The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

SOC said:
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.
Click to expand...

SOC, Axe is well...a really bad case of fanboyitis run amuck (read -- given a widespread platform to spew his views forth). That said, he does point out some key issues with the F-35.

As LO has pointed out, you kind of need the helmet as it's a primary flight instrument; and secondly, the Helmet was supposed to be one of the reasons why the F-35 was going to be so super McAwesome, giving the pilot unparalleled situational ability, etc etc allowing him to decimate legacy fighters etc.

I think one of the solutions they were looking at (I may be misremembering it wrong), was to totally replace the entire computer system devoted to the DAS in order to get a faster processor in there to get the refresh rate up to snuff for the helmet.

That's a serious problem in the budget constrained environment DoD is about to be operating in.
There's a big difference between going hat in hand to Congress for a "product improved" version of anything, whether it's an engine or helmet to fix some annoying bugs, or to improve maintainability issues; and going hat in hand for something totally new.

What we see now with the IOC F-35 is in my opinion what we are going to get, other than minor upgrades for the next 40 years. There's not going to be any F-35 D/E/F family coming down the line to fix things up, the way the F-16 family got the C/D family. So...getting things right is going to be very important.
 
The primary problem with the helmet was the display of nightime video on the visor. There was no serious issue with the display of flight data (ie HUD data) on the visor. Several of the fixes for the video issue are already tested or soon will be.
 
RyanCrierie said:
What we see now with the IOC F-35 is in my opinion what we are going to get, other than minor upgrades for the next 40 years. There's not going to be any F-35 D/E/F family coming down the line to fix things up, the way the F-16 family got the C/D family. So...getting things right is going to be very important.
Click to expand...


It has been long planned that the F-35s will get ongoing rolling updates/upgrades for their entire life. As for getting things right...well that is the same for any platform. The F-35 is not unique in this regard.
 
RyanCrierie said:
What we see now with the IOC F-35 is in my opinion what we are going to get, other than minor upgrades for the next 40 years. There's not going to be any F-35 D/E/F family coming down the line to fix things up, the way the F-16 family got the C/D family. So...getting things right is going to be very important.
Click to expand...


I think the only reason why there might be no major new version of F-35 is F-35's tenure as the dominant tactical fighter of USAF would be much shorter than everyone here seem to expect.


Snce the end of cold war the US has existed pretty much in a state of grace where its sole aerospace peer competitor has fallen by the wayside, and no other power had come even close. This is why the current generation of G4 fighters could have lasted 40 years.


Now that China is rapidly catching up to become a peer competitor, I think the US would be forced to return to the schedule of designing a new generation of tactical aircraft every 15-20 years to avoid being overtaken.


So F-35 won't last 40 years, at least not in the USAF.
 
chuck4 said:
RyanCrierie said:
What we see now with the IOC F-35 is in my opinion what we are going to get, other than minor upgrades for the next 40 years. There's not going to be any F-35 D/E/F family coming down the line to fix things up, the way the F-16 family got the C/D family. So...getting things right is going to be very important.
Click to expand...


I think the only reason why there might be no major new version of F-35 is F-35's tenure as the dominant tactical fighter of USAF would be much shorter than everyone here seem to expect.


Snce the end of cold war the US has existed pretty much in a state of grace where its sole aerospace peer competitor has fallen by the wayside, and no other power had come even close. This is why the current generation of G4 fighters could have lasted 40 years.


Now that China is rapidly catching up to become a peer competitor, I think the US would be forced to return to the schedule of designing a new generation of tactical aircraft every 15-20 years to avoid being overtaken.


So F-35 won't last 40 years, at least not in the USAF.
Click to expand...

By your own measure the F-22 would go first.
 
chuck4 said:
RyanCrierie said:
What we see now with the IOC F-35 is in my opinion what we are going to get, other than minor upgrades for the next 40 years. There's not going to be any F-35 D/E/F family coming down the line to fix things up, the way the F-16 family got the C/D family. So...getting things right is going to be very important.
Click to expand...


I think the only reason why there might be no major new version of F-35 is F-35's tenure as the dominant tactical fighter of USAF would be much shorter than everyone here seem to expect.


Snce the end of cold war the US has existed pretty much in a state of grace where its sole aerospace peer competitor has fallen by the wayside, and no other power had come even close. This is why the current generation of G4 fighters could have lasted 40 years.


Now that China is rapidly catching up to become a peer competitor, I think the US would be forced to return to the schedule of designing a new generation of tactical aircraft every 15-20 years to avoid being overtaken.


So F-35 won't last 40 years, at least not in the USAF.
Click to expand...


Economics and development timeframes will work against you I am afraid.
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
chuck4 said:
RyanCrierie said:
What we see now with the IOC F-35 is in my opinion what we are going to get, other than minor upgrades for the next 40 years. There's not going to be any F-35 D/E/F family coming down the line to fix things up, the way the F-16 family got the C/D family. So...getting things right is going to be very important.
Click to expand...


I think the only reason why there might be no major new version of F-35 is F-35's tenure as the dominant tactical fighter of USAF would be much shorter than everyone here seem to expect.


Snce the end of cold war the US has existed pretty much in a state of grace where its sole aerospace peer competitor has fallen by the wayside, and no other power had come even close. This is why the current generation of G4 fighters could have lasted 40 years.


Now that China is rapidly catching up to become a peer competitor, I think the US would be forced to return to the schedule of designing a new generation of tactical aircraft every 15-20 years to avoid being overtaken.


So F-35 won't last 40 years, at least not in the USAF.
Click to expand...

By your own measure the F-22 would go first.
Click to expand...

It undoubtedly will. Probably be superceded before 2030. When china, India and Russia each deploys more than 187 G-5 fighters, say around 2022, pressure will be overwhelming to develop something better.
 
chuck4 said:
I think the only reason why there might be no major new version of F-35 is F-35's tenure as the dominant tactical fighter of USAF would be much shorter than everyone here seem to expect.

So F-35 won't last 40 years, at least not in the USAF.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid history does not support this hypothesis.

Each successive jet fighter since the first has become more and more expensive not only to develop, but also to procure. Besides money it has also cost a lot of time for development. This is one of the reasons why the F-16 has been around for as long as it has. The US has to come up an affordable & generational improvement before they make the decision to replace everything.

Upgradeability was built into the F-35 like no other fighter before it.

1. A paid Post-SDD development plan was part of the MOU that all the Partners signed from the very start.
2. Funds are already being paid from F-35 (non-recurring) flyaway costs to fund Post-SDD development.
3. Not only is there space in the main CIP bay, but that is a completely empty CIP bay in the rear of the F-35 for future growth
4. Every piece of the avionics, from the software to the hardware is meant to be easily upgraded via open architecture.
5. Space in the ESW sensor bays was reserved for future internal jammers if required
6. All A2G pylons are fiber connected should high-bandwidth pods be certified (like NGJ).

Last but not least, a F-35 replacement would have to be tri-service or they will have to develop at least two different airframes.
 
chuck4 said:
Probably be superceded before 2030. When china, India and Russia each deploys more than 187 G-5 fighters, say around 2022, pressure will be overwhelming to develop something better.
Click to expand...

Perfect timing too, because our first major money tree harvest should be ready by then.
 
SpudmanWP said:
chuck4 said:
I think the only reason why there might be no major new version of F-35 is F-35's tenure as the dominant tactical fighter of USAF would be much shorter than everyone here seem to expect.

So F-35 won't last 40 years, at least not in the USAF.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid history does not support this hypothesis.

Each successive jet fighter since the first has become more and more expensive not only to develop, but also to procure. Besides money it has also cost a lot of time for development. This is one of the reasons why the F-16 has been around for as long as it has. The US has to come up an affordable & generational improvement before they make the decision to replace everything.

Upgradeability was built into the F-35 like no other fighter before it.

