The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[GTX]

Thank you.


Mods: May I suggest the Korean Fighter part of this discussion be broken off into a separate thread.

 

[SlowMan]

Thank you.


Mods: May I suggest the Korean Fighter part of this discussion be broken off into a separate thread.

I was talking in the context of F-35 suffering its first defeat in an international open bidding, which would have lasting ramifications. You will see the JSF partner nations finally jumping ship and switch to open bid contests, in particular Australia, Canada, and Netherlands.

This is why a Boeing win was so important in this Korean contest, so that Boeing could offer the Super Hornet International Roadmap(aka Silent Hornet) as a half-priced JSF alternative.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Give me a break.

By your own admission this is not about the fighters, but about offsets and KFX participation.

They could have offered the F-22 and still lost according to your reading of the events (since performance is pass/fail).

 

[GTX]

This sort of discussion belongs in another thread.


However, please let me rest assure you: having spoken many, many times with the people responsible for such decisions, I know that the Australians are not going to jump ship or have another competition.

 

[SlowMan]

Give me a break.

By your own admission this is not about the fighters, but about offsets and KFX participation.

They could have offered the F-22 and still lost according to your reading of the events (since performance is pass/fail).

The F-22 would be bought under a special budget if if was for sale.

The F-35 is no F-22, and it doesn't deserve the same kind of privilege. Accordingly, it must compete with other jets in terms of its value preposition.

And things are looking bleak for F-35 indeed, because the other guys were waving much lower prices and far fatter offset benefits.

 

[datafuser]

Lockheed already said no to such an arrangement

Can you please cite your source?

 

[datafuser]

Since Lockheed Martin did not submit a plan for the KFX development participation

Again, can you please cite your source?

 

[SlowMan]

Can you please cite your source?

Sure. http://news.hankooki.com/lpage/politics/201209/h2012090718064891040.htm

On September 7th, the representatives from all three bidders held a joint debate press conference where the each bidder tries to explain why their bid was best in front of hundreds of reporters. Both EADS CASA and Boeing reps went an extra length trying to explain their plans for the KFX participation. Lockheed representatives refused to even mention the word KFX during the entire debate. Prior press reports confirmed that the JSF office(The F-35 bid was an FMS offer represented by the JSF office, not by Lockheed Martin. Boeing and EADS CASA submitted commercial bids and represented themselves) did not include a plan for the KFX.

Since the DAPA said the F-X 3 winner would also be participating in the KFX program as an offset benefit, we know for sure that it is not Lockheed.

EADS's vision of KFX

Boeing's vision of KFX

Lockheed doesn't have one.

 

[SlowMan]

As for a Japanese carrier, don't count on it.

Japan doesn't need one because the disputed islands could easily be reached from Naha air base, and could use airports at Miyakojima and Ishigaki as temporary forward base in the event of a war with China, which are less than 200 km away.

What Japan needs is the amphibious landing capability and that means Japan would likely import V-22s and landing vehicles from the US and build well deck equipped LHDs, not aircraft carriers.

 

[datafuser]

Lockheed representatives refused to even mention the word KFX during the entire debate.

Were you at the September 7th event yourself?

Even if Lockheed people did not say anything about the KF-X at a public seminar, it is NOT a proof that there is absolutely nothing about the KF-X in their formal proposal paper submitted to DAPA.

Anyway the KF-X is "almost" dead for now - see Defense 21 article http://defense21plus.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/kf-x-going-grounded/

P.S. I did see Lockheed's vision of KF-X.

 

[SlowMan]

Were you at the September 7th event yourself?

Of course not.

Even if Lockheed people did not say anything about the KF-X at a public seminar, it is NOT a proof that there is absolutely nothing about the KF-X in their formal proposal paper submitted to DAPA.

Why the hell would the JSF Office submit anything regarding the KFX.

P.S. I did see Lockheed's vision of KF-X.

Care to link the non-existent vision?

 

[datafuser]

Why the hell would the JSF Office submit anything regarding the KFX.

Unless you actually get a copy of their F-X proposal - confidential of course - and read it, you cannot say for sure whether there is anything about the KF-X or not.

P.S. I did see Lockheed's vision of KF-X.

Care to link the non-existent vision?

