F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Ok must have misunderstood what I was reading was maybe confusing that with what they were saying about it being unstable and not being able to fly without the FBW ?

IIRC there were complaints that the Typhoons low wing loading made it unsuitable for low level high speed attack profiles, the forte of the GR4, because of stability issues. For something flying fast and low a higher wing loading is a good thing. However that entire attack profile has been obsolete for the last 20 years, western doctrine is to go high once you have disabled their high level GBAD. Obviously they didn’t think that was a realistic possibility over East Germany thus you have Tornado GR4 and F-111.

 

[fretburner]

The Marines aren’t going to do away with the F-35B. Unlike the RN the USN plans on keeping its fleet of LHDs/LHAs. Also Spain and Italy are both most likely customers for the F-35B. They have actually built ships capable of operating it.

But isn't Spain (could be the next Greece) and Italy in bigger financial distress than the UK? I believe the F-35B is the most expensive variant. Although, if they already have ships built for the F-35B and can't/won't redesign their ships like the British, then maybe they won't have a choice.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

But isn't Spain (could be the next Greece) and Italy in bigger financial distress than the UK? I believe the F-35B is the most expensive variant. Although, if they already have ships built for the F-35B and can't/won't redesign their ships like the British, then maybe they won't have a choice.

I'm not sure but I think they have a little more wriggle room with their Harrier fleet as they are AV-8B's and not Sea Harriers. Plus they don’t have a 10 year brigade (?) sized deployment to a warzone to fund!

 

[aussienscale]

Good to see (as per article on home page) that the F35 has begun flights with block 1 software, interesting to note they are using a B variant. Do you think this is LM trying to show all is good with the B programe ? Or would it be just as simple as it being a more complex airframe to use for testing rather than the A or C ?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Good to see (as per article on home page) that the F35 has begun flights with block 1 software, interesting to note they are using a B variant. Do you think this is LM trying to show all is good with the B programe ? Or would it be just as simple as it being a more complex airframe to use for testing rather than the A or C ?

If they were showing all is good than just releasing facts, they wouldn't be issuing statements on all too early fatigue cracks on the B version.

Lockheed Martin: Fatigue cracks on F-35B bulkhead - The DEW Line

Its adding fuel to the debate on F-35B cancellation whose decisions are all too often not made by people who can understand what the issue really is about.

 

[aussienscale]

If they were showing all is good than just releasing facts, they wouldn't be issuing statements on all too early fatigue cracks on the B version.

Lockheed Martin: Fatigue cracks on F-35B bulkhead - The DEW Line

Its adding fuel to the debate on F-35B cancellation whose decisions are all too often not made by people who can understand what the issue really is about.

Not overly concerned about that, not really a major issue or a critical failure during testing, this is why they do it, although the bulkheads are different to the A's and C's they have not had a problem and being made from the same material and by the same company I don't see this as specific to the B variant.

Depending on what caused it may be a one off or may effect all variants. Any changes made on the B bulkhead, either in design of it or in material would also be looked at and applied to the A/C as needed.

 

[OPSSG]

... they have not had a problem and being made from the same material and by the same company I don't see this as specific to the B variant.

Minor nickpick. It's been suggested by another source that "the F-35A and F-35C bulkheads are still made of titanium", which would imply a different material.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Not overly concerned about that, not really a major issue or a critical failure during testing, this is why they do it, although the bulkheads are different to the A's and C's they have not had a problem and being made from the same material and by the same company I don't see this as specific to the B variant.

Depending on what caused it may be a one off or may effect all variants. Any changes made on the B bulkhead, either in design of it or in material would also be looked at and applied to the A/C as needed.

The more relevant concern is how these issues are regarded by the brass.

What is clear is that pressure is building.

http://defensetech.org/2010/11/15/could-the-f-35b-really-be-cut/

Personally I think the B is a sacred cow wrt Marine budget. However I used to think that for the British STOVL programme as well but look how that turned out... If the original STOVL makers could abandon their own programme, I'm no longer that sure regarding the future of the B variant esp in US' current fiscal climate.

 

[riksavage]

In times of financial uncertainty sacred cow's are made of paper.

We can't argue against the fact that the STOVL capability provides the USMC with significant war fighting advantages and not buying an AV8B replacement would erode the services fighting capability. However if costs rise to a level where all the other potential buyers decide to drop out, would the USMC have enough clout to ensure the platform survives? Is there a credible alternative (USMC F35C operating from carrier strike plus cheaper stealthy UCAC's operating from LHD's)?

The current and future state of the US economy may force a limited financial Suez moment, where critical programmes have to be sacrificed. The following recent article highlights yet another bipartisan group looking to target the usual suspects, many of those listed impacting the USMC.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5063400&c=AME&s=TOP

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

In times of financial uncertainty sacred cow's are made of paper.

We can't argue against the fact that the STOVL capability provides the USMC with significant war fighting advantages and not buying an AV8B replacement would erode the services fighting capability. However if costs rise to a level where all the other potential buyers decide to drop out, would the USMC have enough clout to ensure the platform survives? Is there a credible alternative (USMC F35C operating from carrier strike plus cheaper stealthy UCAC's operating from LHD's)?

The current and future state of the US economy may force a limited financial Suez moment, where critical programmes have to be sacrificed. The following recent article highlights yet another bipartisan group looking to target the usual suspects, many of those listed impacting the USMC.

Domenici-Rivlin Panel: Freeze Spending; Kill F-35, V-22, EFV - Defense News

Yeah I read that.