1. A paid Post-SDD development plan was part of the MOU that all the Partners signed from the very start.
2. Funds are already being paid from F-35 (non-recurring) flyaway costs to fund Post-SDD development.
3. Not only is there space in the main CIP bay, but that is a completely empty CIP bay in the rear of the F-35 for future growth
4. Every piece of the avionics, from the software to the hardware is meant to be easily upgraded via open architecture.
5. Space in the ESW sensor bays was reserved for future internal jammers if required
6. All A2G pylons are fiber connected should high-bandwidth pods be certified (like NGJ).

Last but not least, a F-35 replacement would have to be tri-service or they will have to develop at least two different airframes.
Click to expand...


This is based on the theory that any future threat for the next 40 years can be handled by software upgrades and more modular electronic equipment. I doubt that is the case.
 
SpudmanWP said:
Each successive jet fighter since the first has become more and more expensive not only to develop, but also to procure. Besides money it has also cost a lot of time for development. This is one of the reasons why the F-16 has been around for as long as it has. The US has to come up an affordable & generational improvement before they make the decision to replace everything.

Upgradeability was built into the F-35 like no other fighter before it.

1. A paid Post-SDD development plan was part of the MOU that all the Partners signed from the very start.
2. Funds are already being paid from F-35 (non-recurring) flyaway costs to fund Post-SDD development.
3. Not only is there space in the main CIP bay, but that is a completely empty CIP bay in the rear of the F-35 for future growth
4. Every piece of the avionics, from the software to the hardware is meant to be easily upgraded via open architecture.
5. Space in the ESW sensor bays was reserved for future internal jammers if required
6. All A2G pylons are fiber connected should high-bandwidth pods be certified (like NGJ).

Last but not least, a F-35 replacement would have to be tri-service or they will have to develop at least two different airframes.
Click to expand...

GAO has an interesting study of tactical aircraft upgrades:
http://gao.gov/assets/600/590505.pdf

Like the F-22, the F-35 is largely federated (integrated) systems. This can make many kinds of upgrades more difficult.
 
@Chuck4:

The top tier threats are handled by our top tier fighters.

The F-35 was a replacement for the F-16/18D, ie the "low" in the "High/Low".

Think about it this way, the "High" gets replaced more often as threats emerge while the "Low" has to last longer between upgrades.

Remember that the F-15 was the first to get the 5th gen treatment and will they will begin the F-22 replacement while the F-35 is in mid production (2020s).

There is no indication that there is anything on the horizon that the F-22 & F-35 cannot handle before the F-22's replacement is developed.

@Quellish:

The F-35 is a generation beyond the F-22 in terms of integration, COTS, Open Architecture, and upgradeability. Heck, the F-22 made such massive changes between early blocks that billions would be needed to get them up to Blk30/35.

btw, That PDF does not even mention the F-35.

http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the-f-35-with-software-upgradeability-built-in/
http://vimeo.com/34742158

While the F-22 struggles to get newer weapons (9x & 120D) in "some" future upgrade, the F-35 will be able to field new weapons without the need of costly (in money and time) Block upgrades. The money & time saved can be better spent on avionics, radar, and powerplant upgrades.


http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-21/issue-5/news/news/f-35-avionics__an.html
 
"There is no indication that there is anything on the horizon that the F-22 & F-35 cannot handle before the F-22's replacement is developed."

Still plagued by those demons of stupidity, I see.

While the Su-35S and present day A2/AD systems are more than adequate for dealing with the JSF, the F-22 is being challenged by other 5th Generation fighter designs.

Dwight D Eisenhower's warning about the consequences of the 'enemy within' has now come true and its name is JSF.
 
An AoA limit of 50 deg Alpha is nothing to write home about. Have seen 70 deg in the Hornet and still quite controllable.

IIRC, the F-22 has an unlimited AoA envelope while the Sukhois since the later model Su-27 are not Alpha limited.

That video of the wings level high Alpha test flights says it all. :eek:
 
Tell me this, GTX, do you think it is a sane thing to do to be planning to spend as much on one Acquisition Program of Record as the total sum of the budgets of the next 29 highest Acquisition Programs of Record?
 
