Author Topic: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)  (Read 1795597 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 176,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,537
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 86,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,156
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4551 on: April 20, 2020, 11:39:44 »
USAF F-35As for Eielson--note they are for Pacific, do not (for time being at least) have NORAD mission. That remains with F-22s at Elmendorf (and might some F-15EXs go to Alaska for NORAD?):

Mark
Ottawa

More on USAF F-35As at Eielson, Alaska (note are part of Pacific Air Forces, not assigned to NORAD mission https://www.pacaf.af.mil/News/Tag/12405/eielson-air-force-base/):

Quote
Sprawling Alaska Complex Becomes Newest Home For F-35A

Tucked deep within Alaska’s rugged interior, next to a town named “North Pole,” Eielson AFB may seem an unlikely station for 54 Lockheed Martin F-35As. But the commander of the 354th Fighter Wing asserts the location is more central than it looks.

Indeed, the logic of Euclidean geometry places Eielson within a daylong flight, assisted by aerial refueling, of the biggest hot spots for the Indo-Pacific Command and European Command. On a great circle route, the Alaskan base is closer to Taiwan than Oahu by more than 300 nm. To reach Estonia across the Arctic Circle, Eileson’s future F-35As would have roughly the same ferry flight as Air National Guard F-35As flying from Burlington, Vermont, the next-closest U.S. F-35 base [emphasis added].

“A lot of people think Alaska is kind of stuck in the corner of the map. But as an airman lives, we’re actually in the middle of everything,” says Col. Benjamin Bishop, the 354th Wing’s commander.

Another advantage of Eielson’s location is its neighbors. Although a remote location, the base is less than 230 nm north of a Lockheed Martin F-22 squadron stationed at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson [these have the NORAD mission]...

...In early April, Lockheed transferred ownership to the Air Force of the first F-35A bound for the newly reactivated 356th Fighter Sqdn. at Eielson. Despite administrative disruptions caused by the response to the novel coronavirus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic, Bishop still expects to complete the first F-35A delivery to Eielson on schedule in April. The 356th should receive ownership of its first three F-35As by the end of April.

The 356th was reactivated seven months ago with only two employees—the squadron commander and the deputy. Since then, the squadron has added eight trained pilots and a full complement of trainers and maintainers, Bishop says. About 1,200 active duty personnel will be added to the base when the 356th and a still-unnamed second squadron are at full strength, doubling the size of the Alaskan base’s current workforce.

The Air Force has been preparing for Eielson’s dramatic growth since the F-35A basing announcement in 2016...

Norway qualified a drag parachute to slow the F-35A on icy arctic runways in winter. The Polish Air Force adopted the same modification with its announced F-35A selection in January, but the U.S. Air Force decided the added weight of the drag parachute is unnecessary. The Air Force decision is helped by the fact that Eielson boasts the world’s second-longest runway, at 14,507 ft. [emphasis added], which the base’s busy snowplows work to keep clear through the long Alaskan winter, Bishop says. The F-35A is rated to land and take off from surfaces with a Runway Condition Rating (RCR) of 7, only two steps up from a completely iced-over RCR-5 surface.

“We have a whole team of airmen that are really focused on that [snow-removal] mission alone, and it’s not just the runways. It’s the taxiways, too,” Bishop says...
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/sprawling-alaska-complex-becomes-newest-home-f-35a

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

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 86,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,156
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4552 on: April 24, 2020, 14:34:11 »
Slowly, slowly:

Quote
The Pentagon has cut the number of serious F-35 technical flaws in half

The U.S. Defense Department is slowly but surely whittling down the number of F-35 technical problems, with the fighter jet program’s most serious issues decreasing from 13 to seven over the past year.

In June 2019, Defense News published an investigation delving into the details of 13 previously unreported category 1 deficiencies — the designation given to major flaws that impact safety or mission effectiveness.

Following the report, five of those 13 category 1 problems have been “closed,” meaning they were eliminated or sufficiently corrected. Five were downgraded to a lower level of deficiency after actions were taken to help mitigate negative effects, and three issues remain open and unsolved, according to the F-35 program executive office.

Four additional CAT 1 problems have also since been added to the list, raising the total CAT 1 deficiencies to seven. The program office declined to provide additional details about those issues for classification reasons, but stated that software updates should allow all of them to be closed by the end of 2020 [emphasis added].

“The F-35 Lightning II Joint Program Office is keenly aware of these existing F-35-related category 1 deficiencies and is focused on developing and implementing solutions for these issues as quickly as possible,” the program office said in response to questions from Defense News. “F-35 operator safety is the F-35 JPO’s highest priority.”

In a statement to Defense News, F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin confirmed the number of open category 1 deficiencies. However, the company declined to provide further information about the path to fix current issues or how earlier issues had been ameliorated [emphasis added].

“We are actively addressing the deficiencies and expect all to be downgraded or closed this year,” the company said.

