Thanks for the link Joe!!!!
Interesting news....via Yahoo.com
By Andrea Shalal-EsaOk.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force plans to start operational use of Lockheed Martin Corp.-builtF-35 fighter jets in mid-2016, a year earlier than planned, using a similar software package as the Marine Corps, two sources familiar with the plans said on Monday. The Air Force's decision to accelerate its introduction with a slightly less capable version of the F-35 software package means the planes will carry fewer weapons at first, although the software will later be upgraded to the final version, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.
Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said a final decision had not been made and declined to comment further. A spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office declined to comment.
The decision reflects the military's desire to start using the new warplanes, which are already rolling off the assembly line at Lockheed's sprawling Fort Worth, Texas, plant, even as military officials continue to test the plane.
The Air Force, Marines and Navy must report to Congress by June 1 on their target dates for initial operational capability, or IOC, which marks the point when the services have enough planes on hand to go to war if needed. Actual deployments usually lag IOC dates by about a year.
The sources said the services would send Congress a list of target or "objective" dates for declaring initial operational capability and a list of "threshold" dates, or deadlines.
The Marines Corps is sticking to its plan to begin early operational use in mid-2015 of its F-35B jets, which can take off and land like a helicopter, making it the first of the three U.S. military services to start using the jets.
Its threshold is the end of 2015. The planes will run the F-35's 2B software, which will give the Marines an initial war fighting capability that includes some air-to-air skills, the ability to strike targets on the ground and carry several internal weapons, including laser-guided bombs.
The Navy has set mid-2018 for starting operational use of its C-model F-35, which is designed for use aboard U.S. aircraft carriers. Its deadline or threshold date is early 2019.
I'm a supporter but even I have to ask some questions about this. First how is a program that was once stumbling along suddenly in a full speed gallop, testing isn't complete and yet the plane is being rushed into service? Second, if testing isn't complete are we putting pilots lives in danger?
I happily await input from "Elements of Power" Blog on this issue.
NOTE: Since I'm being ignored on my own damn blog let me say again. What is the cost? Is the plane keeping us from procuring much needed armor (a MUCH greater need than replacing the Harriers at this point in time)? Are we rushing the plane into service? Simple questions gentlemen. I await answers.
Well, the F-35A just completed all High angle of Attack testing this week.
ReplyDeleteAs for the software, Block 2B will begin to be delivered later this year.
software is the hardest part of this whole thing and block 2B isn't the go to war upgrade everyone is waiting for. i thought it was block 3.
Deletewell from what they were saying is 2 can do some war fighting abilities like air to air and some air to ground, it seems 3 just maximizes the abilities of the 35 but some can be done from 2 from how i read the article. also maybe they want to get it in the field to start getting a sense of how to maintain and operationally use it, while keeping it as not a requirement, maybe they wont send to the pacific but keep here to see how it works out but technically being operational.
Deletei'm seeing it differently. forgive me for being pissed but we leveraged the entire Marine Corps to support two programs. the F-35 and the MV-22. it wasn't suppose to be this way but here we are. yeah i'm bitching and i ain't happy but i'll deal. i just don't want them blowing smoke up my ass ANYMORE and tell me its all good.
Deletequite seriously i'm looking at the air side of Lockheed Martin the same way i look at General Dynamics. full of shit, not to be trusted and they can all suck my dick.
Well, its probably more apt to say that the Navy and Air Force bore higher overall costs due to helping out the Marines by lowering the cost of the B model. The cost to the airforce and navy along with the capabilities would likely of been better if not for the B model.
DeleteIIRC, Going IOC with 3I means that they can start MYB purchasing plans ASAP. This will ramp-up FRP rates. This will save the program costs, the customers cost, and our Partners cost on the acquisition side. This will allow them to start replacing F-16s sooner which will save SLEP costs.
ReplyDeleteIt's not like the F-22 all over again where the customers cut capability on the promise that they would be brought back in soon. Then then program was cut.
The F-35's SDD through 3F is already budgeted for post SDD (Block 4 onward) is already being worked on (and paid for).
I do not see any downside to this plan.
Here is a Block-by-Block breakdown in capability:
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/blocks1_zpsccc5bbbf.jpg
will the USMC save money or will it all add up to Singapore, S. Korea, and others saving money on the Marine Corps back? sorry if i sound jaded but i'm becoming less concerned with this programs success and more about whats going on with Marine Armor. i'm looking at a couple of MPC's just waiting for a decision on which to buy and instead of pulling the trigger on that relatively inexpensive program i'm waiting for the son of Godzilla to get payed for and then left with the hope that Marines will have armored transport the next time the US asked them to cross broken ground to kill the enemy.
DeleteYes they will. As they say, a rising tide lifts all boats.
DeleteMYB will allow for much cheaper production contracts than the LRIP single year ones we see today.
wait one damn minute! you're telling me that the Marine Corps is buying the F-35B at costs it can't afford, a F-35C that it doesn't want---all to allow for lower prices for the US Navy and our allies???????
DeleteIF THAT'S THE CASE THEN FUCK THE F-35, FUCK THE MULTI-YEAR BUY AND FUCK THE ENTIRE DEAL!
I'm thinking the reality of the JSF "Ponzi scheme" just hit you.
DeleteThe F-16, which started out as a cheap affordable jet, and then got cheaper because it was in such demand (because it was a damn good, cheap jet) and enjoyed economies of scale. Instead, the F-35 has gotten economies of scale "thrust upon it", by signing up member countries and guaranteeing sales before the damn thing is even ready for combat.
It's kind of like Kickstarter... Only on a much bigger scale... And nobody gets their money back if the project falls flat.
Cancel the F-35B and use upgraded Harriers for close air support to 2030 until a new replacement comes. The Marines can buy the F-35C to cover the harriers from advanced missiles and fighters. F-35B destroyed the JSF program.
ReplyDeleteAh..Ah...Bzzsht!!! Of all the variants the C is least impressive, and all because it has to launch and recover conventionally on a big deck. The Harrier is the apex of its type but an evolutionary dead end. Marines got the B right, and they'll get far more sorties per day with fewer airframes than either the Harrier or any jet flying in from the CVNs.
Deletei have darn near from the horses mouth confirmation that these moves are being made to lock in airframes before a second round of sequestration hits. how much are the services going to be down during the next round of budget cuts?
DeleteTo SMsgt Mac
DeleteThe F-35 can't even take off or land vertical with a full load. So what's the point of it. Most takeoffs will be conventional with the F-35B. Its always having problems and cost the JSF program to much money. The F-35C has a bigger wing with greater range. The F-35B has the shortest range and a reduced internal payload. Everything about F-35B is worse than the other two variants. If the Marines would like to save money, buy the 80 F-35C to replace F-18 to cover AV-8B. Or buy less F-35B, only a few squadrons.
The B is STOVL: SHORT Takeoff Vertical Landing. Normal Ops in the field calls for short takeoffs with a 'full' load (all aircraft have hot-high restrictions), and is required to bring back X amount as a life-cycle cost/efficiency requirement. If the USMC adopts the UKs 'Short Rolling Vertical Landing Technique the F-35B will be able to bring back about two tons more stuff on a short field. There is still the option for a standard landing at a longer runway at regular airfields if necessary. The ability to operate close to the fight is the key driver for the STOVL. they get extra sorties per day which is like having 20% of more aircraft available. I think it is noteworthy that we've heard NO GAO/DOT&E complaints about either deployability footprint requirements or sortie generation rates. In 'day one' configuration it is highly unlikely the Marines will need anything bigger than a 1K bomb to drop, which is why it was the original requirement. After 'day one' they can hang bigger if needed on the wings.
DeleteThe Ignorami like to claim the capability to operate close isn't a big deal or that the Marines never use it, and they're wrong or lying. See ttp://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2011/08/f35b-agitprop-ala-sweetman.html, including the comments.
The B model is naturally more complex than the A or C, but it appears to have its initial teething problems behind it - and for quite a while now it seems. If you don't count propulsion, there is much higher commonality between the A and B than A and C or B and C.
As to the C model, the big wing and accoutrements are necessary for carrier landings and good for carrier takeoffs. The benefit is longer range from more fuel, which is a good thing for the Navy since carriers are kept as far asea as they can get away with so they NEED longer range. The differences In flying qualities compared to an A model is probably higher sustained G and turn rate from lower wing loading and lower instantaneous G rate because that's a big wing to roll. It is probably slower than the A or B below 20K feet and maybe can fly higher. It will be 'fought' by its pilots slightly differently than the A and B pilots will fight their rides.
I assume you like the M1 Abrams. The M1 was vilified by "Antis" when it was in development and right up to where it cut through Russian-designed armor like so much butter during Desert Storm. Some of the Anti-JSFers are the same ones who will tell you today the Abrams is cr*p or won't admit they were wrong even in light of the history. Same sour tune, different weapon system.
I ment F-35 will make mostly short takeoffs and landings. Why not just use a stol rather than a stovl aircraft? A stovl has many design limits causing reduced performance. More sorties for the F-35 I doubt it. Its hard to maintain and expensive to maintain so I don't think the current budget will allow more sorties. We will have to wait until all variants are tested to successfully compare, like F-35C performance. The Abrams does have its fair share of weaknesses so I could understand some criticism. The tanks our tankers faced in Iraq were completely obsolete pieces of shits. On paper we beat Russian/Chinese tanks with the Abrams clearly. The Abrams has taken lots of punishment so it was definitely worth it. I'm in favor of F-35, but the price is becoming a serious problem. The F-35B fucked up the other variants. I just think if the Marines kept the Harriers for 15 more years it would pay off with a new/better jet for close air support.
DeleteRE: A stovl has many design limits causing reduced performance.
DeleteThere are always design limits. In the case of the B model the Marines value the smaller basing footprint that vertical landing buys them but they really value the vertical landing on their amphibs. 'VL' allows the Marines to operate their rotary wing and recover their airplanes at the same time. If it were more practical, they'd insist on vertical takeoffs as well, but the tradeoff for that is far less 'bang' flying outbound.
I can think of no way, shape, or form that the STOVL compromised the conventional A model design. The C model is compromised IMHO by all the necessary things that make it a naval fighter. For the life of me I cannot figure out where the BS claim that the F-35A or C is compromised by the B STOVL requirements. I've never read a logical reason WHY such a claim came about, and I doubt one exists except in the fever brains of critics.
The propulsion scheme for the B model is brilliant IMHO, to the point that the weight of the lift fan is almost exactly the same weight as a mid-mission (half full) fuel tank that it replaces, allowing it to fly pretty much the same as the A model, just not as far. The reduced G-load of the B model is almost certainly due to the lighter structural weights and structure breaks in the aft end to allow for the articulated tail feathers. The program-wide weight problem came about because 'someone' (who had to be the 'Customer') tried to make the payload bays on the B the same as the A or C in between the X-plane flyoff and the F-35 program kickoff. The move was made chasing the 'commonality is good' mantra. There's a video out there where Former Chief Test Pilot Jon Beesley talks about how this not-very-well-thought-out plan threw all the variant's weights into chaos. That was a program decision problem, not a STOVL problem, and the B model of course went back to the Marine's original 1Klb weapon bay requirement.
There isn't 15 years left in the Harrier without very costly mods and upgrades, and it is still a target on the modern battlefield. Stealth is still a dominant battlefield factor, and even if someday it isn't stealth, it will still be the minimum price of admission.
The Abrams and their crews MADE the stuff we faced in DS look like sh*t. It's success scared the Russians to death, and it scared their potential buyer/clients even more. When an Abrams shot through a sand dune in front of a tank hull-down in defilade, it still goes through the tank hull behind it and out the back, or when superior the optics allowed us to smack blind opponents through smoke and darkness it got people's attention. The M-1 was everything that was promised, and the critics still don't own up to it.
have you seen this yet?
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW28Mb1YvwY&list=FLvPq8CX558a4FnOFLDr6QwQ&index=4
The B can do a vertical takeoff.
No, that's not what I meant and I'm sorry for the confusion.
ReplyDeleteWith an acceleration-to-MYB, the USMC's F-35B/C jets will be cheaper even if they do not increase the build rate of the B/C. The Increased rate of the A and the cost security of a MYB will lower the cost of already planned F-35Bs (the USMC will not be buying F-35Cs until 3F, at least no news to the contrary has been announced).
That's what I meant to say.
Given it current state, there is simply no conceivable way the F-35 will be combat ready by 2016. At best, the F-35A might be able to carry a minimal load out of 2 AMRAAMs and 2 JDAMs. It may be useful for testing or limited training, but no way will it be ready for combat.
ReplyDelete-The helmet doesn't work yet, and there is no HUD as a back up.
-External fuel tanks haven't even been fit tested yet.
-Weapons have been dummy dropped, but no live fire exercises yet.
-There is still plenty of flight software code to be written.
-No weapon release at high Gs yet.
-The F-35C has yet to land on a even a simulated carrier, thanks to a faulty tailhook.
The chance that all these issues will be fixed by 2016 are slim-to-none, and even in the unlikely event that the JSF program continues with no further setbacks or funding cuts, there is no way it will be sufficiently tested and all legacy F-35s retrofitted to combat readiness by then. None.
that's my thinking and if that's the case then we're looking at budget games. they're wanting to get it locked in so that it can be looked at for cancellation.
Deletei had an epiphany and it has to be the Chinese and Russians that have the airpower advocates spooked. the J-20 is out and the F-35 clone is beginning testing and they're seeing it all slip away.
what everyone needs to see to be able to make reasonable judgements about how we spend our defense dollar is the top secret material on what the Navy is doing with the F-18. those bastards are mighty confident that the plane will be viable until a 6th gen comes along...so cocky that they shove the F-35C down the Marine Corps throats, buy more F-18s and don't rock the boat by getting a party line couple of F-35 squadrons.
@Doug Allen:
Delete--The helmet is just fine and will likely gain cert this year. Your concern about no HUD was never an issue as the helmet’s HUD functionality was never in trouble as only the nighttime display of EODAS imagery was the major issue.
--External Fuel tanks as not even part of Block 3F so this is a non-issue
--Do you expect that somehow weapons will miraculously no work when dropped from a F-35? They have already begun live weapon handling and all comms with the weapons are working fine.
--The code for 3I is done for the most part so again, not an issue
--High g weapons are not part of 3I as 3I is limited to 7.5g… another non-issue
--They are not declaring IOC for the F-35C in 2016, just the F-35A… so again, a non-issue.
Block 2B (the same software as 3I) is entering SDD this year so they have three years to iron any issues out.
Again, take a look at the capability plan:
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/blocks1_zpsccc5bbbf.jpg
@SpudmanWP:
DeleteWhere have you seen that the helmet is working "just fine"? Everything I have seen states that it is suffering from lag, blurry images, and stutters. This article is 7 hours old at the time of posting: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10069680/Helmet-for-Britains-new-F-35-fighter-has-significant-technical-deficiencies.html
External tanks are a thing. "Blocks" be damned. Sooner or later, extra gas is going to be needed to fly where the aerial refuelers can't.
There is a HUGE difference between dropping a "dumb" bomb while flying level and launching a active radar-homing, data-linked AMRAAM AIM-120D and successfully bringing down a target. All I have seen so far are weapon separation tests. Until they have successfully brought down a drone while performing combat maneuvers, I'm not convinced.
Lt. General Bogdan seems concerned about the software: http://defensetech.org/2013/04/24/concerns-linger-over-f-35-software-delays/
High G weapons are a matter for the combat situation to decide, not paperwork. An aircraft is either ready for duty, or its not. As of yet, I have yet to see any material on weapon testing done at anything over 1g, given the amount of PR material relating to F-35 progress, it would seem odd that they would leave this out.
The article mentions the F-35C, so I mention the F-35C's most glaring issue thus far. What good is a carrier version that can't land on a carrier?
The F-35 has been flying since December, 2006. Quite frankly, they should have has all the issues "ironed out" already. This slow crawl of progress is only going to lessen the amount of time the JSF will enjoy any tactical advantage (if any) before monsters like the J-20 and PAK FA come out.
I agree with Solomon in that the assumption that the F-35 will be superior until a 6th gen fighter (F/A-XX) arrives is absolute hubris. It should be assumed that the PAK FA will, at the very least, be equal to the F-22. The J-31, equal to the F-35. Not taking these jets seriously could compromise western air dominance for the next 30 years.
If you ask me, the F-35 production should be severely cut, and progress should be made immediately on the F/A-XX. Keep the F-35B (only because there is no real alternative), reduce A and B version orders to a bare minimum, get rid of the "gold-plated" systems like the next-gen HMD and EOTS in favor of existing IRST and HMD systems currently in use.
Get the plane ready for combat using existing, proven tech. And I mean now, not three to ten years from now. Upgrade that stuff later while the JSF in already in service. If the aircraft is so dependent on these untested, unproven, whiz-bang features that it can't survive without them, then it never should have been built in the first place.
UCAV's like the Predator C Avenger and X-47B are already seriously bringing the F-35's usefulness into doubt. Why send a manned fighter into a high threat area when you can send a UCAV? The longer the F-35 takes to enter real, frontline service, the more this question is going to be asked.
I'm at lunch now and your comment deserves a far more serious smackdown than I'm willing to type into my phone. Spudman,leave a little for after I get off work tonight will ya?
Deleteyou picked the wrong time to climb on the wrong bandwagon. What line of work are you in? I ask because it sure isn't aerospace or defense. In fact I'd guess it would be very far removed from either. If so, I'd probably no little of it, which means I'd have very little to say on the subject. That's a hint.
If the JSF program is doing better than it appears, by all means, please educate me. I've been following the program since the JAST days, and the news always seems to get worse before it gets better (not counting the butt-ugly X-32's loss to the X-35).
DeleteThe "it's over your head" reasoning doesn't wash with taxpayers and politicians, and they are the ones who control the purse strings. The JSF is years late and way over budget at a time when defense spending is under intense scrutiny. The people paying for this stuff are getting sick of shoveling money at it without seeing tangible results.
Needless to say, the F-35 is going to be a huge political football in the 2014 and 2016 elections. It already is an issue with other "member nations" like Canada, Denmark, UK, etc. Not that a few cancelled orders here and there will make much difference financially, but it'll make a big political dent.
One way or another, myself included, people are going to want to see the F-35 saga done.
RE: Where have you seen that the helmet is working "just fine"? Everything I have seen states that it is suffering from lag, blurry images, and stutters. This article is 7 hours old at the time of posting: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10069680/Helmet-for-Britains-new-F-35-fighter-has-significant-technical-deficiencies.html
DeleteOh…LOL! you did NOT just reference that editorial as a “source”, did you? The article may have been 7 hours old when you referenced it but the GAO report it was referencing was 1) Dated even when it came out and 2) Not accurately cited.
I especially liked the way the quote “Significant Technical Risks” was lifted out of context from one of two reports/transcripts (either http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653857.pdf (p. 3-4) or http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652948.pdf (p. 10)-they both say the same thing)
Here’s the relevant section:
*****
Progress Made in Addressing Key Technical Risks
In 2012, the F-35 program also made considerable progress in addressing four areas of technical risk that could substantially degrade the F-35’s capabilities and mission effectiveness. However, additional work remains to fully address those risks. These risk areas and the actions taken in 2012 are discussed below:
1. Helmet mounted display (HMD)—DOD continued to address technical issues with the HMD system. The original helmet mounted display, integral to mission systems, encountered significant technical deficiencies and did not meet warfighter requirements. The program is pursuing a dual path by developing a second, less capable helmet while working to fix the first helmet design. In 2012, DOD began dedicated ground and flight testing to address these issues. Both variations of the helmet mounted display are being evaluated and program and contractor officials told us that they have increased confidence that the helmet deficiencies will be fixed. DOD may make a decision in 2013 as to which helmet to procure….
*****
Note the past tense for ‘problems’, present tense for ‘risks’. Don’t get me started on the uselessness of the GAO and ‘risks’.( http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2011/04/f-35-and-texas-sharpshooters.html)
By the time the data for these reports was put to paper, there were already tidbits of info coming out about the helmet’s progress, like:
“….Lockheed Martin Executive Vice President Tom Burbage said that night vision performance was the "only real question" left on the helmet,
…."We're making great progress on the helmet," Burbage told Reuters, noting that it was in use by F-35 test pilots and those being trained by the U.S. military.
He said two tests dedicated to studying the helmet's performance at night were taking place at Naval Air Station Patuxent River and initial reports were "quite good."
….Yossi Ackerman, president and chief executive of Elbit, declined to comment except to cite what he called "dramatic progress" on the helmet.
….Burbage said the company had logged almost 5,000 flights using the primary helmet, and it would be used by the U.S. Marine Corps when they start flying the new fighter in 2015, a deadline Bogdan had called into question last month.
He said until it received full approval from the Pentagon for the primary helmet, the company was continuing to fund work on a less ambitious, alternate helmet being developed by BAE Systems, which uses goggles.
He said the primary issue now facing the Rockwell-Elbit helmet was whether pilots could see well enough to refuel the plane from a dark refueling aircraft and land the F-35B variant, which lands like a helicopter, on a dark ship at night.
Burbage said the night flights under way now would help answer that question. He said there had also been concerns about a lag in getting sensor data to the helmet, but that was not an issue anymore.
(http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/30/us-lockheed-fighter-helmet-idUSBRE89T1KE20121030)
Looks like good progress to me. Let’s see which helmet gets ‘baselined’ as scheduled.
RE: External tanks are a thing. "Blocks" be damned. Sooner or later, extra gas is going to be needed to fly where the aerial refuelers can't.
DeleteAh…Asserting external fuel tanks as being a need unfulfilled that should be fulfilled, though program planning indicates they are not desired or needed at this time, “Blocks be damned”. If you knew anything about aircraft requirement s and design you would know the whole reason for large internal fuel carriage on the F-35 was to minimize the need for external tanks and associated increased drag and wing inefficiency from pylons/tanks. And you didn’t think your point through very well. If the F-35 is going where tankers can’t go, it’s going where you don’t want external stores like fuel tanks hanging off it.
RE: There is a HUGE difference between dropping a "dumb" bomb while flying level and launching a active radar-homing, data-linked AMRAAM AIM-120D and successfully bringing down a target. All I have seen so far are weapon separation tests. Until they have successfully brought down a drone while performing combat maneuvers, I'm not convinced.
BZZZT. Sorry, wrong again. The high risk portion of the clearance, from the aircraft POV, is behind it on every weapon they’ve cleared the release envelope for. The big thing is safe separation coming into the aircraft flow field from an internal bay and weapon comm while it is in the bay. The rest is on the weapon to perform the flyout, with some possible reliance on the radar, a relatively low risk derivation of the F-22 radar that has been and is being extensively tested on flying testbeds.
RE: Lt. General Bogdan seems concerned about the software: http://defensetech.org/2013/04/24/concerns-linger-over-f-35-software-delays/
Lt Gen Bogdan is a political animal walking a PR tightrope. He says a lot of things that he’s found himself to have to walk back from a bit. And if he wasn’t ‘concerned’ about how the program was going, including software he’d be a lousy PEO. Engineers and PMs ‘concerns’ aren’t to be misinterpreted as ‘fears’ or evidence of failure BTW. A tongue in cheek reality check for Bogdan: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2012/09/f-35-program-deputy-memo.html
RE: High G weapons are a matter for the combat situation to decide, not paperwork. An aircraft is either ready for duty, or its not. As of yet, I have yet to see any material on weapon testing done at anything over 1g, given the amount of PR material relating to F-35 progress, it would seem odd that they would leave this out.
Assuming you mean high-G weapon RELEASE… See, there’s another thing you know nothing about. Once you’ve established what the flow field around the aircraft is with doors open, closed, and in-between, and at all airspeeds, AoAs and attitudes (Done!), your ability to predict separation characteristics at higher G’s becomes much simpler, as wing’s-level store separation on ejected weapons looks pretty much the same if you are pulling 2,3,or 8 gs, and the same can be said for any bank angle with allowance for the gravity vector. Not risk free, but much less risky than initial separations. Big rocks in this area are in the rear view mirror for weapons that have been safely separated. Now someone who hasn’t ‘done the deed’ as often as I have may view it as a little more ‘risky’ than I do, but people always fear what they don’t know.
As to “An aircraft is either ready for duty, or its not”: B.S. No new weapon system is good to go out of the box. It brings new capabilities that operators and maintainers must learn how to exploit to maximum advantage. There is always a learning curve, and with new knowledge usually comes new capabilities and often new problems ; problems that are almost always worth solving through a little thing we call ‘engineering’.
RE: The article mentions the F-35C, so I mention the F-35C's most glaring issue thus far. What good is a carrier version that can't land on a carrier?
DeleteActually, the intermediate step of just changing the hook point would probably suffice, but to make certain there is no further problems, the program may be pressing an overkill with additional mods:
“In three of five recent attempts, the redesigned hook did capture the wire; the failures were due to the pilot landing the aircraft too far from the wire for a successful arresting. This testing “was highly successful in demonstrating that when presented the wire . . . it will grab the wire,” says J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin’s vice president of test and evaluation for the F-35 program. He briefed reporters Sept. 18 during the annual Air Force Assn. conference in Washington.”
(http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_09_19_2012_p0-497526.xml)
I’m also guessing you missed this little piece of info that just surfaced publically for the first time. The last sentence should draw your attention…
"...However, the X-47B did not carry out an arrested landing upon returning to Pax River. That could be because the unmanned jet was having difficulty making even that first trap it did the week before where the Navy showed off a video of the aircraft snagging a wire. Sources told the DEW Line, at the time of the earlier trap, the aircraft now had a 10 percent field boarding rate... So hopefully, this isn't an indication of a major problem. The X-47B guys have had to redesign their tail hook a number of times now due to the same inaccurate Navy-supplied wire dynamics model that was partly responsible for the F-35C's woes...." (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/05/the-day-of-the-unmanned-aircra.html)\
RE: The F-35 has been flying since December, 2006. Quite frankly, they should have has all the issues "ironed out" already. This slow crawl of progress is only going to lessen the amount of time the JSF will enjoy any tactical advantage (if any) before monsters like the J-20 and PAK FA come out.
Ah, the ‘taken too long’ claim. One of my favorites. AA-1 was the defacto prototype, (the X-35 was a technology demonstrator) and ther’s now about 50 planes flying. Let’s look at another fighter timeline as I’ve done here before and elsewhere:
There were 291 F-16 Block 1 and 5 deliveries before the first 'nominally' useful Block 10 was built. To keep perspective, the YF-16's first flight (official) was Feb 74, and the first definitive and fully capable Block 30/32 F-16s for the US first flew Feb 87. Counting all partner nation deliveries about 1800(!!!) F-16s were delivered before the fully capable Block 30/32s. Until the Block 30, all the Block 30s were the first F-16s with full Beyond Visual Range-engagement and night/precision ground/maritime attack capabilities. First with full AIM-7/AMRAAM/AGM-65D/HARM capabilities. First with Seek Talk secure voice comm, etc.
Fielding 1800 aircraft before you reach a 'baseline' in Block 30/32? 13 YEARS after first flight? --Now THAT is 'concurrent development'.
There will be fewer aircraft fielded before Block 3F than the F-16 had for Block 15/20
RE: I agree with Solomon in that the assumption that the F-35 will be superior until a 6th gen fighter (F/A-XX) arrives is absolute hubris. It should be assumed that the PAK FA will, at the very least, be equal to the F-22. The J-31, equal to the F-35. Not taking these jets seriously could compromise western air dominance for the next 30 years.
DeleteUnknown capabilities and qualities, unknown delivery quantities, unknown development timeline. OK, you panic, the pros will work on solutions. It’s what we do-- Defense ain’t for the faint of heart.
RE: If you ask me, the F-35 production should be severely cut, and progress should be made immediately on the F/A-XX. Keep the F-35B (only because there is no real alternative), reduce A and B version orders to a bare minimum, get rid of the "gold-plated" systems like the next-gen HMD and EOTS in favor of existing IRST and HMD systems currently in use. Get the plane ready for combat using existing, proven tech. And I mean now, not three to ten years from now. Upgrade that stuff later while the JSF in already in service. If the aircraft is so dependent on these untested, unproven, whiz-bang features that it can't survive without them, then it never should have been built in the first place.
You don’t have any idea what the ‘hard’ parts of the F-35 bring to system as a whole. It is testimony to your lack of comprehension- the inability to grasp that the whole of the F-35 is greater than the sum of its parts- that you would insist on screwing up a revolutionary weapon system by taking tech out that you don’t have a clue as to what it provides, while promoting the wait for an imaginary, undefined future ‘magic’ solution to come along later.
“Novices in mathematics, science, or engineering are forever demanding infallible, universal, mechanical methods for solving problems.”-J. R. Pierce
RE: UCAV's like the Predator C Avenger and X-47B are already seriously bringing the F-35's usefulness into doubt. Why send a manned fighter into a high threat area when you can send a UCAV? The longer the F-35 takes to enter real, frontline service, the more this question is going to be asked.
No they are not “bringing the F-35’s usefulness into doubt”-- at least among those who have a clue. There is a very large difference in capability that a UAV can provide and what a manned platform can provide, a gap that cannot be closed today nor realistically seen as closable in the foreseeable future. See my reply to Twixter elsewhere on the thread.
As to the “we’re paying for it” whine. Hybris anyone?
Yes as citizens we are all entitled to ask questions. We’re just not entitled to jump to conclusions, or make cr*p up because you don’t understand the answers. And you’re sure as h*ll not entitled to tell the people who do understand that what they’re doing is ‘wrong’. I’m certain you don’t tell the doctor what the diagnosis is or the dentist how big a filling to put in, so what makes you think you know what’s ‘best’ practice or what’s needed in acquisition of advanced military weapons systems?
Hybris is the condition of being arrogant in one’s ignorance. I am only arrogant in the face of Hybris.
Sorry for sucking up bandwidth on this one Sol,
I think you are being wildly optimistic on both the J20 and PAK FA time frames. Both are still very much in the prototyping stage and neither is expected to being in any sort of realistic operational capacity until 2019/2020. To give you an idea of the PAK FA development, they just last year changed the radome to incorporate a first gen Russian AESA radar into the design. In addition, the PAK FA isn't even expected to have its actual engines ready until 2016. All the current PAK FA prototypes are flying with interim engines. As far behind schedule as the F35 is, it is well well ahead of the PAK FA.
DeleteThe J20 likewise is in very early flying prototype stage with significant amount of development and testing to still be done. The J31 is in an even earlier state. It is relatively easy to do first flights and test flights, but as we've seen with both the F22 and F35, getting actual functionality done does take a lot longer. It should also be noted that China is even further behind on engines as Russia has basically cut them off in that area.
My take? If true this is great news. Get the jet in the hands of the operators; even with initial capabilities its better than almost everything else we or our potential enemies have flying. IOC is always a case by case call. I remember the wailing over the B-2's IOC declaration, followed shortly thereafter by it being the star performer in OAF in 1999,followed by another lame DOT&E report over its supposed risk and shortcomings. "Fear is the mind killer". We are rapidly reaching the point where the F-35 naysayers are going to have to find another 'failed' system to complain about. Who's on deck for the special attention next do you think? Next Gen Bomber? CVNs? New IFV? It'll always be something.
ReplyDeletemy concern is mostly budgetary. i'm seeing a combined armed force becoming unbalanced because of two aircraft and i'm beyond concerned.
Deletethink about this. the Army is using M1A2 Abrams. the Marine Corps is still using M1A1. some of our ALLIES (and i'm talking the Saudi's and the Egyptians) are rolling with M1A2's!
our armor is jacked up.
Next up, Australia.
DeleteTheir plan is IOC at Blk3F in the 2018 timeframe but is happy with 3I as a fallback option as it is better than their classic Hornets.
http://tinyurl.com/kzz8nsd
While for now F-35 looks sometimes as a stopgap before arrival of "dehumanization" era "nextgen" unmanned air vehicles, after a few software upgrades it actually could become one.
ReplyDeleteOther currently deployed or actively tested UAV is a ground attack UAV's, by design incapable to engage on even terms contemporary manned fighters. So F-35 looks as a perfect candidate for a fully capable fighter-UAV in the future, "just remove the pilot".
The manned fighter's and bomber's days are yet to be numbered. The kind of AI that will be needed to match what a Mark 1 Mod O eyeball and Release 1.0 human brain can do in an unplanned situation is yet to be realized. IMHO it never will. I'll consider revisiting that estimation as soon as someone comes up with a satisfactory definition of 'intelligence'. Until then, and setting soft science's fantasies aside, we can't even begin to adequately describe what 'intelligence' "is". Recommend Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind", or any of his more recent papers arguing against the possibility of 'Strong AI'.
DeleteWhile near term (~10 years) UAVs will have their used, it will primarily be in at risk strike and recon roles. It will take longer for the UAVs to overtake planes in the anti-air and air dominance roles as those roles are much more dynamic, though they could serve in the near term as slaved launch barges which is something that has previously been looked at with other aircraft in the past (B-1B as a slave launch platform for F-22s).
DeleteYou got it. Any missions they CAN do better that a manned system they will be called upon to perform. My flight test unit at Hill AFB was the direct descendent of the SAC AQM/BQM-34 unit that flew recon and EW RPVs in SEA. We got a new Wing King at Edwards who flew up to visit us and unlike a lot of fighter pilots he 'got' it. He told us that the worst feeling he ever had as a recon pilot flying in Vietnam was when they sent him on a mission to fly a route trying to figure out "why the drones weren't coming back".
Delete"why the drones weren't coming back"... I think that goes up there with "mission briefings you don't want to be in".
DeleteBut yeah, I think the reality is in the future we're going to have less fighter jocks but they are going to be better protected and tend to be put in harms way only when they absolutely have to. Esp as/if/when the autonomy and flocking ability that Boeing/NG have started/tested as part of the X-45/47 and Phantom Ray development starts to pan out.
I can certainly see the day when an F/A-XX takes off with 2-3 UCLASS(+) running escort/slaved. F/A-XX goes passive radar, UCLASS(+) acts as a disconnected radar drone networked in. Etc.
In response to your note:
ReplyDeleteThe JSF program survived sequestration mostly untouched, but likely at the expense of other projects (like the F-22 upgrade). The F-35 is simply too big to fail.
F-35s will continue to be delivered, ready or not, that much is sure. The volume is needed to keep costs down and to feed the global wide subcontracts (to keep foreign sales going).
As to combat readiness, who knows? 2016 seems optimistic, with some saying it won't be ready in significant numbers until 2020 or later, especially foreign, B, and C versions. Perhaps the IOC dates are being put into place in order to light a fire under Lockheed's ass as well as giving some of the antsier "Partner nations" a reason to stick with the program.
The FY2014 USAF budget puts the last F-22 getting it's 3.1 upgrade in 2017.
Delete3.2 upgrade schedules will not appear in the budget til 2016.
Looking at the 3.2 development budget, the schedule has not changed from the FY2013 budget with IOT&E scheduled for 2014/2016 (3.2A & 3.2B).
By 2020 the USAF alone will have 285 F-35As and the USMC will have 99 F-35Bs.
ReplyDeleteThis assumes that accelerating the IOC will have no affect on the MYB decision which would lower costs and raise build rates. This also assumes no increase in FMS sales. Any of these two happening means more F-35s by 2020.
btw, 2020 is when Blk4 is due which is primarily a software upgrade (new weapons, UAI, etc). By Sep 2013 the details of Blk4 are to be ironed out. Norway had said they will pay for JSM integration for Blk4 no matter what.
F-35 + JSM is when things start to get rather interesting. JSM works as a significant capability and range extender for the F-35 and I hope that the US forces get on board with it, esp as the baseline weapon, the NSM is operational today and would present a real upgrade in capability for the Navy, esp if someone would fund VLS conversion development.
DeleteLets go with the slightly cynical response...
ReplyDeleteThe AF and Marine are going to be paying the money for the planes regardless of if they are used or not, so if the 2B software actually works, it is better to have the planes operational and hopefully in the marine care, providing significantly increases sortie rate than the harriers.
Are the marines going to have to sacrifice some armor for it? Most likely. But that is primarily the result of the marines not immediately buying an existing vehicle like the Havoc when the EFV was cancelled and/or not pushing for cost numbers and cancelling the EFV earlier. They delayed replacing the AAV far too long and now its going to probably bite them in the ass.
40 comments
ReplyDelete