But is that money and time being well spent when it comes to the F-35 or is this just self delusion?

In a similar vain, is this news?

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oVMeKZso1jQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DoVMeKZso1jQ
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
http://www.crestviewbulletin.com/news/community/first-u-k-pilots-begin-training-to-fly-f-35-1.54149

News!^^

And just so I understand the narrative:

We spend a lot of money and time developing the F-35, and F-22 in anticipation of potential next generation adversaries from Russia and China. Sure enough Russia and China build prototypes of their next gen aircraft just as we anticipated they would do. So the script is going is exactly how we predicted and that is reason to suddenly panic and begin expensive crash programs based on some prototypes, who's design and details still arent even set in stone yet? How does that make any sense?
Click to expand...


The script was for public consumption. When russian and chinese g5 fighters were still fan art, it was easier to revel in the alledged superiority promised by the script. Now that tangible Russian and Chinese counter to f-35 and f-22 are flying, more people ared now moved to take closer look at the script and finding its promises dubious.
 
A couple of comments caught my eye.


GTX - Not getting it right the first time and "the F-35 is not unique in this regard".... I await your listing of projects that have passed their original IOC date with full funding and unchanged requirements and still not had a firm IOC date planned.


Spudman - True, there has been a trend for each fighter generation to cost more than the one before. However, as you well know the entire point of the JSF exercise was to reverse this trend. Also, to state a basic economic truth that applies to housing bubbles, tulip manias and Ponzi schemes: something that can't continue forever, won't.
 
Nice twisting of what I actually said Bill...is this what you are reduced to now? Oh, that and carrying on with the "IOC" theme - bit of a one-song act aren't you? ::)

How is "It has been long planned that the F-35s will get ongoing rolling updates/upgrades for their entire life" the same as "Not getting it right the first time"? Me thinks you are so blinded by your hatred of the F-35 that everything is seen through negative filters. Sad really. :'(
 
IOC = When the operator gets some of the capabilities that he has been paying for over the previous 23-25 years. No big deal really.
 
I'd rather have the capability in the face of a paper tiger and not need it than need it in the face of a real one and not have it. A Bf109B is slower than a Hurricane, but by the time push came to shove, the RAF was faced with the -109E.

When push comes to shove, I want my country's pilots in the best fighter available to them. That. Is. All.
 
chuck4 said:
The script was for public consumption. When russian and chinese g5 fighters were still fan art, it was easier to revel in the alledged superiority promised by the script. Now that tangible Russian and Chinese counter to f-35 and f-22 are flying, more people ared now moved to take closer look at the script and finding its promises dubious.
Click to expand...

Important decision makers who have access to classified information on not only US, but also Russian and Chinese aircraft that aren't even in production yet? or internet basement dwellers with an interest in aviation? which kind of "more people" are we talking about?

The Flanker and Fulcrum didn't instantly make the F-15 and F-16 obsolete. gimme a break.

the final part of the equation Chuck, is in the Next Gen Bomber thread where you keep emphasizing that we should build systems who's sole purpose is to scare our opponents into overspending to stop a token force. Which is exactly what you are advocating above--China/Russia builds a few prototypes and we should begin a huge crash program of multiple different types that complicate logistics and training with fleets of quickly obsolescent aircraft? ???
 
DD said:
As those who have been immersed for more than a decade in the fighter world and associated technologies know,
Click to expand...

So you are confirming what Chuck believes is taking place or arguing semantics?
 
Neither but thanks for the attempt to comprehend, strawman-like though it is.

Now, how's that answer to the question (repeated) coming along?
 
Back on topic.