While the overall reduction in deficiencies is a promising trend, it is also important to track how problems are solved and how quickly fixes are pushed to the rest of the fleet, said Dan Grazier, an analyst with the independent watchdog group Project on Government Oversight.

“I’m not surprised that they are continuing to find issues. This is why we are supposed to be testing weapon systems before we buy a whole bunch of them. I am a little surprised that we are finding CAT 1 deficiencies at this point during operational testing,” Grazier said.

“I think that speaks to the level of complexity with this program that it’s taken us this long to get to this point, and even after all the testing that has been done and the time and money that has gone into this that we’re still finding category 1 issues," he added. "It shows that the program wasn’t born in the right place. It was way too ambitious from the very beginning.”

Aside from four classified problems, there remain three open category 1 deficiencies in need of a fix. There are myriad reasons for that, the program office stated [read on]...
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2020/04/24/the-pentagon-has-cut-the-number-of-serious-f-35-technical-flaws-in-half/

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

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 124,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,556
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4553 on: April 24, 2020, 14:46:52 »
One advantage that Eilson AFB enjoys is its proximity to a massive bombing range for training at Blair Lakes.

https://thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/Fairbanks_Alaska_Unknown.html

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 86,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,156
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4554 on: April 24, 2020, 15:18:29 »
Slowly, slowly:

Mark
Ottawa

Plus this, presumably affects A version too--what effect, if any, would very limited supersonic capability have on RCAF F-35As doing NORAD intercepts vs Russkie bombers (Tu-160?) and their cruise missiles in an actual combat situation (further links at orginal)?

Quote
The Pentagon will have to live with limits on F-35’s supersonic flights

An issue that risks damage to the F-35’s tail section if the aircraft needs to maintain supersonic speeds is not worth fixing and will instead be addressed by changing the operating parameters, the F-35 Joint Program Office told Defense News in a statement Friday.

The deficiency, first reported by Defense News in 2019, means that at extremely high altitudes, the U.S. Navy’s and Marine Corps’ versions of the F-35 jet can only fly at supersonic speeds for short bursts of time before there is a risk of structural damage and loss of stealth capability.

The problem may make it impossible for the Navy’s F-35C to conduct supersonic intercepts
[emphasis added].

“This issue was closed on December 17, 2019 with no further actions and concurrence from the U.S. services,” the F-35 JPO statement read. “The [deficiency report] was closed under the category of ‘no plan to correct,’ which is used by the F-35 team when the operator value provided by a complete fix does not justify the estimated cost of that fix [emphasis added].

“In this case, the solution would require a lengthy development and flight testing of a material coating that can tolerate the flight environment for unlimited time while satisfying the weight and other requirements of a control surface. Instead, the issue is being addressed procedurally by imposing a time limit on high-speed flight.”

The carrier-launched "C" variant and the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing "B" version will both be able to carry out all their missions without correcting the deficiency, the JPO said.

The potential damage from sustained high speeds would influence not only the F-35’s airframe and the low-observable coating that keeps it stealthy, but also the myriad antennas located on the back of the plane that are currently vulnerable to damage, according to documents exclusively obtained by Defense News.

The JPO had classified the issues for the "B" and "C" models as separate category 1 deficiencies, indicating in one document that the problem presents a challenge to accomplishing one of the key missions of the fighter jet. In this scale, category 1 represents the most serious type of deficiency.

While it may seem dire that an aircraft procured for flying at supersonic speeds will be unable to do so for extended periods, the F-35 may not need to do it that often.

For the F-35, as opposed to the F-22 where supersonic flight is baked into its tactics, the ability to fly supersonic is more of a “break glass in case of emergency” feature, said Bryan Clark, an analyst with the Hudson Institute and a retired naval officer.

“Supersonic flight is not a big feature of the F-35,” Clark said. “It’s capable of it, but when you talk to F-35 pilots, they’ll say they’d fly supersonic in such limited times and cases that — while having the ability is nice because you never know when you are going to need to run away from something very fast — it’s just not a main feature for their tactics
[emphasis added].”

In fact, going supersonic obviates the main advantages of the F-35, Clark said. “It sort of defeats all the main advantages of the F-35,” he explained. “It takes you out of stealthiness, it burns gas like crazy so you lose the range benefits of a single engine and larger fuel tank. When you go into afterburner, you are heating up the outside of your aircraft.”

That creates all kinds of signatures that can be detected by an adversary, Clark said.

What if?

But a retired naval aviator told Defense News last year that the limitations on the afterburner could prove deadly in close-combat scenarios.

The concept of operations for the F-35 is to kill an enemy aircraft before it can detect the fighter jet, but relying on long-range kills is a perspective that, for historical and cultural reasons, naval aviation distrusts. In the Vietnam War, when air warfare began heavily relying on missiles and moved away from the forward gun, it caused a spike in air-to-air combat deaths [read on]...
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04/24/the-pentagon-will-have-to-live-with-limits-on-f-35s-supersonic-flights/

Mark
Ottawa

Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 217,455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,261
  • Living the staff life
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4555 on: April 24, 2020, 15:47:15 »
Plus this, presumably affects A version too--what effect, if any, would very limited supersonic capability have on RCAF F-35As doing NORAD intercepts vs Russkie bombers (Tu-160?) and their cruise missiles in an actual combat situation (further links at orginal)?

Mark
Ottawa

I'm not so sure.  The article is pretty explicit that it's just the B and C models that are affected.
“If you run into an a-hole in the morning, you ran into an a-hole. If you run into a-holes all day, you're the a-hole.”

- Raylan Givens, Justified (cleaned up for content)

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 86,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,156
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4556 on: April 24, 2020, 17:21:17 »
I was wrong--those supersonic  limitations, for various technical reasons, do not apply to F-35A, sorry for the diversion.

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

Offline Quirky

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 14,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 433
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4557 on: April 24, 2020, 18:27:40 »
One advantage that Eilson AFB enjoys is its proximity to a massive bombing range for training at Blair Lakes.

https://thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/Fairbanks_Alaska_Unknown.html

Having been to Eielson it reminds me a lot of Cold Lake, I wonder if that base suffers from the same issues or are USAF pers more regularly rotated out?
Life is too short to drive a boring car.

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 19,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 491
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4558 on: April 24, 2020, 18:39:57 »
Having been to Eielson it reminds me a lot of Cold Lake, I wonder if that base suffers from the same issues or are USAF pers more regularly rotated out?

Quirky, I wondered this as well but do you not think that the greater number of choices probably allows for some self selection. For example some people might actually prefer that posting versus something more urban/southern. Whereas in Canada there are only the two bases and a limited fighter pilot pool

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 124,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,556
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4559 on: April 24, 2020, 21:17:42 »
The usual duty assignment is 2-3 years but its possible to ask for an extension as Alaska is a popular assignment as its classified as an overseas tour.

Offline Spencer100

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 645

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 217,455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,261
  • Living the staff life
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4561 on: May 06, 2020, 11:20:31 »
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/canada-invests-another-usdollar70m-in-f-35-development-despite-no-commitment-to-buy/ar-BB13FWaM?ocid=spartanntp

Canada invests in the F-35

Regardless of whether or not the RCAF flies it, Canada would want to keep the current contracts so they'll need to buy in.  I don't think this is that big of a deal.
“If you run into an a-hole in the morning, you ran into an a-hole. If you run into a-holes all day, you're the a-hole.”

- Raylan Givens, Justified (cleaned up for content)

Offline Spencer100

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 645
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4562 on: May 06, 2020, 13:05:41 »
Neither did I...plus we get a look at the tech too.  I was just posting as FYI


Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 86,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,156
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4563 on: May 13, 2020, 11:25:40 »
On and on--by time we buy the plane, if we ever do, should be in pretty decent shape:

Quote
Delays Cause Two-year, $1.5B Extension For F-35 Block 4

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) said on May 12 that the Lockheed Martin F-35 Block 4 program must be extended two years due to development delays, adding $1.5 billion to the overall price tag.

The original schedule called for completing the Block 4 modernization program in 2024, but the timeline must be extended to 2026, GAO said in the watchdog agency’s annual review of the F-35 program.

The F-35 Joint Program Office initially estimated the cost to develop all 66 new capabilities in Block 4 would be $10.6 billion. The two-year extension to deliver Block 4 raises the development cost to $12.1 billion, with another $3.4 billion budgeted to procure and insert the capabilities in future U.S. F-35s, GAO said [emphasis added].

The Block 4 delays started in 2019. Lockheed planned to deliver the first eight Block 4 capabilities last year, but only one—the automatic ground collision avoidance system—entered service, GAO said. In another example, Lockheed delivered software last year to enable the interim full-motion video capability for the Marine Corps F-35Bs, but failed to deliver the associated hardware, the report said.

As Block 4 capabilities have entered testing, the Defense Department’s operational testers have noticed other problems. Some of the new capabilities have “caused issues” with existing F-35 functions that previously worked, GAO said.

“The contractor had not performed adequate testing of the software before delivering it to the test fleet,” GAO said. For its part, the contractor acknowledged the issues and said they would conduct additional testing in software laboratories before releasing future software blocks [emphasis added], GAO added.
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/aircraft-propulsion/delays-cause-two-year-15b-extension-f-35-block-4

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

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 86,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,156
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4564 on: May 19, 2020, 15:23:31 »
A real Oz blast at Pres. Trump:

Quote
On the brink of peril, Australia is left wondering what the mad sheriff has in mind

What does a deputy sheriff do without a sheriff? Australia has spent the last three-quarters of a century as America's uniquely loyal ally. Again and again, