The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[jsport]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10652020
43miles
for the time or ... challenged..
if this is now combined w/ where pixelation etc. goes the 2010 Falcon test maybe only be the beginning.

 

[sferrin]

TT - I was talking (as I think Sferrin was) about EOTS versus IRST.

Yep. Any idea what the rez of the sensor in Pirate is?

 

[LowObservable]

The FOV of the DAS sensors is known. The pixel count can't be made greater without either a bigger FPA, optics and aperture, or smaller pixels, which is running up against an edge-diffraction limit.

So the result is that nobody knows how to make a higher-rez DAS sensor, and that limits its effectiveness.

 

[LowObservable]

"Any idea what the rez of the sensor in Pirate is?"

Not off the top of my head. But it's not an FPA, it's an opto-mechanical scan, so it is not the same thing.

 

[jsport]

The FOV of the DAS sensors is known. The pixel count can't be made greater without either a bigger FPA, optics and aperture, or smaller pixels, which is running up against an edge-diffraction limit.

So the result is that nobody knows how to make a higher-rez DAS sensor, and that limits its effectiveness.

What is limited effectiveness Mr. Sec Def. ? If they are ineffective what is their point? Less and less photonic light is required for ever more discrete and smaller pixel processing systems. Multiple DAS are cued in collaboration and single ones have detected and imaged at 1300miles. What does FOV have to do w/ this? You said cell phone resolution. This has become a lark throwing contest.

 

[GTX]

The Dutch government seems to be willing to swallow anything stated by the US government.

And yet the Dutch seem to be one of the shakiest of the partner nations. :


I must admit that I could easily understand if some of the smaller European nations decided to go without new or even existing combat aircraft given the urgent financial crisis and arguable lack of need of any combat platforms.


Though I will also say this: if they were to back out of the F-35 program then fine. Their industry though should also immediately loose all rights to do any F-35 related work including existing contracts! I think you will find that then that is starkly pointed out to those involved, they might well baulk at it...especially in these some difficult financial times. I am sure companies such as Fokker Technologies will also be more then willing to advise them of the impact.

 

[Arjen]

And yet the Dutch seem to be one of the shakiest of the partner nations. :

That should give you food for thought. The Dutch have been level 2 partners in the F-35 project for about ten years, and now there is a parliamentary majority to quit the project. Not for the first time. In the past ten years, elections have been held, political parties that stated beforehand they were against continuing with the project, changed their mind after the elections when they were offered a seat in the government. People keep voting for parties that oppose the project.

I must admit that I could easily understand if some of the smaller European nations decided to go without new or even existing combat aircraft given the urgent financial crisis and arguable lack of need of any combat platforms.

That's not an option in the Netherlands. F-16s will be replaced by more modern aircraft, there is a parliamentary majority for that too.

Though I will also say this: if they were to back out of the F-35 program then fine. Their industry though should also immediately loose all rights to do any F-35 related work including existing contracts!

That is exactly what would happen if the Dutch should withdraw from the project, the Dutch are well aware of that. Opposition to the project stems from uncertainty about how much the aircraft are going to cost, both in acquisition and in use. There is a finite amount of money reserved for F-16 replacements, both acquisition and use, over the years the number of aircraft to be bought has dropped from as high as 85 to as low as 35. That has people worrying if a useful number of aircraft remains. Raise the amount of money to be spent on aircraft, navy and army get cut back. Tanks are already out. How many frigates does the navy need?

I think you will find that then that is starkly pointed out to those involved, they might well baulk at it...especially in these some difficult financial times. I am sure companies such as Fokker Technologies will also be more then willing to advise them of the impact.

Some notable Dutch politicians have been lobbying for Stork-Fokker for years without being very public about it. Any aircraft eventually ordered will be accompanied by compensation orders offset agreements. No compensation orders offset agreements on offer, no aircraft bought.

 

[LowObservable]

DAS has a detection/track of a Falcon 9 at 800 miles. (Not "imaging".)

With an RPA, whether in your camera, your cellphone, or DAS, each element of the array sees one part of the FOV. The bigger the FOV, the larger the area seen by one element (pixel) at a given distance.