(Reuters – Fri, Nov 16, 2012) WASHINGTON (Reuters) - When computer "hackers" working for the U.S. Navy succeeded in breaking into the computer logistics system that controls the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter earlier this year, they did the company a favor: allowing it to fix a critical vulnerability in the $396 billion program. (article goes on)
Click to expand...
(With some interesting insights and tidbits on cyber-security which I ignored)
http://news.yahoo.com/insight-lockheeds-f-35-logistics-system-revolutionary-risky-060414294--finance.html

Lockheed sees "great progress" on F-35 fighter
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON | Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:36pm EDT

(Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) on Wednesday said it was making "great progress" on the F-35 fighter jet program, with F-35 deliveries exceeding those of F-16 fighters and C-130J transport planes combined for the first time in the third quarter. (Article goes on)
Click to expand...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE89N1NU20121024

From this side of the pond, and as a *disinterested* party (sorry, we operate Sukhois and our F-16s are in the shadows), it seems things have started to move at a quicker pace, contrary to my perception written in a previous post.
 
Thanks for trying to bring things back on track Rafael. It is interesting to get the views of one from the outside.


Makes a change from the noise of some. ;)
 
DD said:
"Tell me this, GTX/T^2/sFerrin, do you think it is a sane thing to do to be planning to spend as much on one Acquisition Program of Record as the total sum of the budgets of the next 29 highest Acquisition Programs of Record?"
Click to expand...

It is one acquisition program that is to replace - practically - the entire tactical aviation assets of the Air Force, Navy and Marines. So the question back would be would you be making the same argument if the same was being spent but on three wholly different aircraft to fulfill the same three missions?
 
A very good question, bobbymike, and one that is easily answered in the following:

Firstly, there wouldn't be one big cuckoo in the force structure nest, the corollary being America would not be putting 'all its eggs in one basket', so to speak, particularly one with such holes and a broken handle as can be seen with the JSF basket.

Secondly, two programs would be the more cost effective way to go - not three.

Thirdly, if you take a look at the numbers originally used when it was being claimed the single, winner take all JSF Program would be more cost effective than three separate aircraft development programs you will see that the JSF Program of Record has already passed the aggregate of those three programs by some degree.

Now, do you still think the current plans bear any resemblance to sanity?

And that would be before even considering the fact that the JSF requirements (i.e. the JORD) are based on threats from an era past (as some had said almost as long ago).
 
PLEASE, DISPENSE WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS, TAUNTING, BEING RUDE AND SO ON ...

About this theme, there should be enough, that can be said in a sensible way. Everything
else will just lead to more posts edited or deleted.
 
DD said:
A very good question, bobbymike, and one that is easily answered in the following:

Firstly, there wouldn't be one big cuckoo in the force structure nest, the corollary being America would not be putting 'all its eggs in one basket', so to speak, particularly one with such holes and a broken handle as can be seen with the JSF basket.

Secondly, two programs would be the more cost effective way to go - not three.

Thirdly, if you take a look at the numbers originally used when it was being claimed the single, winner take all JSF Program would be more cost effective than three separate aircraft development programs you will see that the JSF Program of Record has already passed the aggregate of those three programs by some degree.

Now, do you still think the current plans bear any resemblance to sanity?

And that would be before even considering the fact that the JSF requirements (i.e. the JORD) are based on threats from an era past (as some had said almost as long ago).
Click to expand...

OK I get where you are coming from but your question to which I referred related only to the cost of the progam. My question to you was would you accept these costs if three separate aircraft had the same costs. I did not ask about capabilities or other preferenses but would you accept the premise of your question for three separate aircraft, ceteris paribus?
 
If an overoptimistic forecast of the F-35 price were used in the trade off analysis with 3 separate programs, what makes you think the aggregate cost of the 3 separate program wasn't overoptimistic to the same degree?

The only real reason why 3 separate programs might turn out to be cheaper, IMHO, is in a tighter budgetary environment, it would have been politically easier to simply cancel one or more of the 3 independent programs than to substantially roll back the scope of the single F-35 program. However, I suspect at least part of the real rationale for putting all eggs in one JSF basket is precisely to make the program politically more survivable, and less susceptible to gradual roll back in the budgetary process.
 
chuck4 said:
If an overoptimistic forecast of the F-35 price were used in the trade off analysis with 3 separate programs, what makes you think the aggregate cost of the 3 separate program wasn't overoptimistic to the same degree?

