F-35 Program - General Discussion

[Wooki]

true to a point.... "getting" LO around a platform doesn't translate to them getting LO as a systems, geoint and geospatial capability

at the geoint and geospatial level they're still gripping up how to fill in the blanks and are attempting to cover off the gaps by adapting western tech such as adsb2 into a military/geospace operating picture... eventually they'll get it, but the "blue" LO construct won't have stood still.

look at the agility of generational developments in LO - in real terms we're playing with 6th gen manned and 4th gen unmanned platforms - if you just look at the comms developments just in the last 3 years we're already outstripping current operational constructs.

the warfighting constructs are getting outpaced by tech advances - the former is in "5th service" terms being constrained by earlier generation tactical constructs.

red team is not only not keeping pace with the material science issues, single platform issues, they're nowhere near the gods view geoint and tactical integration opportunity levels that the americans, israelis and a few niche players are at.

they not only need to catch up, they need to pass and counter the stuff in the shed that hasn't come into public view but which has been up and running albeit as operational CTD's

All relevant: (thinking) I would put forward that the key seems to be industrial- leadership as opposed to tech, as gaps in that industrial-leadership may really be what has hindered the F-35 program. It seems to be this and not tech that has created cost over runs and budget blowouts within the program. This phenomena also appears to point to the core reason why "red team" appear to be currently chasing butterflies in the upper meadow as they are even worse at it than we are.

As an aside ( another thread perhaps) It does not help, when you have "industry leaders" publicly calling you out on programs that are better left dark. e.g. Scotty Winstead. Oh wait, he works for Lockheed, why am I surprised by this?

It smacks of an inability to present a public face or perhaps a vain and fleeting attempt to instill Lockheed Martin into popular culture? I dunno... Whatever it is it presents a distinct "lack-of-skill" in being able to manage a conversation in such a way as to produce a tangible result (You know, what other people call "contract performance"). In the F-35's case; a product delivered on time and under budget. In the U2 future replacement case; STFU and leave-it-for-the-skiff.

cheers

W

 

[gf0012-aust]

All relevant: (thinking) I would put forward that the key seems to be industrial- leadership as opposed to tech, as gaps in that industrial-leadership may really be what has hindered the F-35 program. It seems to be this and not tech that has created cost over runs and budget blowouts within the program. This phenomena also appears to point to the core reason why "red team" appear to be currently chasing butterflies in the upper meadow as they are even worse at it than we are.

As an aside ( another thread perhaps) It does not help, when you have "industry leaders" publicly calling you out on programs that are better left dark. e.g. Scotty Winstead. Oh wait, he works for Lockheed, why am I surprised by this?

It smacks of an inability to present a public face or perhaps a vain and fleeting attempt to instill Lockheed Martin into popular culture? I dunno... Whatever it is it presents a distinct "lack-of-skill" in being able to manage a conversation in such a way as to produce a tangible result (You know, what other people call "contract performance"). In the F-35's case; a product delivered on time and under budget. In the U2 future replacement case; STFU and leave-it-for-the-skiff.

cheers

W

I see a lot of parallels with how the CCCP and East Germany had this massive intelligence program to hoover up western tech, succeeded in "copying" a lot of it, but never managed to utilise it properly as they didn't "get" some of the underlying concepts and considerations. The Stasi did some extraordinary espionage work but it came to nought as they became overwhelmed by the sheer amount of material that they gathered up but were unable to take tactical advantage of it. Look at the Soviets - they went through a stage of directly copying US, UK, German tech but didn't understand some of the underlying requirements - sure they had a few wins internally - but it wasn't until they refocussed on their own sciences that they actually started to progress. CCCP history is littered with failed tech developments which were kick started by western developments and which they thought were fundamental to maintaining parity before making the great leap forward to pass the US on the final lap.

There's obviously stuff sitting in the shed - but I think there needs to be a fundamental shift back to the kelly johnson, ben rich mindset of STFU and just roll out the artifact when you want to. Cut the chatter in the public domain as it then becomes the first vector of failure in the INT risk management chain

As a cororally - look at the JSF - how many morons are now LO experts and its pretty apparent that they still don't get the systems issues around LO - they're all almost without fear platform wonks - FMD they're stuck in the late 80's at the tactical level. War if Boring is a classic example of how prejudice can blind people to what's actually been achieved and the art of the do-able -not just the art of the possible.