"Less and less photonic light is required for ever more discrete and smaller pixel processing systems." Whatever that means. However, note that trends in visible-spectrum sensors don't necessarily apply in MWIR.

GTX - The "withdrawal of workshare" argument becomes steadily less persuasive as (1) governments find themselves propping up partner companies that invested money based on predicted production rates that have not materialized and (2) as FMS Johnny-come-latelies demand, and get, guaranteed offset packages that are more valuable than the "best value" table scraps assigned to the partners.

 

[jsport]

DAS has a detection/track of a Falcon 9 at 800 miles. (Not "imaging".)

That was a pretty clear and targetable image especially for automated targeting for missile defense.
The BBC vid shows pretty clear motel windows at 43miles.

With an RPA, whether in your camera, your cellphone, or DAS, each element of the array sees one part of the FOV. The bigger the FOV, the larger the area seen by one element (pixel) at a given distance.

DARPA's flat optics et al. advances could see larger and larger flat lenses mounted in front of ever more compact pixel processing elements drastically improving FOV of single DAS sensor. One can be sure there is DAS evolution plan. If DAS is so bad why is there now a program for helicopters ?www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/adas/
Eventually small and smaller UAS will likely mount them.

"Less and less photonic light is required for ever more discrete and smaller pixel processing systems." Whatever that means. However, note that trends in visible-spectrum sensors don't necessarily apply in MWIR.

the opposite is more likely. Sensing technology demands will move beyond just visual, conventional SWIR, MWIR into hundreds of bands of reflected IR light ie Hyperspectral.

 

[Arjen]

Erm... what opposite is more likely? Redo from start.

 

[LowObservable]

DAS actually can make some sense for helicopters, because the very-short-range tactical picture is important.

And we're not talking about blue-sky lab technology that might or might not come out of DARPA, but about what's supposed to be a key element of the biggest defense program today.

 

[BAROBA]

Stork-Fokker for years without being very public about it. Any aircraft eventually ordered will be accompanied by compensation orders. No compensation orders on offer, no aircraft bought.

By the opponents known as the ' Joint Stork Fighter', because of the heavy lobbying by Stork

Belgium on the other hand is considering replacing their F-16's by new c-130's....

 

[GTX]

(2) as FMS Johnny-come-latelies demand, and get, guaranteed offset packages that are more valuable than the "best value" table scraps assigned to the partners.

That is actually not as much as the reporting would have you think. For instance, the reporting of how much work Israel would be getting was nothing more then garbage.

 

[Arjen]

From Aviation Week:

U.S., Lockheed Reach Deal On Israeli F-35s
By Andrea Shalal-Esa/Reuters

The Pentagon has reached an agreement with Lockheed Martin Corp on a $450 million program to enhance electronic warfare equipment on the F-35 fighter jet, and integrate Israeli-unique systems beginning in 2016, according to sources familiar with the negotiations.
The deal, to be finalized in coming weeks, marks a big step forward for Israel’s $2.75 billion agreement to buy 19 F-35 jets, which was signed in October 2010 and includes options for up to 75 of the radar-evading fighters.
The Pentagon said the Israeli foreign arms sale could be worth up to $15.2 billion if all options are exercised, when it first approved the sale in September 2008.
“This agreement kicks off the Israeli program,” said one of the sources, who was not authorized to speak on the record. “Now all of the agreements are in place.”
The F-35 will allow for even greater collaboration in the coming years with Israel, a critical strategic ally for the United States at a time when much of the Middle East is in turmoil.
The deal comes as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta prepares to visit Israel next week where he will discuss heightened tensions with Iran, which on Thursday underscored its support for Syria despite its brutal crackdown on a 16-month uprising.
It also provides a vote of confidence in the embattled F-35 program, whose cost and technology challenges have overshadowed a year of progress in flight testing.
The deal will allow increased participation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program by Israeli companies, including Elbit Systems Ltd and state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries, which will start building wings for the radar-evading warplane.
IAI already builds wings for the F-16 fighter jet, the world’s most widely used fighter, also built by Lockheed. Elbit, in a joint venture with Rockwell Collins, makes the advanced helmet used by pilots on the single-seat F-35.
Agreement on development of the new Israeli version of the F-35 will allow Israel to install its own radio and datalink systems, as well as other equipment, on the jets it is buying.
But the deal also covers enhancements to the airplane’s electronic warfare capabilities that will benefit the United States, Israel and the other nine countries that either have already ordered fighter planes, or plan to in coming years.
The radar-evading, multirole F-35 is the Pentagon’s costliest arms purchase, expected to top $396 billion for 2,443 aircraft in three models through the mid-2030s.
Lockheed and its subcontractors are building the stealthy warplane for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps along with Britain and seven other co-development partners -- Italy, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands.
In addition to Israel, Japan also has a signed agreement to buy the F-35, which was designed to replace a range of fighter, strike and ground-attack aircraft, including the F-16.
The Defense Department this year postponed production of 179 F-35s until after 2017, stretching development and testing in an effort to curb costly retrofits and save money. The latest restructuring, the third such major revamp, added 33 months and $7.9 billion to the development plan.
Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon’s No. 1 supplier by sales, is developing the F-35 with Northrop Grumman Corp and Britain’s BAE Systems PLC. Britain initially invested $2 billion in the F-35’s development, the most of any of the eight partner nations.
Work on the electronic warfare enhancements will be done largely by BAE Systems, the sources said.