You haven't backed up your various claims - F-35 bid submission was so horrible that it was written off before the flight test, ROKAF command doesn't believe in stealth strike, ROKAF is said to have detected F-22 in the air with their air defense radars, etc - with verifiable evidence, so I won't do it either unless you do first.

 

[datafuser]

Were you at the September 7th event yourself?

Of course not.

Then how do you know "Lockheed representatives refused to even mention the word KFX during the entire debate."? You just replied you were not there.

Why the hell would the JSF Office submit anything regarding the KFX.

Unless you actually get a copy of their F-X proposal - confidential of course - and read it, you cannot say for sure whether there is anything about the KF-X or not.

P.S. I did see Lockheed's vision of KF-X.

Care to link the non-existent vision?

You haven't backed up your various claims - F-35 bid submission was so horrible that it was written off before the flight test, ROKAF command doesn't believe in stealth strike, ROKAF is said to have detected F-22 in the air with their air defense radars, etc - with verifiable evidence, so I won't do it either unless you do first.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

All JSF topics locked for a few hours until I sort them out. Don't create a new topic or pollute another one, please.

 

[InvisibleDefender]

1st F-35B Landed at MCAS Yuma Yesterday Afternoon!

article - http://www.yumasun.com/articles/aircraft-83264-marine-yuma.html
video - http://www.dvidshub.net/video/embed/191080
Tried to post this in the general F-35 forum, but it appears to be locked.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

My last (active) duty station! Nice. Wish i coulda been there for that.

 

[fightingirish]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xQWQgOFJZM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xQWQgOFJZM

Video by Lance Cpl. Zachary Scanlon Marine Corps Air Station Yuma
The Marine Corps welcomed its first operational F-35B aircraft, the Marine Corps variant of the F-35 Lightning II also known as the Joint Strike Fighter, to Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz. Friday, Nov. 16. The F-35B, one of three variants of the Joint Strike Fighter, is a tactical fixed-wing aircraft that is to be the replacement for aging jets within the Marine Corps. 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing's first F-35 squadron, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121, is based at MCAS Yuma and is the first operational F-35 squadron in the Marine Corps and the Department of Defense. Marine F-35B pilot Maj. Aric Liberman delivered the first F-35B, BF-19, to MCAS Yuma at 1:05 p.m. MST. This aircraft will be used to conduct a full spectrum of aviation operations in support of combat missions and maritime readiness worldwide.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Nah I'm just kidding! Everyone there is very psyched!

 

[Triton]

From Danger Room:

"Marines' First Frontline Stealth Fighter Lacks Vital Gear"
by David Axe

Source:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/marines-jsf/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WiredDangerRoom+%28Wired%3A+Blog+-+Danger+Room%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

The U.S. Marine Corps has received its first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that, in theory, is meant for actual combat. But that doesn’t mean the pricey, long-delayed JSF is going to be dropping bombs on enemy targets anytime soon. The Lockheed Martin-built plane’s computerized logistical system, flight software and special helmet still aren’t ready — and it lacks weapons.

No, the Marines have taken possession of the combat-designated, but not combat-ready, F-35 in order to begin building up its stealth-fighter fleet. Not yet, anyway. The advance preparation should ensure that the Corps can send the new JSF squadrons into combat the moment the jet is finally fully equipped … whenever that might be.

“The Marines are determined to get this plane into the field as soon as it can be safely accomplished,” Loren Thompson, a Lockheed consultant, told Reuters. “They don’t want to be slowed down by bureaucratic obstacles.” Instead, it’s the technical obstacles that are dictating the timing of the F-35′s combat readiness. No one is sure precisely when the jet will get the critical missing items, but it could be years.

Of all the military branches acquiring F-35s through history’s most expensive weapons procurement effort, the Marines need the stealthy jet the most. The Corps’ existing Hornet and Harrier fighters are old and too few in number, especially after a Taliban attack on an air base in Afghanistan in September destroyed 1/15th of the Harrier fleet. “We have equipment that has got to be recapitalized,” Marine commandant Gen. James Amos said last year.

What’s more, the amphibious branch is already working with the Navy to build two multi-billion-dollar aircraft carriers specifically intended to carry F-35s. The Corps has more JSF pilots in training than it has frontline jets for them to fly.