The inane chatter that you see on some sites re JSF lost its novelty for me years ago - those people not only are concept fundamentalists, they're gen fixed platform fundamentalists. To quote Chief Whiggam - "nothing to see here folks, lets move along" when it come to giving those sites oxygen. Let them stay the self licking ice cream.....

 

[Wooki]

I see a lot of parallels with how the CCCP and East Germany had this massive intelligence program to hoover up western tech, succeeded in "copying" a lot of it, but never managed to utilise it properly as they didn't "get" some of the underlying concepts and considerations. The Stasi did some extraordinary espionage work but it came to nought as they became overwhelmed by the sheer amount of material that they gathered up but were unable to take tactical advantage of it. Look at the Soviets - they went through a stage of directly copying US, UK, German tech but didn't understand some of the underlying requirements - sure they had a few wins internally - but it wasn't until they refocussed on their own sciences that they actually started to progress. CCCP history is littered with failed tech developments which were kick started by western developments and which they thought were fundamental to maintaining parity before making the great leap forward to pass the US on the final lap.

There's obviously stuff sitting in the shed - but I think there needs to be a fundamental shift back to the kelly johnson, ben rich mindset of STFU and just roll out the artifact when you want to. Cut the chatter in the public domain as it then becomes the first vector of failure in the INT risk management chain

As a cororally - look at the JSF - how many morons are now LO experts and its pretty apparent that they still don't get the systems issues around LO - they're all almost without fear platform wonks - FMD they're stuck in the late 80's at the tactical level. War if Boring is a classic example of how prejudice can blind people to what's actually been achieved and the art of the do-able -not just the art of the possible.

The inane chatter that you see on some sites re JSF lost its novelty for me years ago - those people not only are concept fundamentalists, they're gen fixed platform fundamentalists. To quote Chief Whiggam - "nothing to see here folks, lets move along" when it come to giving those sites oxygen. Let them stay the self licking ice cream.....

Love it. Nothing to add, other than my confidence has been slightly restored by the recent USAF wrist slapping of LM in their stupid quest to provide S. Korea with critical F-35 tech. Really enjoyed the little comms and now I am going to get back to wearing big boy pants and maybe Texan boots. :cowboy

cheers

W

 

[barney41]

The JSF Program is on a roll with more positive reporting on progress being made i testing and the recent IOC declaration by the Marines. The positive outlook is reflected in recent explicit statements from the DoD and JPO brass which directly address some of the FUD floating around. No reading between the lines required.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...-35-will-outmatch-any-aircraft-in-dev-417067/

 

[Dennis1s]

F-35 F119 engine

The big advantage the West continues to have is superior jet engine technology, both commercially and militarily although the greed and stupidity of Western companies is eroding the commercial advantage with respect to China. Russia, has better tech than China and Russia is now reluctant to share their best technology. Russia has an aggressive engine upgrade plan for future Sukhoi jets but the status is not known (to me anyway). The F135 is derived from the F119 engine used in the Raptor, I don't know if a F-35 prototype was flown with a F119 engine...doubtful.

Yes, the F-35 was flown with the F119 engine. That was the engine it was suppose
to have in it. Test results were very poor because of the planes weight. The engine
was modified to produce about 5,000 lb. more thrust. As a result it lost its super cruise ability. I don't know the technical reasons for that, just that it did.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Um.. no

The F-35 (or the F-32, whichever won) was always going to get a derivative of the F119 (ie F135 and the F136) as the new engine has a higher bypass ratio which gives it better fuel economy and higher thrust.

The origins of the lie with the Lockheed Corporation Skunk Works's efforts to develop a stealthy STOVL strike fighter for the U.S. Marine Corps under a 1986 DARPA program. Lockheed employee Paul Bevilaqua developed and patented[2] a concept aircraft and propulsion system, and then turned to Pratt & Whitney (P&W) to build a demonstrator engine.[3] The demonstrator used the first stage fan from a F119 engine for the lift fan, the engine fan and core from the F100-220 for the core, and the larger low pressure turbine from the F100-229 for the low pressure turbine of the demonstrator engine. The larger turbine was used to provide the additional power required to operate the lift fan. Finally, a variable thrust deflecting nozzle was added to complete the "F100-229-Plus" demonstrator engine. This engine proved the lift-fan concept and led to the development of the current engine.[4]

Source: Bevilaqua, Paul M. (2005). One-page preview of "Joint Strike Fighter Dual-Cycle Propulsion System." Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 21, 5. pp. 778-783.

The X-35B used a modified Pratt & Whitney F119 engine, with a new low-pressure fan and turbine, designated as the F119-611, which produced 38,000 pounds of thrust (uninstalled, at sea-level static conditions). The production F135 engine produces more than 40,000 pounds of thrust (uninstalled, at sea-level static conditions). The F135 engine shares a common core to the F119 but has a higher bypass ratio. Currently, the program is testing propulsion systems from two manufacturers: the F135 from Pratt & Whitney and the F136 from the General Electric Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team. The F35s have been designed to accept either engine as part of the program requirement for engine interchangeability.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=28

 

[ADMk2]

Yes, the F-35 was flown with the F119 engine. That was the engine it was suppose
to have in it. Test results were very poor because of the planes weight. The engine
was modified to produce about 5,000 lb. more thrust. As a result it lost its super cruise ability. I don't know the technical reasons for that, just that it did.

Nope...

 

[ololosha]

1

Hello, what news about that?

"Big Liberal Win In Canada Is Bad News For The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Now, with the Liberals winning yesterday’s vote, it seems nearly impossible for the F-35 to find a home with America’s neighbor to the north. "

 

[ADMk2]

Hello, what news about that?

"Big Liberal Win In Canada Is Bad News For The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
Now, with the Liberals winning yesterday’s vote, it seems nearly impossible for the F-35 to find a home with America’s neighbor to the north. "

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Time will tell. I'm not sure the Canadian Liberals fully appreciate the magnitude of any such decision, particularly with regards to their expected domestic workshare for this program, not to mention the capability of their airforce to do the sorts of things they have always done, moving into the future...

 

[Distanstar]

Like every other combat aircraft program on the planet, F-35 capabilities are progressively being delivered in Blocks. Some manufacturers call these tranches (Eurofighter Consortium, Dassault etc) but the reality is advanced capability takes significant time and expense to develop, significant time and expense to implement and significant time and effort to learnt to 'fight' from an operators point of view. It simply can't all be delivered at the same time and we see this with every manufacturer, not just Lockheed Martin, despite the critics seeming to enjoy portraying it this way...

F-35 is increasingly rolling out capability as the program progresses. Capability choices and compromises have to be made with any program and some of the 'advanced' capability that modern older fighters that have already had the benefit of longer development times, will take similar times to roll out in the F-35.

As a rough guide, I challenge ANYONE to compare the capability of F-35A against the capability of JAS-39A, Rafale F1, Eurofighter Tranche 1 at their respective entries to service and see how they stack up...

Then compare the funded Block upgrade program and that of the other major fighter projects and try and develop a cogent argument as to why the F-35 won't be a success...

Heres my "develop a cogent argument as to why the F-35 won't be a success"

Article from 2002 the original specifications for JSF remember them ??

Quote
The truly revolutionary idea behind the JSF was to break that pattern, by building a modern airplane that was cheap enough to offset the steady decline in force structure. The project would do this by applying innovations from civilian industry, especially modern "lean manufacturing" techniques, in a way never before seen in the defense world. Even more unusual was the notion that its success would be judged by whether or not it stuck to its projected costs. The target costs, as stated in 1994 dollars, ranged from $28 million per plane for the Air Force version of the JSF to $38 million for the Marine Corps version. Although comparing different planes from different eras is difficult, the target costs would put the JSF in roughly the same cost bracket as the F-16. The F-22, by comparison, will cost $100 million apiece and perhaps much more, depending principally on how many units of the plane Congress ultimately votes to build.

END quote

Did the F-35 do this ?? nope so its a failure. The original JSF was going to be a 3000+ plane purchase for a plane that had more capabilities than the pig we are now being forced to buy ( I am an Australian). If you use Logic then if you end up buying less planes with less capability then surely your kidding yourself the project is a sucess.

Continually new lines in the sand are drawn to excuse the amount of corporate greed, planning failure, design failure, procurement failure and outright lies that is the F-35 program. Why should Australia buy this plane when it meets none and I mean none (please give me coagent answer to that statement) of its ORIGINAL specifications.

PS 28 Million in 1994 = 64 in todays US dollars !!

Have a nice day!!

 

[t68]

Heres my "develop a cogent argument as to why the F-35 won't be a success"

Article from 2002 the original specifications for JSF remember them ??

Quote
The truly revolutionary idea behind the JSF was to break that pattern, by building a modern airplane that was cheap enough to offset the steady decline in force structure. The project would do this by applying innovations from civilian industry, especially modern "lean manufacturing" techniques, in a way never before seen in the defense world. Even more unusual was the notion that its success would be judged by whether or not it stuck to its projected costs. The target costs, as stated in 1994 dollars, ranged from $28 million per plane for the Air Force version of the JSF to $38 million for the Marine Corps version. Although comparing different planes from different eras is difficult, the target costs would put the JSF in roughly the same cost bracket as the F-16. The F-22, by comparison, will cost $100 million apiece and perhaps much more, depending principally on how many units of the plane Congress ultimately votes to build.

END quote

Did the F-35 do this ?? nope so its a failure. The original JSF was going to be a 3000+ plane purchase for a plane that had more capabilities than the pig we are now being forced to buy ( I am an Australian). If you use Logic then if you end up buying less planes with less capability then surely your kidding yourself the project is a sucess.

Continually new lines in the sand are drawn to excuse the amount of corporate greed, planning failure, design failure, procurement failure and outright lies that is the F-35 program. Why should Australia buy this plane when it meets none and I mean none (please give me coagent answer to that statement) of its ORIGINAL specifications.

PS 28 Million in 1994 = 64 in todays US dollars !!

Have a nice day!!

Do you believe the F111C was a succes for the RAAF?

Can you also please tell me were the failure is in the program for the level of maturity of the systems please, as the aircraft is still not in FRP with testing and training is being done concurrently.

Can you also link the article so we can read the entire piece rather than bits of it.

Don't think it's a pig on a stick yet, over ambitious in its time frame yes but a failure yet don't think so

 

[Distanstar]

Do you believe the F111C was a succes for the RAAF?

Can you also please tell me were the failure is in the program for the level of maturity of the systems please as the aircraft is still not in FRP with testing and training is being done concurrently.

Can you also link the article so we can read the entire piece rather than bits of it.

Link as requested. put usual stuff in front

/theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/06/uncle-sam-buys-an-airplane

You have to tell google to search 2002 to 2003 and JSF otherwise none of this info comes up anymore... funny that eh ? also funny how I had to change wiki on F-35 to even mention the original intended cost. I wonder how long that will stay up for ?.. strange world we live in.

By the way I note your defence of the plane is its not complete yet which is reasonable, but you dont mention, its overdue, overbudget and doesnt meet the original performance specs... can you admit it fails on those items which have no relation to its final performance (because its never going to meet the original airframe performance targets right and we know its costs are now overblown and only going to increase see US DOD estimates etc etc !!)

 

[t68]

Link as requested. put usual stuff in front

/theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/06/uncle-sam-buys-an-airplane

You have to tell google to search 2002 to 2003 and JSF otherwise none of this info comes up anymore... funny that eh ? also funny how I had to change wiki on F-35 to even mention the original intended cost. I wonder how long that will stay up for ?.. strange world we live in.

By the way I note your defence of the plane is its not complete yet which is reasonable, but you dont mention, its overdue, overbudget and doesnt meet the original performance specs... can you admit it fails on those items which have no relation to its final performance (because its never going to meet the original airframe performance targets right and we know its costs are now overblown and only going to increase see US DOD estimates etc etc !!)

