will be used for activities in concert with training F-35 pilots and maintainers who begin coursework at the base’s new F-35 Integrated Training Center this fall.

AF-9 is a conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) version of the 5th generation stealth fighter. Overall, the jet is the third production-model F-35 delivered to the U.S. Air Force, with the first two assigned to Edwards AFB, Calif.

“We’re incredibly proud of our government/industry team whose steadfast dedication to this program led to the successful delivery of AF-9 today,” said Larry Lawson, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager. “The exceptional capabilities of this 5th generation fighter are now in the very capable hands of the men and women of the 33rd Fighter Wing who are ushering in a new era of F-35 training. We look forward to delivering our full complement of F-35s to the Emerald Coast in the months and years ahead.”

AF-9 is the first aircraft delivered from Low Rate Initial Production lot two and the seventh F-35 delivered in program history to the Air Force. Over the lifetime of the program, a total of 59 F-35s will compose the fighter fleet at Eglin AFB.

The F-35A CTOL variant – designed to meet U.S. Air Force requirements – is also the primary export version of the Lightning II. The air forces of Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway and Israel will employ the F-35A. To date, the F-35 program has accomplished more than 925 flights since late 2006.

The F-35 Lightning II is a 5th generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 with its principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems.

Located at Eglin AFB, the fully-integrated F-35 pilot-and-maintenance training center includes pilot and maintenance training equipment, support, systems and facilities for all three aircraft variants. The center will be home to a full spectrum of the latest courseware, electronic classrooms, simulators and flight events ensuring superior training for the next generation of pilots and maintainers...."

 

[seruriermarshal]

F-35A AF-13 First Flight

Posted 15 July 2011

Photo by Carl RichardsLockheed Martin test pilot Dan Canin flew the eighth production model of the F-35 Lightning II, F-35A AF-13 (Air Force serial number 08-0751), on its inaugural flight on 14 July 2011 from NAS Fort Worth JRB.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/news_item.html?item_id=406

F-35B BF-5 To Pax River

Posted 16 July 2011

Photo by Carl RichardsF-35B BF-5 was ferried to NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, on 16 July 2011. The aircraft joins seven other F-35B/C models now being operated at the US Navy’s flight test center. BF-5 is the final test flight aircraft delivered for the F-35 program.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/news_item.html?item_id=412

And I hear F-35 A AF-11 go to Eglin as well .

 

[sferrin]

Thanks much! Last thing we need is this site to become another soapbox for certain individuals.

 

[LowObservable]

SM - Can we headline all those as "Awesomely Fantastic News As JSF Does Not Slip Further Behind Schedule"?

Sheesh, Sferrin - This started as a "Why is McCain using the C-word?" and I tried to answer that question. You disagreed, GTX tried to shut the whole thing down with the "it's all classified, nobody has real information" nonsense and the debate was on. So if you can't get with that please quit talking about individuals and soapboxes and motivations.

Anyway, I thought it was only APA who expected T-50s and J-20s in large numbers before 2025.

If the Chinese and Russians were to have scrapped all their new or derivative developments in 1995 they would be in as big of a hole as us - and J-20 and T-50 numbers and missions, and how they will coexist with Su-34s, Su-35s and J-10s remain to be determined. Fact is, they're in the happy position where they can build as many stealthy aircraft as they can afford or as they need, while filling out the force with very capable aircraft.

And the Chinese are not going to build 200 J-20s a year. The Russians are not going to build 200 T-50s a year. And we are not going to build 200 JSFs a year, but we're not going to build anything else either.

And if we are talking China, the F-35A/B are pretty much irrelevant and the C is tied to the carrier/ASBM question, while the LRS systems that we need are being pushed far into the future so that the Marines can have their 3,000 lb/450-mile, F-4-sized, F-22-budget puffer jets. Great plan!

 

[sublight]

Thanks much! Last thing we need is this site to become another soapbox for certain individuals.

Does that mean nobody should be allowed to have a negative opinion of the program? That doesn't sound very reasonable. The monster budget cuts have barely begun and ya'll have gone all "lord of the flies". What will you do when it gets really hairy?