 

[GTX]

Some notable Dutch politicians have been lobbying for Stork-Fokker for years without being very public about it. Any aircraft eventually ordered will be accompanied by compensation orders. No compensation orders on offer, no aircraft bought.

What exactly do you mean by "Compensation Orders"? Are you referring to something akin to "Offsets"?

 

[Arjen]

I think that's what I meant. English is a foreign language to me, sometimes literal translations are fine. In this case, it wasn't. Live and learn.

Compensation and restitution orders: definitely not what I intended to say. Offsets it is.

 

[BAROBA]

Industrial compensations or Offsets is what Arjen ment. A very common practice, borderline corruption sometimes.
Belgium has had its fair share of scandals involving military equipment that was way overpriced..

 

[Arjen]

Industrial compensations or Offsets is what Arjen ment. A very common practice, borderline corruption sometimes.
Belgium has had its fair share of scandals involving military equipment that was way overpriced..

It means more money spent; the advantage should be jobs and experience gained. The advantage sometimes gets lost in the process.

 

[GTX]

That's what I thought you meant but I thought that I had better clarify first.


I am not a big fan of offsets regardless of what form they take or what they are called. Typically they only provide short term work for those involved rather then the long term opportunities they are hoped to aid. The problem usually lies when governments think their job is done once the offset work is done. However, to be of any real use, there needs to be a sustainable, ongoing source of work - something no offset program will accomplish unless there is also a long term plan associated with it. That said however, many in industry, especially small players still cry for offsets because it is easy work for them to win. I am actually a bigger fan of programs such as the Australian Global Supply Chain (GSC) program since that is designed to help companies involved properly enter the global supply chains of the large primes (Boeing, Lockheed Martin etc...) on a permanent basis and in fact is not tied to Australia ordering platforms or systems at all. This in my view is much, much more conducive to providing a long term sustainable opportunity for work.

The whole area of offsets is also one area where the F-35 program is different and where many people get confused. Under the F-35 there are no offsets! The partner nations have each contributed to develop the F-35 and indeed the politicians in each country will argue that this guarantees work share. However, in reality all that the participation buys is the opportunity to bid on work (at least from the industrial participation aspect - participation does also 'buy' the partners the ability to fully understand and also influence the design). Work still has to be won on a best value basis and like it or not but best value often (not always) translates into best price! The theory behind this is that the overall best end result (in terms of price, capability, quality and risk) is achieved - for example, no longer will a better performing non-US company be prevented from winning work just because they are not in the USA.

Of course the ability of partner nation companies to win work is influenced by many things, one of which is the willingness of their own Government to support them. In some cases, this support is minor in others it is much more overt (including, I hate to say subsidising them- however, IMHO, if this is the only way these companies can win work then maybe they shouldn't really be trying to play the 'global game'.). Another is the ability of the companies to step up to the quality and price challenges (not always easy given exchange rate pressures) not to mention the ability of companies to play the ITAR game. In all, if a company is truly world class and is offering a product or service that is needed then they will be able to win work regardless. All that F-35 participation is doing in this case is 'opening the door' for them.


That said, any company or country that thinks the F-35 program alone will support them is sadly misguided. Yes, it provides good opportunities (after all, it is going to be the biggest game in town in the aerospace world for a number of years to come). But companies cannot rely on it for their sole source of income. They need to diversify and have multiple revenue streams. That is just 'Business 101'! The F-35 program, nor the primes involved (LM, BAE, NG, P&W etc) can not be held accountable for companies or governments that fail to understand this basic aspect and thus suffer from delays in orders as the program is forced to move.

 

[Arjen]

At the moment, the Netherlands have spent in the order of a billion euros on the F-35. This was done with two aims: gaining a percentage of future f-35-sales, and being able to buy F-35s as F-16-replacements at a favourable rate. Over the years, I have lost sight on which of the two was the more important.

As it turned out, the investment has led to less F-35-related work than was expected. This was due in part to protracted development, later and slower ramp-up of production. Also, in my opinion, due to unrealistic forecasts by industry, both in the USA and the Netherlands - and, just as important, unrealistic forecasts from government officials, both US and Dutch. Unforseen circumstances can be claimed up to a point. There have been so many of those, however, that I feel obliged to quote Urban Dictionary:

1.	unforseen consequences
		A supposedly "intelligent" excuse given in business and legal affairs that translates to "we didn't do our homework and check up on what could happen, so your money is gone, have a nice day."

Purely as an economical project, to the Dutch it does not look as attractive now as it looked ten years ago. Except, of course, so the Dutch are led to believe by its lobbyists, to Stork-Fokker.
From a military point of view, it is eating away at other projects, the F-16s have to be kept serviceable for much longer, less can be bought now than was promised earlier, F-35s are going to cost more in use. The F-35 is already very late. If any, there will be less in Dutch service than was expected ten years ago. Those in service will cost rather more to operate than promised ten years ago. What the future holds: scarce, high-value assets in a high-risk environment.

 

[GTX]

F-35s are going to cost more in use...Those in service will cost rather more to operate than promised ten years ago.

What exactly do you base these comments upon?


As for the rest, without knowing exactly what the official expectations going in were at the start it is somewhat difficult to assess whether or not these were unrealistic ...it does sound a bit like they may have been though. As I said above, there are no guarantees wrt work share on the F-35...

 

[Arjen]

Bill Sweetman on Ares :

Finally, all the kerfuffle around the $1.5 trillion program life-cycle obscures the central component of that calculation, which is cost per flying hour. Although the basis of the numbers has been changed, the SAR still compares the F-35A with the F-16, and shows that the estimated CPFH for the F-35A has gone from 1.22 F-16s in the 2010 SAR to 1.42 today – versus 0.8 F-16s, which was being claimed a few years ago. Where is that operations and support money going to come from?

 

[GTX]

Please!!! Can you point to a single case where that individual has said anything positive about the F-35??? It is obvious that he is anti F-35 so I don't really lend much credence to his reporting...nor do those air forces intending to operate the F-35 I can assure you! You might as well be quoting Carlo Kopp or Peter Goon!


Given the F-35 is only just starting to enter limited service and that training operations are just beginning to commence, the sustainment and operational costs are not truly known by anyone...let alone individuals such as those mentioned above!!! Yes, LM P&W and others involved have estimates but even they will not commit that those estimates are 100% firm. Nor can they, since there are so many variables involved in determine these costs including importantly, the way individual air forces intend to operate their fleets, what they will do and won't do in-country and the like. In fact the whole sustainment solution is something that is still under intense scrutiny with there still being no definitive answer for the long term.


Therefore, any attempt to say one way or another what the operating costs are inherently flawed...as is any attempt to use it as a basis for discrediting the F-35.

 

[Arjen]

Please!!! Can you point to a single case where that individual has said anything positive about the F-35??? It is obvious that he is anti F-35 so I don't really lend much credence to his reporting...nor do those air forces intending to operate the F-35 I can assure you! You might as well be quoting Carlo Kopp or Peter Goon!

I'm quite willing to start digging for the SAR Mr Sweetman is referring to. I recall seeing a pdf somewhere, then downloading it. Haven't got it with me now.

