F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Abraham Gubler]

The bit about the air department only having one shift is incorrect. A USN carrier can operate 24/7 with each watch doing 12 hours.

Maybe in war establishment but the standard V1 and V2 divisions of a USN carrier only have enough people to run full air wing cyclic operations in a single shift. Of course a carrier can operate less aircraft therefore requiring less manning in a split shift operation but you are going to need to offload the aircraft. ASW carriers with smaller numbers of aircraft with much longer cycles can operate 24-7 because far fewer personnel are needed on deck at any one time.

200 sorties a day is what you get running a full air wing though cyclic operations for 12 hours. That’s only eight events of 25 launches and recoveries each. Also the carrier can flex deck with cycles reduced to 40-60 minutes for higher threat readiness of throughput of bombs on target (if within range). Flex decking means many more but smaller events and less time spent in the air as aircraft can recover as soon as they are back to the carrier’s pattern and not have to wait longer for the next available cycle.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Hasn't the USN been trying out deploying 2 carriers, one for day and one for night. This allows long term operation of a 24hr capability.

While a single carrier can do 24hrs for a short while, most deployments are long and sustained. Why not deploy 2 carriers. The US can deploy a pair of carriers any where in the world and sustain that deployment for ever. You also get other benefits like greater combined fuel stores, two decks that can be in two seperate locations, twice the crew, surge capability etc.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Hasn't the USN been trying out deploying 2 carriers, one for day and one for night. This allows long term operation of a 24hr capability.

The USN has been doing this for 70 years but not night and day. The preferred unit is three carriers with one flying from 12am to 12pm, the second from 12pm to 12am and the third from 6am to 6pm. This way they provide 24 hour coverage with extra umph during the day. This was the standard presence at Yankee station during the VietNam War.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hasn't the USN been trying out deploying 2 carriers, one for day and one for night. This allows long term operation of a 24hr capability.

They've also done 6 carriers on station + 1 at idle.

no 7 basically acted as a spare deck for guards

 

[rip]

The threat from advanced double-digit SAMs tends to get overlooked and trivialized. These systems are lethal against legacy platforms. They are proliferating and will be sold to anyone with the cash and can be put in place with relative ease. Opposing Gen 5 designs may also pose a threat down the road as we can expect these may prolifeate as well.

The F-35 will form the backbone of the US and its allied fighter fleets for the next several decades. It can handle low and high end threat scenarios. Spending money for a platform capable of only the former is counter-productive.Building less capable platforms just eats up limited funds and gives an opponent more opportunities for target practice.

I do not know if the double-digit SAMs threat is or is not over stated. The last time anyone really went “Down Town” against a large fully modern and fully functioning air defense system was in Iraq War One. I think the 2008 South Ossetia war with Russia and Georgia was not long enough, nor was it equal enough and neither side was fully prepared to fight it. So I think it was not a good test of what the new reality of air defenses will mean. The results of the 2008 South Ossetia war were unexpected and there were no double-digit SAMs involved but many of the other elements of a modern air defense system were in place. In this case I think the only thing we can be sure of is that Russian doctrine, using Russian equipment, against Russia air craft works better than expected.

But the advantage always goes to the attacker. The attacker can change their tactics, weapons, and targets much faster than the defense can adapt. The new air defense systems will probably fight off the first few waves quit well, if the attacker is foolish enough to go straight in for massive strikes but the air defense systems of today are probable more vulnerable to sustained attrition. I think if the air commander is tactically savvy he can brake of the newest defense networks by dismantling them a piece at a time even using present day aircraft but that will take some time to do it. But what I think they do provide is that they take away most of the advantage of a first or sneak attack.

 

[colay]

Throw enough legacy aircraft at a modern IADS and you'll likely achieve the result you want but at what cost? Defenses will also become increasingly mobile hence the need to have a persistent ISR presence to cope with the changing threat scenario. Combining the ISR in the same platform with the strike capability ala F-35 makes for a more responsive and effective counter.

 

[moahunter]

Washington could scrap its F-35 jet purchase

The U.S. government is threatening to cancel its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program unless Congress approves a credible deficit reduction plan, a move that would risk derailing Canada’s plans to purchase 65 of the next-generation stealth jets.

U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta includes the F-35 program in a detailed list of items that could be on the chopping block should a so-called “super committee” fail to deliver on a plan to find $1.2-trillion-in savings over the next 10 years

...

If the JSCDR fails to meet its targets and sequestration is triggered, [Department of Defence] would face huge cuts in its budgets,” Mr. Panetta writes in a letter dated Nov. 14.
“Decisions related to major programs could include: Terminate Joint Strike Fighter; minimal life extensions and upgrades to existing forces,” the letter states, describing this measure as a potential savings of $80-billion U.S.