 

[GTX]

GTX tried to shut the whole thing down with the "it's all classified, nobody has real information" nonsense

Excuse me? All I tried to do was avoid this turning into another flame war with opinions being thrown around without any facts being substantiated and thus having the entire thread locked down - which is exactly where we are heading! Where exactly did I use the word "classified" in my post??? I will stand by my comment regarding "a lot of speculation and comments [without] possession of any facts" - Nothing is convincing me otherwise since I made that comment. If you have substantiated facts without any spin or bias, then post them by all means.

That said though, unless I am mistaken, this thread and indeed forum is not supposed to be the debating floor of the HASC or US Congress or any other body that is actually responsible for the future of the F-35 program. Post factual information on the platform/program by all means but let's not argue over whether or not the platform is a good one or if the program is running well. There are other places for that.

Regards,

Greg

 

[LowObservable]

GTX -

This started with a reasonable question - what's the meaning of the "cancellation" language out of the Senate.

My response was that the Senators involved are probably tired of being told things that turned out to be untrue.

If you think it would be better to document the history of such statements I will do so.

However, just because I'm drawing some topline conclusions here does not mean that I don't have facts and data.

 

[Arjen]

*

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

There is no reason to get personal or accuse other forum members of being part of some anti Lockheed conspiracy. Questioning, doubting, and public scrutiny are the stock tools in trade of journalists, to try to keep politicians and industry honest and accountable.

Behave better, or face bans.

 

[GTX]

This started with a reasonable question - what's the meaning of the "cancellation" language out of the Senate.

Actually, I cannot see that question raised anywhere - perhaps you can point it out?

However, just because I'm drawing some topline conclusions here does not mean that I don't have facts and data.

Well show the facts - without the emotional spin!

Greg

 

[Triton]

From Defense Tech:

2011 PARIS AIR SHOW — I thought I’d share the breifing slides from Lockheed’s presentation yesterday on the progress of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. It’s pretty standard stuff but it gives a good view of how much progress has been made –especially with the F-35B STOVL-model — sincelast year when the entire program seemed to be teetering on the brink of.…something. Among the interesting highlights shown is that the program is set to deliver 50 jets to the JSF schoolhouse at Eglin AFB in Florida by the end of next year. Deputy JSF program manager Maj. Gen. C.D. Moore said during the breifing that he’s hoping for very first production model F-35s to arrive at Eglin in a matter of days. Among the other intersting snippets of infor from these slides are pictures of Russsia’s Sukhoi PAK FA stealth fighter and what looks like and S-300 surface-to-air missile launcher under a caption that reads “Counters Current and Future Threats.” This may have been a subtle message to those who say the F-35 may not be a match for the new crop of stealth fighters being developed by countries like Russia, India and China. Or, maybe I’m reading too much into the slides.

Source:
http://defensetech.org/2011/06/22/lockmarts-f-35-breifing-slides-from-paris/

Briefing:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/58444309/01-Par-is-Brief-062011-Final

 

[Triton]

This started with a reasonable question - what's the meaning of the "cancellation" language out of the Senate.

Actually, I cannot see that question raised anywhere - perhaps you can point it out?

This tempest was unleashed by the following article snippet posted by bobbymike from the Inside Defense Newstand web site:

Senators Ask Panetta for Estimate To Terminate JSF

DefenseAlert, July 14, 2011 -- The two leading members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have formally requested an estimate of the cost of terminating the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, according to a letter addressed to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta today.
---------------------------------

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,537.msg130557.html#msg130557
http://defensenewsstand.com/Inside-Defense-Daily-News/Defense-Alert/menu-id-402.html

 

[GTX]

This tempest was unleashed by the following article snippet posted by bobbymike from the Inside Defense Newstand web site:

Thanks - I realise that was the trigger for this latest round. However, what I was trying to point out was the supposed question was not actually asked.