Yep it's over due it more expensive than when the idea was first put out, but from all accounts from an Australian veiw it's still within the budgetary parameters for the same amount of aircraft will be procured ie no supplements funding is needed as yet.

But can you show me an "in development"modern aircraft that's has not experienced price and development delays I've yet to come across a program that has not, for performce that's very subjective at the moment

 

[Distanstar]

Yep it's over due it more expensive than when the idea was first put out, but from all accounts from an Australian veiw it's still within the budgetary parameters for the same amount of aircraft will be procured ie no supplements funding is needed as yet.

But can you show me an "in development"modern aircraft that's has not experienced price and development delays I've yet to come across a program that has not, for performce that's very subjective at the moment

In Budgetry parameters do you mean "bleed us dry".

17 Billion for 72 aircraft and by the way;

Air Marshal Geoff Brown, the Chief of Air Force (Australia) , has said that "anything less than 100 JSFs severely limits the options available to government and only provides a boutique capability"

So its fail again!! cost = lack of capability= why bother ?

 

[barney41]

Bottom line, how would abrand new 4Gen+ jet configured with sensors/targeting/EW pods compete price-wise vs the F-35A at a FRP of US$80-85M?

Not even factoring in the LO and more advanced tech going into th JSF that will enable it to perform missions that would be extremely hazardous if not outright fatal to older jets.

 

[Distanstar]

Bottom line, how would abrand new 4Gen+ jet configured with sensors/targeting/EW pods compete price-wise vs the F-35A at a FRP of US$80-85M?

Not even factoring in the LO and more advanced tech going into th JSF that will enable it to perform missions that would be extremely hazardous if not outright fatal to older jets.

I get some of that, but you have to admit as you say, its final performance is unproven .... and namely in all the areas where its value is supposed to be.

The thing is if you look back we didnt get what was promised... actually more than that, we didnt get what was contracted. Plus the US let most of the plans fall into chinese hands so the compedative edge is going to be a lot less than it was supposed to be.

I note many in the US suggest the F/A 18 growler is still going to be needed. I wonder what a good 4th generation with growler support could achieve?? ie 40 Growlers and 160 Gripens vs 71 F-35's it will be very interesting to see that one come out.

 

[t68]

In Budgetry parameters do you mean "bleed us dry".

17 Billion for 72 aircraft and by the way;

Air Marshal Geoff Brown, the Chief of Air Force (Australia) , has said that "anything less than 100 JSFs severely limits the options available to government and only provides a boutique capability"

So its fail again!! cost = lack of capability= why bother ?

If I remember correctly its 12.4B AUD for 72 unless you like to add the base upgrade within the flyaway price which would also have to be factored into a less capabile aircraft, and also the final numbers TBA as we may be going UCAV if the demonstrated capabilty can be achieved.

With hindsight it may have been more prudent to replace the classic with Super Hornets in 2009/10 and then buy F35 from 2020's when all the bugs have been ironed out with FRP and block 4 onwards aircraft

 

[Distanstar]

If I remember correctly its 12.4B AUD for 72 unless you like to add the base upgrade within the flyaway price which would also have to be factored into a less capabile aircraft, and also the final numbers TBA as we may be going UCAV if the demonstrated capabilty can be achieved

Nah 17 Billion is the number to also support em to 2025.

Geeps we paid 600 Million upfront in 2002 man and we didnt get our first plane till what this year.

 

[t68]

Nah 17 Billion is the number to also support em to 2025.

Geeps we paid 600 Million upfront in 2002 man and we didnt get our first plane till what this year.

Not bad in the realm of things when you take into account that the through life of the first 24 Super Hornets was estimated at 10B plus AUD

And the intial money was to get in on the ground floor to have some influence on outcomes and workshare

 

[Distanstar]

Not bad in the realm of things when you take into account that the through life of the first 24 Super Hornets was estimated at 10B plus AUD

And the intial money was to get in on the ground floor to have some influence on outcomes and workshare

Bwaah ha hah
To have some say in the development of the program my rear end. Our 71 plane influence vs US 3000+ plane influence fat chance.. The 600m was to make it too expensive to leave.

It will be very interesting to see what Canada ends up with.