BF-19, the 19th copy of the vertical-landing JSF variant to roll out of Lockheed’s Texas factory, arrived at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma in Arizona on Friday afternoon with Maj. A. C. Liberman behind the stick. There the F-35B joined Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121, a former Hornet unit that gave up its older jets in September. “This aircraft will be used to conduct a full spectrum of aviation operations in support of combat missions and maritime readiness worldwide,” the Pentagon boasted about its new frontline JSF.

Sure, eventually. And only after more testing, more design changes and potentially millions of dollars in modifications each to this jet and others like it. The Marines anticipate VMFA-121 being war-ready with 16 fully equipped F-35s no earlier than 2015, a slip of one year compared to the 2011 plan. In the meantime, the squadron will oversee some pilot and ground-crew training, complementing the main instructional effort in Florida and testing in California.

BF-19 is part of the Pentagon’s Low-Rate Initial Production of the stealthy JSF, meaning it was expensive — no less than $200 million — and assembled while Lockheed and the military were still working out the plane’s precise configuration. In April the Defense Department paid Lockheed $65 million to fix identified problems on dozens of F-35s it had already manufactured, presumably including BF-19.

JSF flight testing began in 2006 but is only 25 percent complete. As such, the list of things the F-35 still doesn’t have is a long one.

A working helmet, for one. JSF pilots are meant to wear an advanced new visor, built by Vision Systems International, that displays streaming video from the plane’s nose-mounted sensors, in effect allowing a pilot to peer through the cockpit floor — as though the jet itself were invisible to the occupant. But the video lags, especially at night, forcing the Pentagon to commission a less sophisticated back-up helmet from BAE Systems.

The military still wants the original headgear and has dedicated one of the F-35 test models to flying only helmet trials. “We’re making great progress,” Tom Burbage, a Lockheed veep, said of the helmet last month. But he didn’t say when this critical gear might be ready for war.

The latest F-35Bs, including Yuma’s copy, are also flying with a temporary software suite known as Block 1B. The Marines have said the jet won’t be capable of flying and fighting in real combat until it has the Block 2B software that is only now entering testing. With 24 million lines of code — 9 million more than originally envisioned — there’s no telling how long testing could take. Air Force Maj. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the JSF program head, warned that software is the riskiest facet of F-35 development and the most likely to cause delays.

Bogdan’s warning also applies to the software for the F-35′s logistical support system. In a radical departure from previous warplanes, the JSF is supposed to come plugged into a fully computerized supply system that tracks every F-35 in the world, ensures spare parts go where they’re needed and logs all the pilots’ mission plans. But the so-called “Autonomic Logistics Information System” is behind schedule and, as the Navy discovered when it hacked the system, vulnerable to cyber-attacks. “If it doesn’t work, this airplane doesn’t work,” Bogdan said of ALIS.

Lastly, weapons. The JSF test team only recently dropped an inert satellite-guided bomb and jettisoned, not fired, a dummy air-to-air missiles from the F-35′s fast-opening internal weapons bays. There were no targets. “The targeting aspect will come further down the road,” said Victor Chen, a JSF program spokesperson. Chen did not specify when that might occur, although it’s fair to say the Marines hope it’s soon.

JSF pilots are in training. Their carriers are being built. The frontline squadrons are standing up. All the Corps needs now is the planes themselves, fully tested, fully equipped and ready for combat.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

If you take a look at David Axe's other stories regarding US aircraft on wired, his citing of Air Power Australia, his "creativity" with numbers (He says an F-22 costs over 700 million, it doesn't) and his love of the competing Chinese/Russian aircraft; he is biased at best, and sensationalist and stupid at worst.

 

[sferrin]

The F-16 lacked BVR, laser designation ability, night attack, and many other things when it actually entered service. I guess it sucks. :

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The F-16 lacked BVR, laser designation ability, night attack, and many other things when it actually entered service. I guess it sucks. :

Pure disaster. It'll Never work.


And the Marines just got the Jet on Friday afternoon... and now only 72 hours later it still isn't ready for war? What is taking them so long? Its a weekend project right?

 

[LowObservable]

So what is specifically inaccurate about the Wired story? Seems accurate to me - there's no IOC date and when it does arrive, it will be with a strictly limited sub-set of what everyone else (so far) has considered to by IOC capes. But I'm sure that you can correct me.