Regards,

Greg

 

[Abraham Gubler]

And if we are talking China, the F-35A/B are pretty much irrelevant and the C is tied to the carrier/ASBM question,

How on earth can the F-35A/B not be relevant to a war with China? Does the Korean peninsula, Japanese islands, Ryukyu islands, Taiwan, Indo-China, the Philippine islands, Borneo, Malaya peninsula, Indian sub-continent, etc all not exist in the globe used in anti-JSF modelling? If you really wanted to you could even strike mainland China from Guam with the F-35A using multiple IFRs.

As to the “carrier/ASBM question” that would be the one where China is starting to test an anti ship system ‘today’ that the USN has had a countermeasure in service for almost ten years (AEGIS BMD) and a mass use terminal phase interceptor available based on in production technology just waiting for a need based go ahead for deployment. The last point being of course Sea Based MSE or in simpler terminology the Mk 41 VLS canister configured variant of the improved version of the PAC-3 interceptor that an Arleigh Burke class destroyer could ship 384 units of. And people are worried about ballistic anti ship missiles?

Be the same people who must ignore that any act of war between China and the USA would result in the overnight loss of almost all Chinese foreign cash reserves (trillions $$$) invested in the USA via asset freezing. An enormous blow to China’s economic position even without the impact of the loss of almost all of their international trade. Then of course they would be hit by the unparalleled conventional strike capability of the US forces (including F-35s). Only in the airpower Dungeons & Dragons practised by the likes of Air Power Australia does this not result in massive, crippling damage to Chinese military capability.

 

[SOC]

Only in the airpower Dungeons & Dragons practised by the likes of Air Power Australia does this not result in massive, crippling damage to Chinese military capability.

How is this any different from:

1) relying on something not yet fielded (ship-borne PAC-3)

2) assuming that you can base aircraft wherever you feel like it

3) assuming that every base will be protected by ATBMs capable of intercepting 100% of inbound warheads (China has craploads of TBMs for a reason)

4) assuming that a modern IADS with sensors capable of and designed to harass VLO platforms will be completely ineffective (as in something we've never even seen anything remotely like in combat before)

5) assuming that the ASBM system will have an effectiveness of 0%

and 6) assuming that the amount of US debt China holds will have absolutely no bearing on the US economy?

And this all assumes that the only things moving about the battlespace are US CVBGs and F-35s, and Chinese TBMs.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Methinks you assume too much about assumptions.

1) relying on something not yet fielded (ship-borne PAC-3)

So the Chinese are allowed to theoretically sweep the seas of carriers with a weapon complex not yet fielded but the USA is not allowed to add a weapon used in one system to another system? Since terminal defence for AEGIS BMD relies ENTIRELY on proven systems that given the benefit of the doubt (ie they will perform as well as they do in their current forms) will more than countermatch the ABSM what freaking planet do you have to be on to assume that it is an un reasonable leap of faith to assume that it will work?

2) assuming that you can base aircraft wherever you feel like it

Surely one can assume that the USA and allies can base their aircraft in the future where they are currently based today? Or does the “F-35A/B no impact” scenario rely on a time-space displacement of Kadena AFB, et al into an alternate dimension?

I never suggested that the USA and allies would be able to base aircraft ‘anywhere’ but rather there are a huge range of geographic options available to enable land absed tacair to enter the fight. Assuming they will have no role in such a war is totally crazy since said war is almost entirely likely to be caused by a border conflict within the areas previously mentioned.

3) assuming that every base will be protected by ATBMs capable of intercepting 100% of inbound warheads (China has craploads of TBMs for a reason)

TBMs used en masse do not exactly have a track record of denying air bases to their enemies. The scenario that China can close down airbases with their missiles is THE assumption. I very much doubt they can achieve that in the face of a range of airbase defence methods, of which BMD is only one.

4) assuming that a modern IADS with sensors capable of and designed to harass VLO platforms will be completely ineffective (as in something we've never even seen anything remotely like in combat before)

LOL. So stealth doesn’t work?

5) assuming that the ASBM system will have an effectiveness of 0%

Not quite 0%, but maybe 0.5%... LOL. Seriously no one made this assumption. Rather that the field is in play and all reasonable indications point to a very long way for the red team to go before they are competitive. Ballistic missiles are hardly a subtle means of attack nor are they immune to a range of countermeasures. The 'Missile Command Syndrome' shoe is on the other foot as it is the USN that has the capacity to more easily build and field countermeasures than the threat has to build and field attacks.

and 6) assuming that the amount of US debt China holds will have absolutely no bearing on the US economy?

Well really they don’t. That the USG issues bonds has more to do with the overspend of the USG rather than any underperformance of the US economy. That China can buy companies in the US is a product of open international markets. What China can do with all this investment is one of two things: strengthen the US economy or strengthen the US economy. If they were to sell they would sell at a loss. If they were to go to war with the US they would lose it all. That they invest so much in the US is clearly an indication they want to live peacefully and in harmony for as long as possible with the US or that they have a rampart ego that will see them wash their future down the drain. Either, though preferably the former, is fine with me.

And this all assumes that the only things moving about the battlespace are US CVBGs and F-35s, and Chinese TBMs.

Arhh no. the debate was about the contribution these systems could make rather than anything else.

Allocating assumptions to someone else has to be the worst assumption anyone can make.

 

[LowObservable]

AG - The Navy/MDA take ASBM very seriously. One reason is that it may not be a purely ballistic threat since it needs some maneuver to engage a moving target. Another is that it is a weapon that can win the battle with one hit, and without even having to sink the carrier - simply damaging the deck enough to require shore repairs to continue operations.

So the defense has to be very effective and robust against countermeasures, and score pretty much 100 per cent against, say, a 10-missile attack. And 10 ASBMs per deployed CSG is not that big of an investment for PLA, given their low life-cycle costs.

As for TacAir in an air-sea battle context, geography is against you. There are few bases that are not at the extreme of TacAir range, so your adversary's missileers can concentrate fire. Yes, you can use tankers, but providing them with some kind of defense over blue water is not the easiest thing to do. Just as well that the Chinese aren't working on a big, stealthy long range fighter!

The F-35, meanwhile, does not have outstanding range in fighter terms. The F-35A and F-35C have large internal fuel fraction, but are currently not funded for any external fuel, and even if that changes, 2 x 425 USG is not a lot in relation to their size. The B has an F-16/Typhoon-like internal fraction. So they are not going to have the legs of a Su-27/3X or an F-15E/SG/K, or a Rafale for that matter.

 

[sferrin]

AG - The Navy/MDA take ASBM very seriously. One reason is that it may not be a purely ballistic threat since it needs some maneuver to engage a moving target. Another is that it is a weapon that can win the battle with one hit, and without even having to sink the carrier - simply damaging the deck enough to require shore repairs to continue operations.

That would seem to support the idea of having F-35Bs on amphibious assault ships instead of relying soley on the CVN.

So the defense has to be very effective and robust against countermeasures, and score pretty much 100 per cent against, say, a 10-missile attack. And 10 ASBMs per deployed CSG is not that big of an investment for PLA, given their low life-cycle costs.

There is still the issue of targeting, nor is it a given that one hit will put a CVN out of action.

The F-35A and F-35C have large internal fuel fraction, but are currently not funded for any external fuel, and even if that changes, 2 x 425 USG is not a lot in relation to their size. The B has an F-16/Typhoon-like internal fraction. So they are not going to have the legs of a Su-27/3X or an F-15E/SG/K, or a Rafale for that matter.

Lack of stealth makes these guys pretty much irrelevant, not to mention the fact that most of them aren't carrier capable anyway. I noticed you left the Hornet off your list when discussing range as well.[/quote][/quote]

 

[LowObservable]

F-35B? With six jets per LHA/LHD, it's not much of a backup - particularly since you have lost your EA and AEW, and that doesn't change even if you push all the helos overboard and add more JSFs.

It is not a given that one hit will put a CVN out of action. It is a risk, and one that the Navy/MDA take seriously.