The likelihood of this scenario is unclear at the moment. Mr. Panetta’s letter is clearly an attempt to pressure the committee to avoid these cuts by approving a plan in advance of the deadline. Commentary in the United States suggests there is a high degree of uncertainty as to the odds the committee of Senators and members of the House of Representatives will come up with a plan.

Washington could scrap its F-35 jet purchase - The Globe and Mail

 

[Todjaeger]

Washington could scrap its F-35 jet purchase - The Globe and Mail

And? So what.

What the article was about was the potential impact on the Canadian F-35 order, should a particular series of events occur, which would impact the US defence budget as a result of issues within US relating to domestic politics and fiscal policies.

It is not an article I would recommend reading too much into, because there was a great deal of context missing.

 

[Sea Toby]

Washington could scrap its F-35 jet purchase - The Globe and Mail

You know as well as I that some states will have elections in November and Presidential and congressional primaries are around the corner not far away. Politics in spades. Budgetary issues are upfront and center. There isn't any possibility the Congress won't find some compromise over the budget issues although it will most likely go to the last minute before a deal is struck.

As far as the F-35 program is concerned, too many in Congress of both parties have too much at stake. Senators and congressmen will most likely lose in the next election if they don't bring that bacon home. Simply put, the F-35 program is too big to fail. There aren't that many military bases left to close without causing major economic stress in local communties.

While there will be some targeted defense cuts, an across the board 20 percent cut is very unlikely. Even if they cut all of the defense budget, it won't be enough to balance the budget. They are going to have to bite the bullet and cut social spending as well although they don't wish to do so...

This is nothing new, as they play this budget game every year...

 

[moahunter]

This is nothing new, as they play this budget game every year...

To me, the disapointing thing is that it is in the cross-hairs. The project has had on-going delays / cost over-runs. Its a classic case of scope creep / and perhaps also "cost + profit taking". There has also I think, been a lack of accountability. For example, when the F35b program started running into problems, IMO it should have been put on hold early on. Instead, more and more money just flowed into it, which is a shame, because if that money and R&D had instead gone into the F35A, it would probably already be in mass service by now, which would have given a successful sales platform, some incoming revenue from sales, to then develop the B and C.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

To me, the disapointing thing is that it is in the cross-hairs. The project has had on-going delays / cost over-runs. Its a classic case of scope creep / and perhaps also "cost + profit taking".

Scope creep? Ahh no. The F-35's requirements have if anything been winded back since the SDD contract.

There has also I think, been a lack of accountability. For example, when the F35b program started running into problems, IMO it should have been put on hold early on. Instead, more and more money just flowed into it, which is a shame, because if that money and R&D had instead gone into the F35A, it would probably already be in mass service by now, which would have given a successful sales platform, some incoming revenue from sales, to then develop the B and C.

How can you separate the three? It is a common aircraft. When the F-35B needed weight reduction it needed a new structural design. If the F-35A and C were allowed to continue with the legacy structure you would have thrown the common design out the window. So now you need two production lines and all sorts of extra money to duplicate sub-systems and so on.

The problem with the F-35 is not scope creep or STOVL putting the kybosh on everything but just poor execution and the source selection of the weakest option. The one company bidding with the worst track record and apart from the lift fan element the most conventional design. A design which clearly did not put enough effort into meeting weight reduction and mission systems requirements of a stealthy 5G systems fighter.

 

[Sea Toby]

To me, the disapointing thing is that it is in the cross-hairs. The project has had on-going delays / cost over-runs. Its a classic case of scope creep / and perhaps also "cost + profit taking". There has also I think, been a lack of accountability. For example, when the F35b program started running into problems, IMO it should have been put on hold early on. Instead, more and more money just flowed into it, which is a shame, because if that money and R&D had instead gone into the F35A, it would probably already be in mass service by now, which would have given a successful sales platform, some incoming revenue from sales, to then develop the B and C.

What defense program isn't in the crosshairs? Every program has its critics especially from the other contractors that didn't win the contract. At the moment the two old US polar icebreakers are laid up. Congress wants to buy two new ones whereas the administration wishes to fix 35 year old ships. Plus the US needs a second great lakes icebreaker as well, but there isn't any funding. Billions of iron ore and taconite commerce shipments are at stake, but the adminstration can't find a few hundred million to build a second one.

 

[LGB]

It's really nothing to do with hysterical critics of the program, though there are enough of them online. The main issue is that there were various people and agencies pointing out problems for years in JSF and the hysterical supporters of the program kept saying everything was fine. Everything was far from fine and all one needs to do is read or listen to the statements by Dr Carter or Adm Vinlet.