And I'm sure you can all cite and quote an announcement from, say, three years before F-16 IOC (that would be 1977) where a user talked without qualification of "delivered to the first operational squadron" and "will be used to conduct a full spectrum of missions".


I await the factual response.

 

[Magoodotcom]

And...we're back!

 

[RyanC]

The F-16 lacked BVR, laser designation ability, night attack, and many other things when it actually entered service. I guess it sucks. :

You mean the F-16C? (yes, I know some operators of the F-16A/B, like Taiwan have frankensteined in some of these capabilities).

In that vein, where's the F-22B that'll add in all the capabilities that were deleted in the initial F-22A run to save money, like SLAR? {crickets chirp}

 

[SpudmanWP]

Congrats on reaching 50 AoA so quickly.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/november/121119ae_f-35_achieves_angle_of_attack.html

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif., November 19, 2012 – An F-35A Lightning II conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aircraft rapidly expanded its high angle of attack (AOA) test envelope to its 50 degree limit in only four flights during recent flight testing here. F-35A test aircraft are limited to AOAs of 20 degrees until their controllability is proven at a higher AOA limit of 50 degrees. The ability to rapidly progress to the maximum AOA indicates a sound aerodynamic and flight control system design. High AOA testing will continue on the F-35A for several months testing the capabilities of all design loadings and the flight control system.

 

[sferrin]

The F-16 lacked BVR, laser designation ability, night attack, and many other things when it actually entered service. I guess it sucks. :

You mean the F-16C? (yes, I know some operators of the F-16A/B, like Taiwan have frankensteined in some of these capabilities).

In that vein, where's the F-22B that'll add in all the capabilities that were deleted in the initial F-22A run to save money, like SLAR? {crickets chirp}

The F-16A was virtually useless when it entered service. It would have been outgunned by the Mig-23 with it's BVR, it couldn't drop bombs at night, couldn't self-designate, etc. etc. Where were all the criers then?

 

[LowObservable]

Well, actually there was a good deal of controversy, the participants including:

• Northrop & Macs, who used the F-16A's perceived weaknesses to sell the F-18.
• Dassault, pitching the M2000/Super 530 combo
• Various other Euros, concerned that the F-16 would not be much use if it rained (which it does rather often over there)
• Pilots who hated it when the F100 stopped and would not start again
• Some F-4 community people who didn't see the F-16 as much of an upgrade except in WVR

As a result, however, people put their backs into the problem and, bit by bit, added precision, all-weather and BVR to the F-16, and used the spur of competition to get two decent engines. The resulting F-16 Block 30/32 was delivered from 1987 onwards, 15 years after the first YF-16 contract, so they still beat JSF (17 years now) by... well, we'll know how many years when there's an IOC date.

Spud - Congrats on reaching 50 AoA so quickly.

After only six years in flight test! Freaking awesome! Colliers all round!

 

[Rafael]

As a layman, I believe western programmes have **suffered** of increasingly longer times for development and achievements, compared to, say, 1950s and 60s. But I also believe this is due to the greater technological complexities incorporated in said programmes.

Somewhere (in this forum IIRC) there's an article or post citing someone proposing something like "field the 80% airplane vs the 100% one". While that would calm the eager taxpayer on seeing "his" defence dollars parked on the tarmac or in flight, they would do so at a major expense over time IMHO.

Also as a layman, the fact that such ambitious airplane even flies in its three versions is something to marvel about, regardless of the arguments for or against the F-35. Since I'm not a taxpayer from any of the countries involved, I will sit down and watch from the sides this IMHO interesting aircraft.

Don't know about the apparently **quicker-paced** developments in Russia and China, and will not delve into them for comparison for being off-topic, my lack of knowledge, and fear of fire wars, but if this is of interest, it would be fine to see a thread about American, Euro and Oriental development visions and customs

 

[SpudmanWP]

What about "news topic" vs "debate topic" is so hard to understand?

 

[LowObservable]

Spud - I think someone referred to a named individual as "biased at best, and sensationalist and stupid at worst".

Not exactly the actions of one trying to avoid controversy. But maybe he has some facts (as requested) to back that accusation up.

 

[SpudmanWP]

I was addressing everyone who was posting info not relevant to "news".

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Spud - I think someone referred to a named individual as "biased at best, and sensationalist and stupid at worst".

Not exactly the actions of one trying to avoid controversy. But maybe he has some facts (as requested) to back that accusation up.