Link to their report.
Debt Reduction Task Force | Bipartisan Policy Center

They actually want to cancel the F-35 altogether which won't happen. That together with a 6.5% GST/VAT also won't happen.

 

[riksavage]

Agreed, but they might salami slice and cut F35B and force the USMC to make do with the C model. Still think unlikely unless the economy continues to suffer a downward trend.

My money is on EFV, if anything, is there still a requirement one could justify financially? Having F35B, backed up by NGS/attack helo's etc., are the marines ever likely to witness a contested landing of such a magnitude it requires the arrival of an over the horizon EFV? Any realistic opposition should have been removed before hand allowing for landings by air-cushion and LCU's carrying armour supported by a much cheaper AFV. EFV sounds like a very expensive luxury to deal with a threat not witnessed since Korea.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Agreed, but they might salami slice and cut F35B and force the USMC to make do with the C model. Still think unlikely unless the economy continues to suffer a downward trend. My money is on EVP, if anything.

Its different when its the presidential commission suggesting it.

Draft report with few specifics.
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/CoChair_Draft.pdf

Details - see proposals 47.
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sit...es/documents/Illustrative_List_11.10.2010.pdf

The number suggested for USMC procurement of the F-35B was 311.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Good to see (as per article on home page) that the F35 has begun flights with block 1 software, interesting to note they are using a B variant.

The likely reason is that the B is the first variant to go IOC in the 2012/13 timeframe.

 

[localhost127]

The likely reason is that the B is the first variant to go IOC in the 2012/13 timeframe.

what is driving the decision for B to be IOC first?

 

[SpudmanWP]

The harriers are in the worst shape of all the fleets (F-16s, F-18s, and A-10s are the other major programs to be replaced).

 

[localhost127]

The harriers are in the worst shape of all the fleets (F-16s, F-18s, and A-10s are the other major programs to be replaced).

as an amateur/hobbyist, even i find that single vague answer highly dubious. not attacking your suggestion by any means --- but is that really the accepted general consensus from the professionals on this forum/industry?

 

[SpudmanWP]

For starters, here is a 2003 article that details the USMC's Harriers & their accident history. As of 2003 the USMC has lost nearly 1/3rd of all the harriers and 45 Marines in non-combat accidents.

Military aviation: Harrier jet bedeviled with mechanical ills | Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc. The IRE Journal | Find Articles at BNET

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

as an amateur/hobbyist, even i find that single vague answer highly dubious. not attacking your suggestion by any means --- but is that really the accepted general consensus from the professionals on this forum/industry?

Not so much worst shape (which applies to most of the legacy a/c) but the planning intent.

The AV-8Bs were remanufactured with a new fuselage bet 1994 to 2001 for a service life of 20 years (or 6000 hours). The intent was to replace all AV-8Bs by 2021 and an IOC that would roughly coincide with the service life end of the earliest remanufactured AV-8Bs. As one can see, there is a bit of time to play around with with regards to USMC IOC.

In view of the program delays, USMC has reassessed its intent and likely now will require its AV-8Bs to operate til 2027 as the retirement date (with a potential upper limit of 2040 if required).

The problem is that because the original plan was to retire it by 2021, spare parts funding and industrial support beyond 2021 was not planned for. It could be worse with the retirement of the British harrier fleet as their industrial base prematurely terminates as well. Accordingly, maintaining it beyond 2021 would be an issue. At the same time, attrition losses affect AV-8B fleet at ~2 a year.

There is also a budget risk now (duplicating the UK) that the harrier fleet might be terminated early creating a capability gap but that only serves to create more pressure to hasten the IOC rather than explaining why the IOC was earlier in the first place.

The above is accurate as at July 2010 with some recent input from the UK budget cuts.

 

[weasel1962]

Re: Part 2

Decided to look at the status of the USMC F-18 for a complete picture.

Unlike the Harrier whose retirement mirrors the introduction of the F-35B, the 250+ legacy USMC F-18s faces structural life issues as there has not been an upgrade. The USMC compromised by increasing service life to 8000 hours from 6000 hours which was the original design figure. In May 2010, CBO did a review and suggested options such as a HFH program that will increase service life by 600 hours or a larger SLEP to increase service life by 2000 hours (or a mix).

However, I think this is a far bigger issue as the SLEP is unfunded ie no guarantee it will actually happen as it will require upwards of $5.5b for 250 a/c (according to CRS). The HFH is within budget but the 2 years extra does not compensate for the additional time needed to bring in the F-35B. At least the navy have 515 super hornets on order (not counting the growlers).

The desire of the USMC for the F-35B is not in question.

The navy has been pushing the USMC for many years to replace their F-18A-Ds with either super hornets or F-35Cs but stubbornly the USMC will prefer the lower operational rates just to ensure that the F-35B is kept online. This is so much so that the USMC rejected the super hornets just to avoid any termination creep on the F-35B.

In Mar 10, one in 6 legacy F-18s were grounded due to wing cracks. By putting all its eggs in one basket, this may come back to haunt the USMC if the F-35B gets terminated.

The above info is accurate as at May 2010.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Considering that there are 250 F-18s and 150 harriers in USMC inventory, the impact of the F-18s would be greater. So I think the driver for an earlier IOC wrt F-35B would probably be the retirement of legacy F-18 rather than the harrier.

 

[dingyibvs]

Hi, just a quick question. I know that stealth planes like the F-35 and the F-22 turn off radars to avoid detection. However, don't they still need active communication with GPS satellites to ascertain their own locations? Could that signal be detected or even targeted by anti-radiation missiles?