 

[GTX]

I'm quite willing to start digging for the SAR Mr Sweetman is referring to. I recall seeing a pdf somewhere, then downloading it. Haven't got it with me now.

Go for it!

 

[Arjen]

From 2010 SAR at fas.org, page 53:

Total Unitized Cost (Base Year 2002 $) 16.425 13.466

From 2011 SAR at dod.mil, page 84:

Total Unitized Cost (Base Year 2012 $) 31.923 22.470

I hope you''ll excuse my brevity, I'm doing this in my coffee break. In both cases the first figure is F-35's projected Operating and Support Cost, the second the F-16's figure. Costs per aircraft, per flying hour.

 

[GTX]

Well that just justified what I wrote in Reply#1296 above! Please see Pg 6 of the 2011 document listed above, specifically:

Sustainment costs continue to be a significant area of focus. The Department is undertaking proactive management of the sustainment effort so that we have a clear understanding of life cycle Operations and Support (O&S) costs. The program is in the midst of a two-year “should cost” effort on the O&S cost. This effort will continue through 2012.

Over the next 12 months, the program will complete an F-35 Business Case Analysis (BCA) and the results from the BCA will assist the Program Executive Officer in refining the current F-35 support strategy. The BCA will also identify the best mix of existing Service/Partner Organic capabilities with that of the Industry team to develop the optimum long term best value F-35 support solution. The Services, working in concert with the program office, will continue to analyze options outside of the program office’s purview to reduce operating costs; such as reviewing basing options and the sequencing of those actions, unit level manpower/squadron size and discrete sustainment requirements. In addition, the program has identified a number of Affordability Initiatives to help drive down sustainment costs.

Moreover, if you actually look at the info in the tables you point to you will note that they are not comparing 'apples with apples'.

Next attempt please...those of us in the industry/actually talking with the professionals involved in the program look forward to it.

 

[Arjen]

I find it disturbing that, over the years, in subsequent forecasts, the O&SC ratio F-35 vs F-16 has ever crept up. From 0.8 in ~2002, to 1.22 in 2010 and to 1.42 in 2011. I assume that as the project proceeds, more becomes known, and forecasts should become more accurate. This bodes ill for the future.

Sustainment costs continue to be a significant area of focus. The Department is undertaking proactive management of the sustainment effort so that we have a clear understanding of life cycle Operations and Support (O&S) costs. The program is in the midst of a two-year “should cost” effort on the O&S cost. This effort will continue through 2012.

Over the next 12 months, the program will complete an F-35 Business Case Analysis (BCA) and the results from the BCA will assist the Program Executive Officer in refining the current F-35 support strategy. The BCA will also identify the best mix of existing Service/Partner Organic capabilities with that of the Industry team to develop the optimum long term best value F-35 support solution. The Services, working in concert with the program office, will continue to analyze options outside of the program office’s purview to reduce operating costs; such as reviewing basing options and the sequencing of those actions, unit level manpower/squadron size and discrete sustainment requirements. In addition, the program has identified a number of Affordability Initiatives to help drive down sustainment costs.

This basically says O&SC reduction is something to be strived for. In the meantime, forecasts of O&SC have gone up.

 

[LowObservable]

All the citations are correct. Everyone is working with predictions - indeed, we have to in order to make decisions.

The Pentagon analysts say one thing; LockMart says that they are merely predictions based on legacy experience, and that the high production rates/large fleet size/magic automated logistics thingy will result in different numbers.

On the other hand:

Even LockMart bosses now say that the CPFH is 1.12 X F-16, when they were on the record with 0.8 a few years ago (that's a 40 per cent jump assuming F-16 to be constant).

There is also a long history of JSF bosses pooh-poohing negative predictions as "based on legacy thinking/data". Such negative predictions (back to 2008 and earlier) included slips and overruns in SDD, and where are we now?

As for "no offsets": I'd wait and see how Japan turns out, or what is offered to Korea. They may not be called "offsets" and on paper they will have to be "best value", but who decides what the latter means? Right now, if I am running LockMart and Korea wants a lot of early deliveries, then the contract I award to KAI to make that happen has "value" beyond the material parts that KAI delivers.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Even LockMart bosses now say that the CPFH is 1.12 X F-16, when they were on the record with 0.8 a few years ago (that's a 40 per cent jump assuming F-16 to be constant).

