The ALE-70 for the F-35 was either canceled or more likely never planned.. ie a typo.
There is simply no place for it on the F-35.
The only public info about other-than-radar active ESM systems was a BAE quote that is at least 10 years old talking about space being left in the sensor bays for future active jamming “if the customer requested it”.
That BAE article that says “always active” just means that it’s always on. When it’s talking about “providing the aircraft with radio-frequency … countermeasures”, it’s talking about either chaff or it’s link tot he APG-81.
You got to ask yourself, why would a pilot go to such lengths as to create an (overly positive) article about the F-35? Doesn’t he have anything better to do in his spare time? Why would he care about what others think? My best bet is he wrote it because he was asked or ordered to – and then it is only logical that he was also ordered to write it in specific manner, by someone having great interest in promoting the aircraft..
I have had the pleasure of watching two airshows that featured the F-35B (both at Miramar, CA) and on each occasion I not only talked to the pilots, maintainers, etc but I also got to do a 10-ish minute interview with the F-35’s first female pilot (Lt. Col. Christine Mau). One thing that I took away from the talks & the interview was that the average person in the military is not fully aware of political issues surrounding their program. This makes sense since for most as they spend all day dealing with their program and have little desire to spend even more time after-hours sifting through the net for more info about it.
They don’t need to look it up, they live it.
This was similar to my own experience with the original M1 Abrams’s early life. While in the Army as a 19K Tanker, I did not know of the budgetary & dev issues that surrounded it till I read news about it years later. Obviously with the Internet as ingrained in our lives as it is today, these issues will present themselves & come to the attention of the crew much sooner. This is what likely caused this pilot to write for the blog, especially considering the pilot is from a Partner Nation.
Was he ordered to, I doubt it. Was he made aware of the blog site and given the opportunity to contribute, obviously yes. This was not his first public blog about the F-35 as he has been posting on the site every few months since mid 2014.
Surefire way to save time & money:
1. Use the F135 or a close variant
2. Use the ICP, EODAS, EOTS, APG-81 (angled down instead of up), MADL, CNI, ESM, Cockpit Displays, Ejector Seat, HOTAS, etc from the F-35.
seems that the Pentagon has really too much money in their pockets… or Lockheed has some very good friends over there:
This is just the extending & awarding of a previously budgeted maintenance contract. These are in EVERY fighter contract ever awarded in the US.
However the “editor” may want to imply, this does not cover “remedial” work as the contract does not mention it at all.
Here is what the contract actually says
Support to be provided includes ground maintenance activities; action request resolution; depot activation activities; Automatic Logistics Information System operations and maintenance; reliability, maintainability and health management implementation support; supply chain management; and activities to provide and support pilot and maintainer initial training.
btw, Everyone going in already knows & budgeted for Concurrency costs (ie “remedial” work) so when those are contracted, it’s not some kind of “gotcha” moment.
That is exactly why embedded systems like EOTS, EODAS or OLS-35 don’t make much sense.. A podded version is much easier to replace..
EOTS & EODAS are for all intents & purposes podded. They can be swapped out in the field with a few dozen screws and are more durable being as they are internal.
The first F-35A aircraft will arrive in Australia in 2018 and the first squadron, Number 3 Squadron, will be operational in 2021. All 72 aircraft are expected to be fully operational by 2023.
Spud, hats off, you are one of the chaps here who know´s what he´s talking about, but not this time (if i understood you correctly), you are looking at a very small part of those costs.
While those are the FY15/16 costs… I was looking at the FY17 costs for both the F-18E/F and F-35A.
F-35A from FY2017 Budget
As you can see, the costs have dropped considerably from previous years.
Something important, look at the “Non Recurring Costs” in that chart, almost nil.
The non recurring costs are a big chunk of the unit cost of the F-35A and almost nil in the case of the SH/Growler and thats normal because the SH is a much more mature platform.
The SH is at the end of it’s production life so it’s NRF is low since they do not need to update production equipment.
Here is what is in the F-35’s Ancillary & NRF costs:
(2) Non-recurring cost ($1.1 Mil) includes such items as the USAF share of Production Non-Recurring Tooling per the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Production, Sustainment, and Follow-on Development (PSFD) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and eight partner nations cooperating in the production, sustainment, and follow-on development of the JSF. In addition, it includes funding for Diminishing Manufacturing Sources (e.g.”Life-of-type” part buys), concurrency engineering, technical assistance and Cost Reduction Initiatives (CRI).
(3) Year-over-year changes in Ancillary Equipment costs ($4.3 Mil) are due to changes in annual aircraft quantities. Equipment includes Gen III Helmet Mounted Displays, launchers, and pilot flight equipment.
Here is what is in the SH’s Ancillary Equipment section.
(1) Ancillary equipment ($7 Mil) such as: Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM)/Radio Frequency Counter Measures (RFCM) ALQ-214 EFC, ALR-67, and External Fuel Tank.
So, the NRF & Ancillary costs are actually higher for the SH than for an F-35A.
Author
Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1,591 through 1,605 (of 4,849 total)
Sign In