Bill you seem to have a lot of pull around here, why don't you just PM your pal and ask him to unlock the ol' F-35 thread and we can talk about it in there?

 

[SOC]

After only six years in flight test! Freaking awesome! Colliers all round!

Try after four dedicated envelope expansion flights maybe.

The Axe article is slightly amusing. Yes, it highlights some of the current problems and issues left to be solved. But it also seems like he's skewing some events to fit his story. The helmet...how is it critical? Critical implies the entire thing won't work without it. Seems to me they've been flying for a while... Weapons tests...uh, that's how it's done? Separation tests first, untargeted launches next in the case of powered weapons, then actual guided or targeted weapons testing. ALIS...sounds like they've decided they want it no matter what. Bogdan's assertion that "If it doesn’t work, this airplane doesn’t work" is interesting...if ALIS doesn't work, how do they maintain the jets at Edwards? Methinks this is more about a degree of control over and knowledge of the status of export client aircraft rather than some idea that without ALIS nobody will ever be able to fix one of these things. Airplanes delivered to the USMC lacking combat capability...when was the last time a fast jet was delivered and declared IOC at the same time?

All that being said, I've figured out the real delay with the F-35. Bogdan is clearly related to Sergei and is a Russian plant to help get the Su-35 some export orders ;D

 

[SpudmanWP]

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123327144

11/20/2012 - EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) -- The Joint Strike Fighter began the integration phase of weapons testing Oct. 26, when the F-35A Conventional Takeoff and Landing aircraft successfully completed the first in-flight test with an AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile.


It was the first time a weapon communicated with the aircraft during flight using a data link.


Starting in February and continuing through the end of April, the team is anticipating releasing roughly two weapons per week, said Cregier.

Much More at the jump

btw, That is 20-24 weapon drops before the end of April 2013.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

After only six years in flight test! Freaking awesome! Colliers all round!

Try after four dedicated envelope expansion flights maybe.

The Axe article is slightly amusing. Yes, it highlights some of the current problems and issues left to be solved. But it also seems like he's skewing some events to fit his story. The helmet...how is it critical? Critical implies the entire thing won't work without it. Seems to me they've been flying for a while... Weapons tests...uh, that's how it's done? Separation tests first, untargeted launches next in the case of powered weapons, then actual guided or targeted weapons testing. ALIS...sounds like they've decided they want it no matter what. Bogdan's assertion that "If it doesn’t work, this airplane doesn’t work" is interesting...if ALIS doesn't work, how do they maintain the jets at Edwards? Methinks this is more about a degree of control over and knowledge of the status of export client aircraft rather than some idea that without ALIS nobody will ever be able to fix one of these things. Airplanes delivered to the USMC lacking combat capability...when was the last time a fast jet was delivered and declared IOC at the same time?

This^

oh and in other news, this:

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123325257

 

[Rafael]

Thanks for the pointers, Spudman and TTomcat.

On the same site, posted Oct. 23, 2012
"F-35 Weapon Drop"
http://www.af.mil/news/video/index.asp?cid=3&sid=32011

Sorry couldn't embed the video from there. Mods?

 

[LowObservable]

SOC - The helmet is critical insofar as it is a primary flight instrument (no HUD). So far they have the instrument part fixed to the point of being regarded as OK under non-test conditions within the training envelope. However, the baseline helmet is incompatible with NVGs and its built-in night vision is still a problem.


As for ALIS: ultimately you can't do much without it, because it includes mission planning, line maintenance and logistics, and they are too far down the road to rip it up and use separate systems without huge delays. It was also planned long before anyone had heard of the Advanced Persistent Threat, which may have tossed the odd wrinkle in there.


And yes, delivering the jets to the unit always precedes IOC. On the other hand, it is unusual to not have an IOC date set when that happens, and it usually happens concurrent with IOT&E phase, so that pilot and maintainer training can spin-up while the IOC-status manuals and syllabi are being completed.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/11/vmfa-121-becomes-first-operati.html

http://www.dvidshub.net/video/191353/f-35b-squadron-activation#.UKz7XIdZX01

Make it 3!

 

[Triton]

Video of F-35A high angle of attack testing at Edwards AFB with test pilot commentary. Testing began in late October 2012.

http://youtu.be/mfWHHuLILs0