Author Topic: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)  (Read 1656328 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 72,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,509
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4400 on: June 10, 2019, 21:40:53 »
Swiss (!) look very likely to beat us to finish line, on their second go-round (how many are we at anyway?):

Quote
Four F-35A Jets Undergoing Evaluation In Payerne To Replace Swiss Air Force F-5 And F/A-18 Aircraft As Part Of “Air 2030”
The 5th gen. jets, belonging to the 34th Fighter Squadron, arrived directly from the US

F-35As belonging to the 34th Fighter Squadron “Rude Rams”, based at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, are participating in the flight and ground evaluation for “Air 2030” in Payerne Air Base from June 6 to 13.

“Air 2030” is the Swiss Air Force’s program aimed to the selection of the future fighter that will replace both the F-5 and F/A-18 jets in service today. The program was announced last year after a referendum rejected the acquisition of the Saab Gripen E back in 2014.

Four F-35As, sent by the US Air Force to support Lockheed Martin, arrived in Payerne after a transatlantic flight from Hill AFB in the late evening of May 31, 2019. The jets involved are serials 13-5077, 13-5079, 13-5081, 13-5083. This event also represents the first time the fifth-generation aircraft lands in Switzerland.

According to SkyNews, the jets “will carry out a total of eight missions with one or two fighter aircraft for four days each. Before the actual test flights, the providers are offered the opportunity to get an idea of ​​the procedures in Swiss airspace with another flight. Each aircraft will also start a night flight.” The systems mainly tested are reported to be the AESA radar, EOTS and DAS.

Other candidates already evaluated are the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Dassault Rafale (which was also carrying the Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod). The next and last candidate will be the Saab Gripen E, expected to begin its evaluation from June 25. After the end of the last evaluation the Swiss Air Force will choose a winner; still, Swiss citizens will have a referendum before the fighter jet will be selected.

Noteworthy, among the contenders, the F-35 is the only jet that is not available in two-seater version, hence the Swiss pilots won’t have a chance to actually fly the aircraft.

Interestingly, while on their way to Europe, the four F-35s made an unplanned landing at Burlington International Airport, home base of the Vermont Air National Guard, due to weather and refuelling issues. The participation of the fifth-generation jet in the Swiss evaluation generated also controversy on social medias after what has been defined as an “aggressive advertising campaign” on Twitter and on the F-35’s official website, where Lockheed Martin stated: ”The F-35 meets the requirement of the Swiss Air Force for a fighter aircraft to protect the Swiss airspace for the next 50+ years” and “At Lockheed Martin, we understand how important maintaining military neutrality is to the people of Switzerland. In a turbulent world where threats to national security are constantly evolving, the F-35 offers the best platform for the Swiss military to adapt to and meet those threats – both now and for decades to come.”

    Four #USAF #F35A‘s of the @388fw arrived at #Payerne last week to take part in the #Air2030 competion of the #SwissAirForce. This tuesday 3 of them flew their first mission.
    Other competitors for the new fighter for Switzerland are #Typhoon #FA18_SuperHornet #Rafale & #Gripen. pic.twitter.com/SCRmPxCBPw

    — RonaldO (@RonaldO_4444) June 6, 2019

Meanwhile, F-35A jets from the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings are deployed to Aviano Air Base in Italy, as part of a Theater Security Package (TSP).  They will remain in Europe for several weeks and are expected take part in exercises like Astral Knight 2019, held last week at Aviano, FWIT (Fighter Weapons Instructor Training) 2019 at Leeuwarden, Netherlands, and the TLP (Tactical Leadership Programme) at Albacete, Spain.
https://theaviationist.com/2019/06/10/four-f-35a-jets-undergoing-evaluation-in-payerne-to-replace-swiss-air-force-f-5-and-f-a-18-aircraft-as-part-of-air-2030/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 72,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,509
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4401 on: June 12, 2019, 11:50:38 »
Long piece, headline bit scrarifying given some of what is said--excerpts:

Quote
The Pentagon is battling the clock to fix serious, unreported F-35 problems

Over the past several years, U.S. Defense Department leaders have gone from citing technical problems as their biggest concern for the F-35 program to bemoaning the expense of buying and sustaining the aircraft.

But the reality may be worse. According to documents exclusively obtained by Defense News, the F-35 continues to be marred by flaws and glitches that, if left unfixed, could create risks to pilot safety and call into question the fighter jet’s ability to accomplish key parts of its mission.

...the majority of these problems have not been publicly disclosed, exposing a lack of transparency about the limitations of the Defense Department’s most expensive and high-profile weapons system.

These problems impact far more operators than the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy customer base. Eleven countries — Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Japan, South Korea, Turkey and the United Kingdom — have all selected the aircraft as their future fighter of choice, and nine partner nations have contributed funds to the development of the F-35.

Taken together, these documents provide evidence that the F-35 program is still grappling with serious technical problems, even as it finds itself in a key transitional moment.

And the clock is ticking. By the end of 2019, Defense Department leaders are set to make a critical decision on whether to shut the door on the F-35’s development stage and move forward with full-rate production. During this period, the yearly production rate will skyrocket from the 91 jets manufactured by Lockheed Martin in 2018 to upward of 160 by 2023.

Generally speaking, the department’s policy calls for all deficiencies to be closed before full-rate production starts. This is meant to cut down on expensive retrofits needed to bring existing planes to standard.

The F-35 Joint Program Office appears to be making fast progress, but not all problems will be solved before the full-rate production decision, said Vice Adm. Mat Winter, the Defense Department’s F-35 program executive [emphasis added].



“None of them, right now, are against any of the design, any of the hardware or any of the manufacturing of the aircraft, which is what the full-rate production decision is for,” he told Defense News in an interview. “There are no discrepancies that put at risk a decision of the department to approve us to go into full-rate production.”

Nine out of 13 problems will likely either be corrected or downgraded to category 2 status before the Pentagon determines whether to start full-rate production, and two will be adjudicated in future software builds, Winter said...



Another document obtained by Defense News noted that at least 13 issues would need to be held as category 1 deficiencies going into operational tests in fall 2018.

The 13 deficiencies include:

    The F-35’s logistics system currently has no way for foreign F-35 operators to keep their secret data from being sent to the United States.
    The spare parts inventory shown by the F-35’s logistics system does not always reflect reality, causing occasional mission cancellations.
    Cabin pressure spikes in the cockpit of the F-35 have been known to cause barotrauma, the word given to extreme ear and sinus pain.
    In very cold conditions — defined as at or near minus 30 degrees Fahrenheit — the F-35 will erroneously report that one of its batteries have failed, sometimes prompting missions to be aborted.
    Supersonic flight in excess of Mach 1.2 can cause structural damage and blistering to the stealth coating of the F-35B and F-35C.
    After doing certain maneuvers, F-35B and F-35C pilots are not always able to completely control the aircraft’s pitch, roll and yaw.
    If the F-35A and F-35B blows a tire upon landing, the impact could also take out both hydraulic lines and pose a loss-of-aircraft risk.
    A “green glow” sometimes appears on the helmet-mounted display, washing out the imagery in the helmet and making it difficult to land the F-35C on an aircraft carrier.
    On nights with little starlight, the night vision camera sometimes displays green striations that make it difficult for all variants to see the horizon or to land on ships.
    The sea search mode of the F-35’s radar only illuminates a small slice of the sea’s surface.
    When the F-35B vertically lands on very hot days, older engines may be unable to produce the required thrust to keep the jet airborne, resulting in a hard landing.

The Pentagon has identified four additional category 1 deficiencies since beginning operational tests in December 2018, mostly centered around weapons interfaces, Winter said.

“They are not catastrophic. If they were, they'd have to stop test. There's nothing like that,” he said. “They will be straightforward software fixes. We just need to get to them.”..

...

However, the naval aviator currently in service said the list of deficiencies did not alarm him and that, given that the F-35 is still new to the fleet, such issues are inevitable [emphasis added].

“That document looks like growing pains for an aircraft that we tried to do a whole lot to all at once,” the senior aviator said. “You’re going to see that if you dig back at what Super Hornets looked like for the first few years. Go back in the archives and look at [the F-14] Tomcat — think about that with the variable sweep-wing geometry, the AUG9 radar: There was a lot of new technology incorporated into the aircraft, and there is going to be growing pains.”..

The F-35’s list of ongoing technical problems are unlikely to pose an existential threat to the program given the recent progress in fixing issues, driving down the costs of the airframe and continued support on Capitol Hill for the fighter jet [emphasis added].

"I would put this down to, frankly, growing pains that you’d expect from a sophisticated, modern aircraft program. Nothing really stands out [as particularly troubling], primarily because they seem to be well on the way toward being addressed,” said Mark Gunzinger, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “What has been done to address these have reduced the concerns regarding safety of flight. Doesn’t mean that there isn’t still work to be done. And it doesn’t mean new things won’t be discovered.”..
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/the-pentagon-is-battling-the-clock-to-fix-serious-unreported-f-35-problems/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 72,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,509
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4402 on: June 13, 2019, 12:46:29 »
Would the added range added by (non-stealthy) underwing tanks be useful for RCAF's NORAD role?

Quote
Lockheed Martin Proposes 40% Fuel Capacity Upgrade for F-35A

Lockheed Martin has started engineering studies focused on substantially extending the range of the F-35A by increasing the total onboard fuel capacity by 40% and improving the aircraft’s fuel efficiency, Aviation Week has learned.

The studies would resurrect a long-abandoned plan to install external fuel tanks under the wings of the conventional takeoff-and-landing variant. The range-extension study also could benefit from proposed propulsion improvements, such as Pratt & Whitney’s Growth Option upgrade offer for the F135 engine.

“We have had early discussions with various F-35 customers regarding extended-range opportunities,” a Lockheed spokesman says.

Driving the studies are demands from multiple customers, especially Israel, to extend the reach of the F-35A beyond its advertised combat radius of 590 nm and ferry range of 1,200 nm using only fuel carried internally. This news also comes as the U.S. Air Force seeks funding from Congress to order eight Boeing F-15EX fighters, part of a long-term plan to acquire at least 144. The original F-15E boasts a ferry range of 2,085 nm with conformal fuel tanks and wing-mounted tanks [emphasis added].

Most combat aircraft, including Lockheed Martin’s stealthy F-22, are certified to carry external fuel tanks when they enter service, but all three F-35 variants achieved initial operational capability status without such certification.

But that was not always the plan for the F-35. Lockheed performed a multiyear series of wind-tunnel studies in 2004-07 on various external fuel tank designs for the F-35, including one called the C-13 and another optimized to minimize yaw and drag effects. However, program officials dropped the requirement for an external fuel tank some time after 2007 without explanation [emphasis added].

Instead, program officials often highlighted the stealth and drag performance benefits of operating the F-35 without external fuel tanks. The F-35A is designed to carry 18,500 lb. of fuel internally, which is nearly equivalent to the 19,000-lb. maximum takeoff weight of the original Lockheed F-16A.

Not all customers wanted to rely on the range provided by internal fuel capacity alone, though. When the U.S. State Department approved the Israeli export configuration in 2011, the F-35I included external fuel tanks. But the impact on the cost and schedule for the aircraft forced Israeli officials to defer the requirement.

Nonetheless, work continued on the project within Israel’s aircraft industry. In April, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Elbit Systems’ Cyclone subsidiary confirmed that they had completed initial design studies on different fuel tank designs. IAI studied a conformal fuel tank design, while Cyclone examined a design for a 600-gal. external fuel tank. The latter would likely help preserve the F-35I’s stealthy profile on radar.

Lockheed confirms that it is now engaged in a study about the option for a 600-gal. fuel tank and a wing pylon that can be jettisoned. The tank is designed to be integrated on the inboard stations—3 and 9—on each wing, the company says. Although the pilot can restore the F-35A’s stealth signature to radar by jettisoning the tank and pylon, it is not clear how the radar cross-section is affected with the equipment attached to the wing.

Given that the 18,500-lb. internal fuel capacity of the F-35A is equivalent to 3,000 gal., adding two 600-gal. external tanks on an F-35A would raise overall fuel volume onboard to 4,200 gal., or 25,700 lb. That still falls short of the 35,500-lb. capacity for an F-15E configured for a ferry flight but should dramatically increase the single-engine fighter’s endurance.

“While exact ranges depend on mission profiles, our studies show a significant increase in both range and loiter time—or mission persistence,” a Lockheed spokesman says [emphasis added].

So far, the company has completed feasibility studies and conducted initial analysis, as well as early design of the range-extension upgrades. The industry-funded work was done in advance of an approved customer requirement, but Lockheed plans to present the range extension as a candidate upgrade through the Continuous Capability, Development and Delivery framework for the F-35’s follow-on modernization program, also known as Block 4.

 The remaining work required includes detailed design and qualification of the fuel tank and pylon, as well as software integration, flight testing and airworthiness certification, Lockheed says.
https://aviationweek.com/defense/lockheed-martin-proposes-40-fuel-capacity-upgrade-f-35a

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,690
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4403 on: June 13, 2019, 16:52:20 »
Looking for apples to apples comparison data.

F15E in ferry mode with extra tanks - essentially unarmed and unstealthy - has a range of 2,085 nm carrying 35,500 lb of fuel (17 lb/nm - 100%).  That allows it to travel, while out of contact with the enemy, to a field (FUP?) in range of the enemy (about 700 nm on internal fuel with max weapons loadout ?). 

F35A in ferry mode with no extra tanks - essentially unarmed but stealthy - has a range of 1,200 nm carrying 18,500 lb of fuel (15 lb/nm - 90%) .  That allows it to travel, while out of contact with the enemy, to a field (FUP?) in range of the enemy (about 590 nm on internal fuel with max weapons loadout ?).

F35A in ferry mode with 2 extra tanks - essentially unarmed but unstealthy - has a guesswork range of 1,700 nm carrying 25,700 lb of fuel (15 lb/nm - 90%) .  That allows it to travel, while out of contact with the enemy, to a field (FUP?) in range of the enemy (about 590 nm on internal fuel with max weapons loadout ?).

The guesswork assumes no increase in drag or loss of efficiency due to increased mass.

The bigger advantage could be on increasing the combat radius from the FUP? If stealth is not a concern for at least part of the sortie?

Thinking further - I can see this also being useful for Europeans that need a slightly longer ferry capability without having to rely on tankers.   For Canada, having to hop a pond no matter which way they go maybe not so much.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 17:03:06 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 195,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,733
  • Freespeecher
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4404 on: June 13, 2019, 19:52:45 »
A better long term solution would be the adoption of the "Adaptive Engine Transition Program", which promises to improve fuel efficiency by 25% and increase thrust by 10%. Increases in engine efficiency can increase range or allow for increased loiter time over the target area, and being able to do so without having to increase fuel tankage would be quite the game changer.

For the RCAF, given that even ferry range is strategic distance for most other air forces, this is certainly something which should be looked at very closely.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 72,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,509
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4405 on: June 14, 2019, 13:58:18 »
Several pieces from Defense News here:

Quote
The Hidden Troubles of the F-35
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 72,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,509
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4406 on: June 18, 2019, 15:47:45 »
On verra:

Quote
Paris Air Show 2019: Lockheed Martin touts ‘25 by 25’ initiative to drive down F-35 operating costs

Lockheed Martin plans to dramatically reduce through-life operating and sustainment costs of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) combat aircraft through, what it calls, its '25 by 25' initiative.

Geared at reducing the F-35's costs to USD25,000 per flight hour by 2025, this '25 by 25' initiative is a company-launched effort that aims to mirror the success that Lockheed Martin has had in its goal of bringing the aircraft's procurement costs down to below USD80 million (for the F-35A-model) by 2020.

"Over the last three years we have already seen a 15% reduction in the cost per flight hour of the F-35, and through discrete actions - management of the supply chain and logistical footprint, for example - we aim to get the current USD35,000 per flight hour down to USD25,000 by 2025," Greg Ulmer, vice-president and general manager, F-35 programme, said at the Paris Air Show on 17 June. As noted by Ulmer, about 40% of the F-35's operating costs are owned by Lockheed Martin, with the remainder being the responsibility of the operator.

With Lockheed Martin actually tracking ahead of its 2020 goal for a USD80 million-unit price - this target is now set to be achieved with Lot 13 of low-rate initial production (LRIP) later this year - the '25 by 25' initiative should help solve the aircraft's very high operating costs, which are seen as an Achilles' heel for the F-35 in the international market place.

Responding to suggestions that this operating cost reduction goal might be too ambitious for the programme, Ulmer noted, "Many said we couldn't get to an USD80 million aircraft, but we did it. We haven't committed to something that we don't think we can achieve."
https://www.janes.com/article/89314/paris-air-show-2019-lockheed-martin-touts-25-by-25-initiative-to-drive-down-f-35-operating-costs

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 920,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,177
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4407 on: June 18, 2019, 16:40:08 »
Meanwhile, every Gen 4 aircraft keeps getting more and more expensive as the lines lose production and start to close...

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 72,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,509
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4408 on: June 27, 2019, 14:26:09 »
More on future plans for F-35 (and Turkey):

Quote
Defense Department, Lockheed Eye Expansion Of F-35 Modernization Plan

Nothing about the F-35 program is ever small or easy. A transition to operational status, even after an extended and over-budget developmental phase, finds most military aircraft programs returning to relative anonymity. For Lockheed Martin’s single-engine fighter, the public spotlight has shifted to a newly launched $22 billion upgrade program, ballooning sustainment costs and a geopolitical conundrum embroiling Turkey—the F-35’s third-largest customer.

In a string of press conferences over a two-week period in mid-June, Lockheed and U.S. Defense Department officials laid out a path to fulfill an ambitious set of promises on Block 4 upgrades and a dramatic reduction in cost per flight hour. But the F-35 program’s rift with Turkey only deepened as officials in Ankara insist on accepting deliveries of an advanced Russian air defense system in July.

The long-delayed modernization of the F-35 is now in full swing, says Greg Ulmer, Lockheed’s vice president and general manager for the F-35 program. The Defense Department awarded Lockheed a $1.8 billion contract on June 7 to launch software development to support a newly expanding set of upgrades planned over the next decade under the Block 4 modernization program [emphasis added].

New weapons, manned-unmanned teaming studied for F-3

Top defense official defends Lockheed cost-reduction plan

The contract opens a still-evolving upgrade that is enabled by the Technical Refresh 3 (TR-3) program. TR-3 plans to introduce an integrated core processor into the F-35 by 2023 that is four times more powerful and supports the Air Force’s “open systems” architecture for new applications. The full $22 billion investment in Block 4 modernization already includes more than 50 previously approved upgrades, including the insertion of a maritime strike capability, updates to the wing-leading-edge-mounted Bands 4/5 receivers for the electronic warfare system and additional weapons, including the ability to carry upgraded B61-12 guided nuclear bombs [emphasis added].

But those improvements might be only the beginning. For the first time, Ulmer elaborated on options for an even broader set of upgrades that are possible for the F-35 over the next decade. Hints of such developments have been growing over the past year. The Northrop Grumman Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER), for example, is not listed in the F-35’s current weapons road map, but the latest budget documents show that a future Air Force derivative called the Stand-in Attack Weapon will be integrated into the stealth fighter’s weapons by 2024.

According to Ulmer, the TR-3-equipped F-35 fleet is being prepared for additional weapons and other capabilities, including an ability to carry hypersonic missiles underwing. In addition to weapons, the F-35 could be adapted to become a flying hub within the emerging concept for multi-domain operations and manned/unmanned teaming[emphasis added]. The TR-3 upgrades, which include a new panoramic display for the F-35’s powerful sensors, also could enable the aircraft to perform a new role as a forward-deployed missile defense platform, striking down missiles during a boost or ascent phase. There are also “quite a few classified programs on the books,” Ulmer said, without elaborating.

By the end of the mid-2020s, the F-35’s weapons capabilities could be expanded to include carrying hypersonic missiles externally and long-range, anti-radiation missiles internally [emphasis added]. Credit: Lockheed Martin

At the same time, Lockheed is studying several major capacity upgrades, including a bulkhead modification to allow the F-35 to carry six missiles internally instead of four, and Israeli-designed external fuel tanks to increase the range by 40% [emphasis added], Ulmer says.

Expanding the F-35’s operational potential could still be undermined by the costs of operating the fleet. The current $44,000 cost per flight hour should decline to $36,000 by 2024, but Lockheed has committed to reaching $25,000 by 2025 [emphasis added]. Although the former head of the Defense Department’s cost analysis office wrote off that objective as impossible, Lockheed’s plan received support on June 26 from Robert McMahon, assistant secretary of defense for sustainment. “No one has showed me that that’s physically impossible to get to,” McMahon says.

So far, Turkey’s status in Lockheed’s supply chain remains unchanged, Ulmer says. Turkish Aerospace Industries continues to manufacture and deliver center fuselages as a second-source supplier to Northrop. If Turkey accepts deliveries of the S-400 in July as planned, the Defense Department will banish Turkish military staff from the Joint Program Office. Turkish pilots and maintainers would be banned from U.S. training bases starting on July 31.

Ellen Lord, undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, said on June 7 that Turkish suppliers will be removed starting in fiscal 2020, as alternative sources are qualified to support full-scale production.
https://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/defense-department-lockheed-eye-expansion-f-35-modernization-plan

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 72,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,509
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4409 on: July 16, 2019, 19:05:20 »
At last, but few details:

1) Trump: Turkey Will Be Out of F-35 Fighter Jet Program After S-400 Buy

Quote
...
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, former program executive officer (PEO) for the F-35 program, agreed with the administration that Turkey needs to exit the program to protect the integrity and security of the F-35.

"The S-400 system and the F-35 are not compatible, and there's too much at stake with the F-35 for the U.S. government not to do something about it," he said during an interview with Military.com.

Bogdan...was the JPO chief between 2012 and 2017 [long time for a GoFo in US forces]...

"The dilemma of a partner leaving the program is not new to the F-35 [Joint Program Office]," he said, referencing troubles the U.S. has had getting Canada to commit to the program...
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/07/16/trump-turkey-will-be-out-f-35-fighter-jet-program-after-s-400-buy.html

2) Lawmakers say Trump is locked into Turkey sanctions
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/07/16/trump-cuts-off-f-35-for-turkey-and-lawmakers-say-sanctions-are-coming/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 72,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,509
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4410 on: July 17, 2019, 19:13:19 »
Piece from Pentagon:

Quote
U.S. Begins Process of 'Unwinding' Turkey From F-35 Program, DOD Officials say

The United States is "unwinding" Turkey from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program as a result of the country buying the Russian S-400 air defense missile system, Pentagon officials said.

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen M. Lord and Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy David J. Trachtenberg told reporters in the Pentagon that Turkey has taken delivery of the Russian-built system. Turkey cannot have both the Russian system and the fifth-generation fighter.

Trachtenberg called the development unfortunate and said the U.S. government has worked tirelessly to avoid the necessity. "But let me be clear, the United States greatly values our strategic relationship with Turkey — that remains unchanged," he said. "As long-standing NATO allies, our relationship is multilayered and extends well beyond the F-35 partnership. We will continue our extensive cooperation with Turkey across the entire spectrum of our relationship."

The U.S. government has been clear over the course of this procurement that Turkey can acquire the S-400 or the F-35, but not both, he said. "Our response today is a specific response to a specific event," he said. "It is separate and distinct from the broader range of security interests where the United States and Turkey work together against common threats. Our military-to-military relationship remains strong, and we will continue to participate with Turkey in multilateral exercises to improve readiness and interoperability."

Trachtenberg's remarks mirrored those of President Donald J. Trump, who said the United States values its strategic partnership with Turkey. DOD and the U.S. government worked hard to chart an alternative path that would enable Turkey to acquire air defense systems within the NATO alliance standards for interoperability and still allow Turkey to remain within the F-35 partnership, Lord said.

Turkey did not listen and bought the Russian air defense system instead of the American Patriot missile system. "The United States and other F-35 partners are aligned in the decision to suspend Turkey from the program and initiate to process to formally remove Turkey from the program," Lord said.

The United States offered Turkey the Patriot as a missile defense system that would satisfy the country's legitimate air defense needs. Since early 2017, when Turkey began publicly discussing its interest in the Russian-made S-400 system, all levels of the U.S. government consistently communicated to all levels of the Turkish government that the F-35 and S-400 are incompatible, Lord said.

"Turkey cannot field a Russian intelligence collection platform in proximity to where the F-35 program makes repairs and houses F-35s," she said. "Much of the F-35 strengths lie in its stealth capabilities. So the ability to detect those capabilities would jeopardize the long-term security of the F-35 program. We seek to protect the security of the F-35."

Turkey's purchase of the S-400 affects the country's interoperability with its NATO allies, she said.

Last month, then-Acting Defense Secretary Patrick M. Shanahan told Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar that if his country went ahead with S-400 procurement, the country would be removed from the F-35 program. Lord said the process will be orderly and done in a respectful and deliberate manner. Turkish personnel will be reassigned away from the program by July 31. Lord said she anticipates the process of unwinding Turkey from the program will be complete by the end of March.

Turkey was going to buy 100 of the fifth-generation fighter jets and was a major player in building the system.

Lord said the F-35 international partnership is strong and resilient. "Our partnership regrets we have arrived at this moment, but I and the F-35 Joint Program Office will continue to engage fully with our F-35 partners as we continue to work to expeditiously complete the unwinding of Turkey's participation in the partnership," Lord said.

This will include changes to the supply base and supply chain for the aircraft system, but because of advanced planning, she anticipates minimal impact on the larger F-35 partnership. "Turkey will certainly and regrettably lose jobs and future economic opportunities from this decision," she said. "It will no longer receive more than $9 billion in projected workshare related to the F-35 over the life of the program," she said.

Turkey made more than 900 parts for the F-35, and that will be picked up by American suppliers to start, but will open to other nations in the months ahead [emphasis added].
https://www.defense.gov/explore/story/Article/1908351/us-begins-process-of-unwinding-turkey-from-f-35-program-dod-officials-say/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 196,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,296
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4411 on: July 17, 2019, 20:43:36 »
Quote
... This will include changes to the supply base and supply chain for the aircraft system, but because of advanced planning, she anticipates minimal impact on the larger F-35 partnership. "Turkey will certainly and regrettably lose jobs and future economic opportunities from this decision," she said. "It will no longer receive more than $9 billion in projected workshare related to the F-35 over the life of the program," she said.

Turkey made more than 900 parts for the F-35, and that will be picked up by American suppliers to start, but will open to other nations in the months ahead [emphasis added].

If only Trudeau hadn't stuck his head up his butt four years ago our aviation industry would probably have been a major recipient of this.

 :brickwall:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 107,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,704
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4412 on: July 17, 2019, 21:43:21 »
If only Trudeau hadn't stuck his head up his butt four years ago our aviation industry would probably have been a major recipient of this.

 :brickwall:

There might still be an opening to participate. Turkish companies were going to make a number of the parts for the F35. Another country should step up . Will it be Germany ? Or France ? Might as well be Canada IMO.

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 24,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 747
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4413 on: July 17, 2019, 21:44:46 »
and there are 100 open slots in the production line

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,605
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4414 on: July 17, 2019, 21:51:56 »
and there are 100 open slots in the production line

This right here could be our back door to accelerate the procurement, take over the Turkish order, and offer Canadian companies to take up the supply chain over Turkey. They have 4 delivered, 30 on order and had plans for upto 120. We take the 34 built/ on order planes, and order the remainder of what we need, or maybe the entire Turkish order of 100+, we get early delivery, Canadian companies win, only turkey looses.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 395
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4415 on: July 17, 2019, 23:12:48 »
Great idea.....so no.

Plus it will never before the election. 

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 107,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,704

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 196
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4417 on: July 18, 2019, 07:56:41 »
sorry guys,it's Google Translate. :nod:

The Netherlands purchases eight or nine extra F-35 fighter jets

July 18, 2019 7:24 AM Last update: one hour ago

The Netherlands is purchasing eight or nine extra F35 fighter jets. They come on top of the 37 combat aircraft that the previous cabinet had already decided on, confirms Defense Minister Ank Bijleveld in an interview with Trouw.

"And in the next cabinet, the defense budget will have to rise again. We are also obliged to do that within NATO," explains Bijleveld.

"Within NATO we are still dangling in terms of spending. So we will have to take extra steps. Next year we will have to recalibrate the defense bill. That should be ready around the spring 2020 memorandum," the minister said.

At the end of last year, she announced that the government would like to purchase around 15 F-35s on top of the 37 as part of five priorities: expanding fire power on land and at sea, strengthening special forces and cyber capacity.

According to Bijleveld, the exact number of F-35 aircraft that will be purchased depends on the exchange rate of the dollar at the time of purchase. They are paid out of the 1.5 billion euros that the Cabinet set aside extra for the armed forces.
Announcement coincides with Rutte's visit to Witte Huis

The Netherlands initially wanted to stick to 37 F-35s, which amounts to two so-called squadrons. But to meet the wishes of the United States, NATO urged the Netherlands to purchase a third squadron. The number of 37 would also have meant that only four aircraft would be available for missions abroad.

Bijleveld reports that it will be eight or nine extra aircraft in the interview with Trouw on the day that Prime Minister Mark Rutte visits the American president Donald Trump. Defense and security are another topic for discussion on Thursday afternoon, just like international trade.

In the NATO plan for increasing defense spending, the Netherlands also promised to purchase missiles for naval vessels and to purchase more tanks and artillery for the army. No money has yet been reserved for this.

https://www.nu.nl/binnenland/5966916/nederland-schaft-acht-of-negen-extra-f-35-straaljagers-aan.html

So the total,for now(there are plans to go up to about 55)will be about 45/46.
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 141,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,483
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4418 on: July 18, 2019, 12:17:26 »
Its official Turkey is done as long as they have the S400. 

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/07/17/turkey-officially-kicked-out-of-f-35-program/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBB%2007.18.19&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Military%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief

May be a secret sigh of relief as I suspect Turkey does not have a much hard cash as they would like. The question is how much of the current F35 spare parts inventory do they produce?

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,605
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4419 on: July 18, 2019, 17:44:33 »
Latest news coming out today Russia is now coming to save Turkey and offering Su-35's. Cause this won't create a bigger problem for NATO

https://www.dailysabah.com/defense/2019/07/18/russia-offers-turkey-su-35-fighter-jets-amid-f-35-program-expulsion
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 107,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,704
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4420 on: July 18, 2019, 19:55:18 »
There is some talk about bringing back the F14 as an air to air asset. There is realization that maybe we dont have the assets to deal with the latest PRC and Russian aircraft. In the near term we are dvelp[ing long range air to air missiles to give the F18 and F35 better capability.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 184,831
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,061
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4421 on: July 19, 2019, 09:23:59 »
Is that talk related to the upcoming release of Top Gun II?  I heard they had an F-14 put on the deck of a CVN as a part of the filming?

Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 107,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,704
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4422 on: July 19, 2019, 11:43:56 »
No. The Navy has realized that they havent had a pur fighter since the F14.

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 83,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,833
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4423 on: July 19, 2019, 12:18:04 »
No. The Navy has realized that they havent had a pur fighter since the F14.

The F-14 is not coming back anytime ever.  May be a cool looking aircraft but it had its share of issues, including with the Phoenix.

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 395
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4424 on: July 19, 2019, 13:01:34 »