The very large amount of concurrency in the program between testing and production was a mistake and cost both money and time. This isn't my opinion. Dr Carter and Adm Vinlet have stated such on any number of occasions in direct Congressional testimony. GAO was saying for years that enough effort wasn't being put into various areas, especially software development, and factually this turned out to be correct. The F-35 is a game changing strike fighter.

The issue, however, is still when will it get into service and how much will it cost. If we had had realistic appraisals of the program 3 to 4+ years ago then we could have made better choices regarding the tactical fighter fleet. What we have now is a very old bunch of aircraft in the USAF and USMC and a budget crisis that is going to make it challenging to either SLEP or replace in a timely enough manner that doesn't significantly affect force structure. Some of the "critics" a few years back were in fact correct.

 

[Sea Toby]

It's really nothing to do with hysterical critics of the program, though there are enough of them online. The main issue is that there were various people and agencies pointing out problems for years in JSF and the hysterical supporters of the program kept saying everything was fine. Everything was far from fine and all one needs to do is read or listen to the statements by Dr Carter or Adm Vinlet.

The very large amount of concurrency in the program between testing and production was a mistake and cost both money and time. This isn't my opinion. Dr Carter and Adm Vinlet have stated such on any number of occasions in direct Congressional testimony. GAO was saying for years that enough effort wasn't being put into various areas, especially software development, and factually this turned out to be correct. The F-35 is a game changing strike fighter.

The issue, however, is still when will it get into service and how much will it cost. If we had had realistic appraisals of the program 3 to 4+ years ago then we could have made better choices regarding the tactical fighter fleet. What we have now is a very old bunch of aircraft in the USAF and USMC and a budget crisis that is going to make it challenging to either SLEP or replace in a timely enough manner that doesn't significantly affect force structure. Some of the "critics" a few years back were in fact correct.

The critics have also been wrong too... I recall when the ships flight decks and airbase runways would burn up and the aircraft were far too loud. Some even went so far as to say it would never fly... Now we are hearing the aircraft doesn't meet the required range when it flies farther than present naval fighters...

About the software which still needs to be wrote, its difficult to write software for equipment which hasn't been built. The cynics claim we should have waited for the software, but we would be no better off if we had... Do you really think we would not have spent as much if they had waited for the software?

As for the force structure, that is more based upon budgetary operating costs of present aircraft than by the rising costs of the F-35...

Enough of this monday morning quarterbacking. The program moves forward despite the gremlins. There have been some delays but then everyone except the cynics expected some delays. The cynics are like babies throwing out their trams from the crib. While the GAO have been watching the program, the truth is they have never told or asked Congress to kill the program... Nor has any other government agency...

 

[LGB]

While I certainly agree there has been some hysterical critics on F-35 many who point out actual issues often get lumped into the irrational crowd. The debate then becomes polarized between everything is just fine vs the sky is falling. Reality has always rested in the middle.

The program moves forward yes. There's no question at some point testing will be completed and it's very likely we'll have a game changing strike fighter. Affordability, however, remains a key question and many of the everything is just fine camp continue to proclaim loudly how cheap the aircraft will be. The problem is Dr Carter, Adm Vinlet, and others directly overseeing the F-35 continue to state publicly that affordability remains a key problem.

Moreover, one purpose of testing being to find problems we really don't know if anything comes up that will significantly affect the schedule. One can point to the more conservative schedule and note that the USAF should probably hit IOC in 2018, and one can certainly hope this is so, but it's quite possible for this to slip over the next few years. Exactly how much and when remains an open question and from my perspective this has always been the major question not how well the aircraft will perform.

In any case when the results of the review are finally made public we'll all know a lot more regarding cost and schedule.

The critics have also been wrong too... I recall when the ships flight decks and airbase runways would burn up and the aircraft were far too loud. Some even went so far as to say it would never fly... Now we are hearing the aircraft doesn't meet the required range when it flies farther than present naval fighters...

About the software which still needs to be wrote, its difficult to write software for equipment which hasn't been built. The cynics claim we should have waited for the software, but we would be no better off if we had... Do you really think we would not have spent as much if they had waited for the software?

As for the force structure, that is more based upon budgetary operating costs of present aircraft than by the rising costs of the F-35...

Enough of this monday morning quarterbacking. The program moves forward despite the gremlins. There have been some delays but then everyone except the cynics expected some delays. The cynics are like babies throwing out their trams from the crib. While the GAO have been watching the program, the truth is they have never told or asked Congress to kill the program... Nor has any other government agency...

 

[Sea Toby]

While the final price is still unclear, its certain the price won't reach the level of the F-22. If we started another new program, its very likely it will cost more. We could upgrade the F-15 or Super Hornets, but there is no guarantee their price would be less. And we would still be waiting for the software for the improved F-35 cockpit... After all, the cockpit is the driving force for new aircraft, not the plane itself...

We will end up chasing our own tails... Any new aircraft would go through the same long gestation period and won't reach the fleets any sooner. And as far as production is concerned, no one builds faster when the line is in full production than Lockheed Martin Fort Worth...

The cynics have been chasing red herrings all along. While the F-35 will be expensive, other aircraft are too...

The cynics continue to broadcast every gremlin. But I won't worry about the program until either the GAO, CBO, the administration, or the Congress pulls the plug... And folks, that ain't going to happen.... If it were going to happen it would have already been killed considering the criticisms of the aircraft program...

Finally the price has always rested with the firm orders. If there are fewer orders, the price will go up. This is not new news...

Folks may be able to argue about the development program faults. But that expense is already water under the bridge. Its not recoverable...

 

[LGB]

Not worrying about a program till it's canceled contributes to programs being canceled. Dr Carter has stated that the current average price forecast of $133 million is not "affordable".

While I entirely agree with you that numbers purchased will heavily influence price the price itself will contribute to total numbers. USAF plans to buy 70 a year could easily then drop below 50. Frankly one elephant in the room is the planned number of USAF F-35A's. At some point that number has to come down to reflect various realities. Leaving aside the cost of the F-35 and any reductions in force structure (very possible as result of the budget crisis) the USAF will without question have at least one of 10 QDR strike wings operating a fighter sized UCAS instead of F-35A's.

The nation really doesn't have any choice regarding F-35. The USAF has entirely bet the farm leaving it with no options and as you mention a new aircraft is unlikely to be cheaper. The issue is simply going to be whether we can afford the numbers required and if not, whether it's the budget crisis or the F-35 is too expensive or both, exactly what impact that has on force structure.

While the final price is still unclear, its certain the price won't reach the level of the F-22. If we started another new program, its very likely it will cost more. We could upgrade the F-15 or Super Hornets, but there is no guarantee their price would be less. And we would still be waiting for the software for the improved F-35 cockpit... After all, the cockpit is the driving force for new aircraft, not the plane itself...

We will end up chasing our own tails... Any new aircraft would go through the same long gestation period and won't reach the fleets any sooner. And as far as production is concerned, no one builds faster when the line is in full production than Lockheed Martin Fort Worth...

The cynics have been chasing red herrings all along. While the F-35 will be expensive, other aircraft are too...

The cynics continue to broadcast every gremlin. But I won't worry about the program until either the GAO, CBO, the administration, or the Congress pulls the plug... And folks, that ain't going to happen.... If it were going to happen it would have already been killed considering the criticisms of the aircraft program...

Finally the price has always rested with the firm orders. If there are fewer orders, the price will go up. This is not new news...

Folks may be able to argue about the development program faults. But that expense is already water under the bridge. Its not recoverable...

 

[ADMk2]

Not worrying about a program till it's canceled contributes to programs being canceled. Dr Carter has stated that the current average price forecast of $133 million is not "affordable".

Forecast. An interesting term loaded with a huge amount of assumptions.

Let's deal with reality instead of assumptions. The cost of every single LRIP batch has been on a sliding scale downwards.

The latest known cost for LRIP IV aircraft is $8-9m per aircraft below this "forecast". There is no reason to believe this trend won't continue as production continues to increase.

Anyone who says otherwise is denying the reality that greater numbers of a platform being produced leads directly to the reduction in the cost of that individual platform...

Smoke and mirrors are all well and good. So are contract prices. Real contracts and real deliverables are where "costs" should be taken from.

I'll continue to refer to the contract prices, it would be nice if everyone else did...

 

[swerve]

Anyone who says otherwise is denying the reality that greater numbers of a platform being produced leads directly to the reduction in the cost of that individual platform...

Agreed - but you should qualify that with "unit", as in "reduction in the unit cost".

While I'm sure you know better, I've often seen people argue as if cutting numbers increases overall programme cost.

 

[moahunter]

U.S. won't abort F-35 project, Defence Secretary Panetta vows

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta shot down suggestions Friday that his government is planning to bail on the F-35 stealth fighter because of pending budget cuts — in part, he said, because there is no better option.


"I feel very confident that we'll get funding for the F-35 program," he said Friday following a meeting with Defence Minister Peter MacKay in Halifax. "This is the fighter plane for the future, and in some ways we really have no alternative."


The U.S. government's commitment to the project has been repeatedly called into doubt because of ongoing delays and cost overruns.


On Monday, Panetta sent U.S. senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham letters, warning the F-35 project would be scrapped if a congressional "super committee" didn't come up with a credible plan to reduce the U.S. federal deficit by next week.


This has caused problems for the Conservative federal government, which has been seen as being more supportive of the program than counterparts in Washington.

Read more: U.S. won't abort F-35 project, Defence Secretary Panetta vows