The only real reason why 3 separate programs might turn out to be cheaper, IMHO, is in a tighter budgetary environment, it would have been politically easier to simply cancel one or more of the 3 independent programs than to substantially roll back the scope of the single F-35 program. However, I suspect at least part of the real rationale for putting all eggs in one JSF basket is precisely to make the program politically more survivable, and less susceptible to gradual roll back in the budgetary process.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

People have a hard time separating the F-35 aircraft and F-35 procurement; Which is sad to say the same problems with procurement we have had on other aircraft programs, just on a larger scale which is why "sticker shock" is so common.

Unless the procurement process changes, 3 independent programs would run into the exact problems but without benefits of commonality. If it helps mentally just think of the JSF as F-35, F-36, and F-37. ;D The program was intelligently built to make cancellation very difficult. I don't mean that in a negative way, its just the reality of procurement. if you don't "bullet proof" a program by making a large number of states or countries involved in it, it gets cancelled.
 
Thanks for that last, Chuck and TTomcat. Now I can understand better the "pros" and "angainsts" of this very interesting aircraft.

And note that I have used the word aircraft, because, being on the outside, I never made the connection between hardware and acquisition.
 
"Harper government seeking alternatives to troubled F-35 fighter jet: sources"
by John Ivison, National Post, November 23, 2012

Source:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/23/harper-government-seeking-alternatives-to-troubled-f-35-fighter-jet-sources/
OTTAWA – The Conservative government will signal it is serious about buying an alternative to the F-35 fighter jet by asking rival manufacturers about the cost and availability of their planes, according to defence industry sources.

The formal request for information will be issued to rivals like Boeing, which produces the Superhornet, and the consortium that makes the Eurofighter Typhoon, asking them what jets are available, and at what cost, if the Canadian government decides to ditch the trouble-plagued F-35 purchase.

The pricing and availability information request falls short of a formal tender but government sources said the “market analysis” will send a signal to voters and industry that it is taking seriously the Auditor-General’s spring report that was heavily critical of the F-35 procurement process.

Rona Ambrose, the Public Works Minister, is now responsible for the F-35 purchase. She has signaled in the House of Commons in recent days that the government is not simply seeking to justify its previous decision to buy the F-35.

“We are looking at all options on the table at this point,” she said Thursday, in response to repeated questions by the NDP. “[The process] is a full evaluation of all choices, not simply a refresh.”
Chris Wattie/ReutersRona Ambrose

When asked Friday whether she would make public the statement of requirements which detail what the military needs from its aircraft, she said these “will be set aside while that full option analysis is done”.

Sources suggest the new secretariat set up within Public Works to look at the F-35 purchase is not comfortable with the previous statement of requirement produced by National Defence, so it is carrying out its own due diligence on what the Royal Canadian Air Force is likely to need in the coming years.

The previous statement of requirement demanded the new aircraft have stealth capabilities to make it difficult for an enemy to detect it by radar. Since the F-35 is the only jet with stealth capability currently being produced by Western manufacturers, critics have accused the process of being rigged in Lockheed Martin’s favour.

Some industry experts have suggested that technological advances may make stealth obsolete within a relatively short space of time. If the government has accepted that thinking, it may decide to open up any competition to aircraft without stealth capability.

By opening up the process, the Conservatives will be able to deflect criticism that has dogged them since they announced their intention two years ago to buy 65 of the fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, in a deal the Department of National Defence would cost $16-billion to purchase and maintain the planes.

Last April, the Office of the Auditor General issued a report that questioned the accuracy of DND’s cost estimates. The report said National Defence reached the conclusion in 2008 that the F-35 offered “the best value” but provided little analysis to support the conclusion and did not provide operational requirements to Public Works until after the government had announced its decision to go with the plane.

The government subsequently produced a seven point plan to address the A-G’s concerns, which included freezing the funding envelope and creating the new secretariat within Public Works to co-ordinate the replacement for the CF18s.
Click to expand...
 
Eurofighter? I doubt the rest of Canada would consent to suffer the gloating of Quebec that would attend the procurement of the Rafale.

;D
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom