maus92F-35 DOT&E report out: More delays likely
There are so many issues it’s easier to read the article in ARES, which links to the DOT&E report – which contains information from the TBR.
H/T Bill Sweetman/ARES
maus92Would you rather develop 2 or three different 5th generation LO , Airframes and fighters and risk the cost spiral threat to three of them , or try to develop one program which will serve all three . The only chance for the US military establishment to have LO airframes in the ammount they needed was to go for a joint effort , the USN allready got burnt with their previous LO mis-adventure , the USAF had a huge cost over run on the F-22 which made it un-popular with the politicians and bean counters , the USMC didnt have enough numbers to replace to justify a completely different program . The JSF was the only option in a post-cold war environ for the 3 services to have a LO platform . Given the procurment run of the JSF , the R and D cost and increase in it can be absorbed by the shear volume of the production run , moreover LMA and the DOD learnt from the F-22’s cost Decreasing measures that in order to make production line changes on a high precission fighter Huge $$ need to be spent …so the entire production line of the F-35 is unique and is only possible because it will see such a large production run.
For me, I would have preferred the USAF/USN to develop a common model – with 2 engines, and an additional 2 pit version. These aircraft could also be used by Marine air based on CVN’s. For Marine STOVL, further development of the AV-8 would have been much cheaper – you don’t need stealth for CAS, and they Marines will not be assaulting beaches on the first day of war.
maus92Fair comment Lm, sometimes the claims that are made trigger a more extreme response than i would normally expect! 😮 :p
+1 to MSpheres comment on the F35, take away the myths and i have no probs with the basic idea.
As a confirmed F-35 skeptic, I have mixed feelings about the program. On the plus side, I like the tight integration of the avionics systems and (hopefully maintainable) stealth technology, but I do not like the premise of one basic airframe (and the inherent design compromises) to serve multiple missions. The primary reason for this strategy was to save money, but what has become apparent is that this goal is turning out not to be the case. The losers in this scenario are the taxpayers who will have to foot the bill, and the Marines who might lose their battle to retain a fast jet STOVL force independent of the Navy’s CVN’s.
maus92Why on earth would you want to do that? Attacking a heavily defended target at 200 feet and 500 knots has been shown to be near suicidal as was demonstrated against the relatively basic Iraqi close range point defenses in GW1.
It is also the whole reason the RAF switched tactics to medium altitude attacks from that point onward and continuing till this day.
+1
maus92I just don’t buy the F35 will swan around impervious to the opposition stuff.
Back to the subject of this thread the Super Hornet. Fair comment on the avionics suites, however even taking that into account, to operate at the medium level you cannot deny that a full supporting cast is required, for a country that does not and will not have such a supporting cast it is not possible to do.
Anything the USN does almost always gets the full supporting cast, depending upon the threat environment. The Aussies get it – ordering up F/A-18F’s prewired for conversion into EA-18G’s when the F-35’s arrive. Very smart.
maus92F-35B BF-2 Hover / VL on 06JAN11
BF-2 hovers and performs a vertical landing on January 6, 2011 at Pax River.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/01/video-probationary-f-35b-ends.html
maus92What is the panel on the top of the aircraft between and slightly forward of the vertical stabilizers, that is open with the yellow circular part? Drogue chute?
maus92Lockheed: We’ve fixed the F-35B bulkhead
Lockheed has redesigned the aluminum bulkhead that failed in testing.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/01/marine-f-35-lockheed-says-key-issue-is-fixed-011011w/
maus92F-35B and reality
This is what is facing the F-35B in the next 2 years:
Re: F-35B production: “All but three of the FY11/Lot 5 B-models are cancelled, and another 27 aircraft in FY12 and FY13 [as well]. Production is being drawn down to the minimum level necessary to preserve a restart option.”
And the weight issue: Gates: [changes will] “add yet more weight and more cost to an aircraft that has little capacity to absorb more of either.”
“The current situation has been in the making since the start of the systems development and demonstration program and has to do directly with the basics of a STOVL aircraft.
Vertical landing is a nonvariable requirement. The required airspeed is zero and can’t be adjusted by a few knots to compensate for extra weight. The JSF key performance parameter for bring-back load – corresponding to two 1,000-pound JDAMs and two Amraams – was set early on at a minimal level.”
Pretty daunting issues.
Source: Aviation Week/ARES/Sweetman
maus92That path is besides the point when comparing Tornado and F/A-18E. The point is that 18E is a newer generation aircraft. Not surprising, her key avionic systems and ‘backbone’ are more modern than that of Tornado. But it is not that Tornado wasn’t upgrade throughout her lifetime.
Not really. The SH has more room for development that was planned into the system from the start. In that sense, and keeping with the topic of this thread, the Rhino on balance is a better platform than the Tornado because of its expandability, at least IMO. But I am biased.
maus92Was it me or did anyone read the transcript of Def Sec Gates speech and feel like he would have cancelled the F-35B if he could, but instead he is letting the programme run until the point where it is going to be obvious that F-35B is going to be unable to meet the USMC requirements for bring back weight and payload?
Yes. Sources have said that Gates was prepared to cancel the F-35B, but Gen. Amos lobbied him hard to give the program more time. Gates’ reasoning was based upon performance up to date, and undisclosed issues with the aircraft. However, some have speculated the Amos agreed to support the cutting of the EFV in exchange for the two-year lifeline extended to the -B.
maus92Funny, on how nobody has come up with any viable soultions….;)
The Navy is currently developing several plans to deal with the possible cancellation of the F-35B. First is to have the Marines purchase F-35C’s. Buying the -C reduces the overall cost of the variant by increasing volume. It also removes the complications of potentially operating two types of F-35’s off a CVN. And another potential cost saving is the cancellation of a second LHA 6 class vessel designed mainly to support the -B. A second option is buying F/A-18E/F’s for the Marines. The Marines hate this idea, and they have resisted all attempts to include them the program – including not buying the ATFLIR for their legacy Hornets. Buying the Super Hornet, particularly the -F, is the best option for the FAC-A mission, and the Supers are considerably less expensive than the -C. A third option is SLEPing and upgrading the Navy’s F/A-18C’s, and transferring them to the Marines en masse. The Navy buys a mix of F/A-18E/F and F-35C to replace the airframes transferred to the Marines. The Marines seem to like the legacy Hornets.
A Navy Times article gives some background:
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/01/navy-marine-cuts-affect-fleet-010811/
maus92The Navy pretty much has to stick with the F-35C since there is no other carrier-capable VLO airframe in the pipeline. They are the only U.S. service that “needs” the F-35 at all. Even then, the most likely outcome is that they’ll be in fleet service in much the same numbers and role as the A-6Es were in the 1980s. The notion that you’re ever going to see two, 12-plane VFAs of F-35s in CVWs is pie in the sky thinking. The Navy is far from having placed its last order of F/A-18E/Fs.
As far as the UK, they really would be better off with F/A-18E/Fs, if only so that they can afford to maintain a numerically significant force structure.
The F-35C is still in its infancy as far as flight test goes. What will be interesting to see is the outcome of the initial carrier trials scheduled for later this year. The Navy is in good shape either way – if the trials uncover some nasty flight characteristics, then they still have the Rhino, and the N-UCAV and NGAD programs. The Marines would have re-barreled -C/D’s or could do something they refused to do until now – buy the Super Hornet.
maus92The F-35B is hanging by a thread at best, as Gates himself said this week. The USMC needs to recapitalize both their Hornets and their Harriers, and the best and fastest way to do that once the F-35B is canceled will be to buy Super Hornets. The F-35C doesn’t bring anything to the table that the Marines need any better than the Super Hornet does, but costs more to buy and operate. It’s a no brainer.
Yup, stealth is not required for FAC-A and CAS. Marine Air exists to support Marine Ground.
maus92Ah, but how fair is it to compare a system from 1975 with one from 1995: of course the latter will have newer and better gizmo’s installed. Even if the older jet was continually upgraded, the systemic basis will remain 20 years old. Just think what happened in that time frame 1975-1995 in terms of computing, for example. Wouldn’t a newer design always win such a comparison? If so, how meaningfull is such a comparison/statement?
The Super Hornet is in a spiral development path, adding planned upgrades and capabilities to the aircraft through it service life. While the airframe was designed in ~1995 and fleeted in ~2000, it systems are continuously upgraded, like adding an AESA radar, and in the next few years, the Distributing Targeting System. The fiber optic databus will allow further expansion as new systems are developed. This was one of the reasons why the Tomcat was retired earlier than expected – its adaptability to new technologies was limited.
Sign In
