F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Well, BF-3 has just completed 8 flights in 28 days (first Feb 2), so it seems quite possible to do the 12 x 12 x 12 when the airframes come around.

And the current rescheduling would have the presented data taken under consideration, i.e. DCMA (non-redacted).
 

SpudmanWP

The Bunker Group
If Dr. Carter gets the 4 extra SDD planes he called for, then they only need about 8 per month per plane to get back on schedule...
 

Stampe

New Member
The Associated Press: Air Force: F-35 jet delayed by 2 years

FROM THE ARTICLE,
WASHINGTON — Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said Tuesday that the service's plan to use the Pentagon's marquee fighter jet, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, will probably be delayed by two years and cost significantly more than initially expected.

Donley told reporters the F-35 isn't likely to be ready for the Air Force until 2015.

The jet had been scheduled to become initially operational in 2013 before the Pentagon uncovered serious problems with the contract. Last month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that at least one senior manager would be fired and $614 million in performance bonuses would be withheld from lead contractor Lockheed Martin Corporation.

"We remain fully committed to this program," Donley said.

But waiting until late in the 2015 budget year for the jet to reach a milestone known as initial operating capability is "the best estimate today on where we'll be," he added.

The delay suggests the program's problems were perhaps deeper than officials expected. When Gates discussed the program last month, he said he thought the early production milestone would remain intact.

Donley said that when Gates made his remarks, the service was still working through detailed reviews of the program.

He said problems are being addressed. "We want to hold the contractors' feet to the fire," he said. "We want to incentivize them to make good on the promises they made earlier and deliver on schedule."
This doesn't bode well for some customers outside the US either.

The Dutch just saw their government go up in flames and the leading party Christen - democrats ,who where the big pushers for the JSF , in a really bad position to get reelected after June could very well turn out badly for their JSF program.
It still is a heavily debated issue and this long 24 month delay could very well turn out to be the final nail in the coffin.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
If Dr. Carter gets the 4 extra SDD planes he called for, then they only need about 8 per month per plane to get back on schedule...
Yes, my train of thought as well. It doesn't seems like it's unit cost, capability or design maturity that's the issue here, but rather productionalizing the aircraft - which also seems to be the reason why flight testing is suffering. I've always considered that productionalizing would be the main issue, while concurrency would be a boon for flight testing on the other hand.

IMV, in the short term, the most interesting is the testing of the BF-4 (and also the first vertical landing). If these two comes through with no or minor issues, as has happened with the 150 flights so far, the status of the program would be tangible for everyone.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
With 7 months remaining in the current FY it might sound positive that they've flown 40 flights but the schedule calls for 1,200+. So they've flown about 3% of the total in roughly 42% of the scheduled time.

They are not making a dent in the total percentage of required test flights (it's 5,000+) and are falling further behind schedule every single day.

If there were on schedule for FY2010 they'd be flying 100+ flights a month on average. Flying 40 in 5 months is extremely negative not positive.
Only if you are still comparing flight test program with the original 12x12x12 schedule GD, referred to.

Clearly that is no longer relevant.L-M has proven NOT to be capable of managing this testing schedule so far and thus all we can look at is what they HAVE achieved to date. Compare apples to apples and it is a positive, compared to a now proven, unrealistic flight testing schedule you are correct, it is a negative. But why continue to rely on an obviously unachievable target? It is quite clear that the schedule will have to be revised.

What they have achieved therefore is worthy of study and what they HAVE achieved, is a significant increase in flight testing this year compared to previous years (assuming the testing continues to go well, as with BF-3) and as we get to see more airframes in the air, this can only increase.

Hence, my POV that this is a positive.
 

LGB

New Member
Full Rate Production April 2016

Dr Carter just amended his ADM (memo) to move full rate production to April 2016.

The DOD Comptroller Robert Hale has stated increased costs in the program will mean less are purchased.

Senate Armed Services will hold hearings on F-35 next week.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Dr Carter just amended his ADM (memo) to move full rate production to April 2016.

The DOD Comptroller Robert Hale has stated increased costs in the program will mean less are purchased.

Senate Armed Services will hold hearings on F-35 next week.
Any comments?
 

SpudmanWP

The Bunker Group
Dr. Carter's memo: Already seen it

DoD Comptroller's comment: Depends on the DoD and Congress

Hearing: Good, I hope all this Doom and Gloom will be settle down.
 

John88

New Member
Obviously Gates is trying to shake things up. However, it may be too little, too late. When he fired Maj Gen Heinz, he sent a message that he is not playing. As for L-M, withholding the $614 million is a statement that he means business to the contractor.
The US acquistions community should take note. PMs and contractors will be held to account for the DoD funds. The future is not one of huge surpluses, so every dollar spent needs to be spent well.
Getting this thing to within 13 months of original goals is optimistic, in my opinion.
 

LGB

New Member
Senate Hearing March 11, 2010

IOC for the USAF and USN is now 2016. USMC is still listed at Dec 2012 with block 2 software.

The original cost of the program was $50 million average cost per plane for the entire program in constant year 2002 dollars. The new estimate is $80 to $95 in then year 2002 dollars or $95 to $113 in today's dollars. This is the estimate today and likely to increase.

This rise of 60% to 90% over the original stated cost is more than enough for a Nunn McCurdy breach and Sec Donley will so inform Congress shortly.

All above was stated by Dr Carter.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Bill Sweetman's wrong? No, can't be. He's been an industry insider for decades, hasn't he???

:rolleyes:
No, he is not an "industry insider" as you ironically indicate. However he is a journalist, and in my opinion not much appreciated on this forum partly because of his scepticism towards some aspects of the F-35 program.

It seems to me that so far Bill Sweetman has been much more accurate in his predictions on how this program would develop than LM -- at least their official predictions.

Anyway, with the latest news I am actually starting to getting worried.

Why does USMC still keep the 2012 IOC deadline? Seems strange to me.

There is also this:

Ares Homepage

The newly released document, hosted on a government building-design resource site, outlines what base-construction engineers need to do to ensure that the F-35B's exhaust does not turn the surface it lands on into an area-denial weapon. And it's not trivial. Vertical-landing "pads will be exposed to 1700 deg. F and high velocity (Mach 1) exhaust," the report says. The exhaust will melt asphalt and "is likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL." (The report leaves to the imagination what jagged chunks of spalled concrete will do in a supersonic blast field.)

Not only does the VL pad have to be made of heat-resistant concrete, but currently known sealants can't stand the heat either, so the pad has to be one continuous piece of concrete, with continuous reinforcement in all directions so that cracks and joints remain closed. The reinforced pad has to be 100 feet by 100 feet, with a 50-foot paved area around it.
But I guess Sweetman is probably wrong about this as well? :rolleyes:
 

LGB

New Member
Usmc ioc

The USMC is sticking with an IOC of December 2012 with aircraft using block 2 software. The aircraft will not exactly be cleared to do very much. The other services 2016 IOC is with block 3 software.

Frankly, Dec 2012 really means 2013. IOC means different things to different services. Full combat capability is not projected for the USMC till 2024. In any case the real benchmark remains the flight test program. There needs to be very substantial progress very soon or the program will only be further delayed.

Originally the flight test program was projected to be delayed by JET for 30 months which was later estimated at 13 months by DOD based on specific changes they plan to implement. However, 30 months was not a worst case estimate by JET and the current stated 13 month delay is seen as optimistic by many.

Michael Sullivan from GAO was on the single panel and his comments were sobering. From my notes he stated the flight test program was "nascent" and that regarding costs "they really don't know". I'd like to think the program is not in as much trouble as it appears as we really need the aircraft but there does not seem to be much data to support an optimistic view.



Anyway, with the latest news I am actually starting to getting worried.

Why does USMC still keep the 2012 IOC deadline? Seems strange to me.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
IOC for the USAF and USN is now 2016. USMC is still listed at Dec 2012 with block 2 software.

The original cost of the program was $50 million average cost per plane for the entire program in constant year 2002 dollars. The new estimate is $80 to $95 in then year 2002 dollars or $95 to $113 in today's dollars. This is the estimate today and likely to increase.

This rise of 60% to 90% over the original stated cost is more than enough for a Nunn McCurdy breach and Sec Donley will so inform Congress shortly.

All above was stated by Dr Carter.
Hi lb,

"Then-year dollars" is not 2002 dollars. "Then-year dollars" are lump-sum 2034 dollars. 2002 dollars are baseline year dollars, i.e. $80-$95 million then-year dollars are $60-$75 million 2008 dollars...
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Btw, there is not much on the directional, LPI, datalink for the F-35/F-22 on the webs...

USAF selects datalink to bridge communications gap between F-22 and F-35
By Stephen Trimble

The US Air Force has cleared a five-year upgrade project to allow the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor to communicate with other stealthy - and perhaps some non-stealthy - aircraft types. The project will cost roughly $900 million.

Integrating the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) by 2015 should solve two embarrassing gaps in the USAF's airborne network. The F-22 lacks a multi-platform datalink and F-22 and Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter pilots would be unable to talk or share information with each other.

Michael Therrian, chief of the USAF's Electronic Systems Center's airborne networking division, says the fledgling MADL integration effort has helped bridge a cultural divide between F-35 and F-22 programmes within Lockheed.

"Lockheed Martin is now realising that there is a strong need to talk to each other and share information," Therrian says. "Before it was, 'I've just got my programmes', and now they're starting to talk to each other."

The MADL was designed specifically to support the F-35, with six antennas providing spherical coverage around the aircraft.

ESC's programme office for MADL completed a study last month that confirmed the waveform can be adapted for the F-22, although there remains "some risk involved", Therrian says.

That means the MADL will become the first waveform with low-probability of intercept/low-probability of detection capability and installed on more than one aircraft type. The USAF also plans to integrate MADL on the Northrop B-2A bomber fleet.

MADL was selected by the USAF after the Office of the Secretary Defense intervened last year. The USAF performed an analysis of alternatives that considered every waveform in existence or development.

As part of that study, the USAF rejected the Rockwell Collins Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT), a wideband, internet protocol-based messaging standard, for the stealth fleet. The TTNT was rejected because its signal could be detected.

Lockheed's MADL is a Ku-band datalink that is unlikely to be intercepted or detected by the enemy. While Link 16 or TTNT broadcasts its signal, MADL transmits a narrowbeam using a "daisy chain system", Therrian says. The first aircraft sends the directional signal to a second aircraft, then to a third aircraft, and so on.

MADL's stealth feature is its key asset but that carries a high price in bandwidth capacity. "This is not a big honking pipe," Therrian says. "It is somewhat comparable to Link 16 maybe in capability."

The ESC is now studying if MADL could be adapted for non-stealthy aircraft, such as the Boeing E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System.

It is not yet clear if the E-3 will be close enough to stealthy aircraft in combat for the MADL to be useful, Therrian says. ESC is also considering using a separate "gateway" platform that bridges the stealthy MADL signal into a conventional format to connect the E-3s.

USAF selects datalink to bridge communications gap between F-22 and F-35
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Hi lb,

"Then-year dollars" is not 2002 dollars. "Then-year dollars" are lump-sum 2034 dollars. 2002 dollars are baseline year dollars, i.e. $80-$95 million then-year dollars are $60-$75 million 2008 dollars...
You are right, however a question that remains to be answered is: did Lgb refer to then-year dollars or 2002 dollars?

DoD: F-35 to Breach Nunn-McCurdy Limits by 50% - Defense News

DoD's latest estimates predict that each of the jets slated to be purchased will carry a price tag of between $80 million and $95 million in 2002 dollars. That's $95 million and $113 million in 2009 dollars, respectively.
Seems he was referring to 2002 dollars not then-year dollars.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
No, he is not an "industry insider" as you ironically indicate. However he is a journalist, and in my opinion not much appreciated on this forum partly because of his scepticism towards some aspects of the F-35 program.

It seems to me that so far Bill Sweetman has been much more accurate in his predictions on how this program would develop than LM -- at least their official predictions.
Cutting and pasting JET, GAO and Dewline reports is how hard?

Anyway, with the latest news I am actually starting to getting worried.
It has been known for years that the aircraft is delayed. There is little to no "real news" coming out at present. The naysayers are having a field day, repeating themselves ad nauseum though...

But I guess Sweetman is probably wrong about this as well? :rolleyes:
I guess the "heavy construction teams" have already been to Patuxent River then, eh?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpFlN-OvD04]YouTube - F-35B Lightning II 40 knt Approach and Landing[/ame]

I'm not seeing much "spalled concrete" or "melted asphalt" there...

That report was referring to an earlier model and was the "worst possible case". L-M has already tested these theories out and debunked them thoroughly...

Of course L-M can't be trusted though, so I guess I'll just rely on what I can see with my own eyes...

The slow landing videos have shown no exploding concrete or melting surfaces to date...
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
It has been known for years that the aircraft is delayed. There is little to no "real news" coming out at present. The naysayers are having a field day, repeating themselves ad nauseum though...
IOC in 2016 has been known for years?

Nunn-Mcurdy has been known for years?

The 13-month delay (which some "insiders" claim is optimistic, 30 months have been mentioned) has been known for years?

JET and GAO have been sceptical, however it seems that until recently Gates et al have trusted LM more than those committees. LM has kept bashing those committees because they did not "get it".Last fall Gates said things were running smoothly.

However I agree that the news that have been coming out in recent weeks have of course been known to the "insiders" for several months already, in that respect it is no news to them...
 

LGB

New Member
Quite right that I presented that information wrong as then year when it was constant year 2002 dollars.

That still leaves us with a current estimate in today's dollars of $95 to $113 million per F-35. A number that is certain to keep rising.
 
Top