Can we still use negative news if it comes from lying, constantly wrong LM? The answer is apparently yes.

that Sweetman article is loaded with Red Herrings and Straw Men. Plays well with suckers though, and a lot of them got sucked.

 

[Arjen]

LM is admitting one of the targets of the JSF project - lower operating costs than the aircraft it is designed to replace - is out the window. The 2011 SAR projects 1.42 times the F-16's CPFH. Relative to that, LM's projection is positively rosy. Relative to the original claims, not so rosy.

 

[sferrin]

LM is admitting one of the targets of the JSF project - lower operating costs than the aircraft it is designed to replace - is out the window.

Well that has to be wrong since nothing out of LM is to be trusted. Right?

 

[GTX]

No, no, no...you only trust it when it suits you...

 

[LowObservable]

There's an applicable legal principle, which states that people rarely make things up if they make them sound bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_against_interest

"Red herrings and straw men"... sounds like part of some ancient West Country festival, that usually gets out of control on scrumpy and ends up after midnight with the Burning of the Troll.

 

[Arjen]

Unless people are certifiably insane. Which shouldn't apply to companies, right?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

There's an applicable legal principle, which states that people rarely make things up if they make them sound bad.

I am not accusing them of making things up, at all. Simply pointing out that again, they could be wrong. As many people her believe they always are. The Number varies constantly as Sweetman pointed out, so they may well be wrong yet again... What if Lockheed is actually incorrect and the number turns out to be lower than what they believe now? What if in one year, there is a break through that saves billions? What if in the opposite case there is an unforeseen problem that makes it even more expensive? Its far far too early to tell as GTX has pointed out.

"Red herrings and straw men"... sounds like part of some ancient West Country festival, that usually gets out of control on scrumpy and ends up after midnight with the Burning of the Troll.

Dont forget "cherry picking" as more country festival talk that basically is a nice way of identifying falsehoods and well edited versions of half truths.

 

[LowObservable]

[What if Lockheed is actually incorrect and the number turns out to be lower than what they believe now? What if in one year, there is a break through that saves billions?

In that case I will retract every bad thing that I ever said about the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

 

[Arjen]

AOL Defense has news on Defense Secretary Panetta's nomination of Air Force Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan for the next JSF Director:

This afternoon the Pentagon very quietly sent out notice that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had nominated Venlet's deputy, Air Force Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan for a third star and assignment as director of the F-35 program.

 

[GTX]

Luke AFB chosen for F-35 training
Published: Aug. 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM


GLENDALE, Ariz., Aug. 3 (UPI) -- GLENDALE, Ariz., Aug. 3 (UPI) -- The U.S. Air Force has chosen Luke Air Force Base in Arizona as the service's training center for pilots of F-35A Lightning II aircraft.

Air Force Brig. Gen. JD Harris, 56th Fighter Wing commander, said the base will receive three F-35A squadrons –-- 72 aircraft -- as a result of the decision.

"This is a great day for Luke," said Harris. "Our selection for F-35 training ensures the long-term viability of our mission of training the world's greatest fighter pilots, which we've been doing at Luke for seven decades."

Luke Air Force Base is near the city of Glendale, Ariz.

The Air Force said the F-35s -- a next-generation aircraft that replace F-16s and A-10s -- will begin to arrive at Luke between late 2013 to mid 2014.

In addition to training U.S. pilots, Luke Air Force Base will serve as an F-35A International Partner Training site.

"The Air Force is committed to training our U.S. and partner nation pilots on this fifth-generation fighter aircraft," said Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force chief of staff.

"Collaborative training on aircraft designed with stealth, maneuverability and integrated avionics will better prepare our combined forces to assume multi-role missions for the future of tactical aviation."

F-16 pilots and maintenance personnel currently receive training at the base.

Source: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/08/03/Luke-AFB-chosen-for-F-35-training/UPI-23781344014774/print#ixzz22VeME9hs

 

[GTX]

A pair of questions for those who are constantly anti-F-35:
[list type=decimal]
[*]What exactly are your problems with it? Please try to be specific - dot point lists are perfect in this regard.
[*]What do you believe should be done instead?
[/list]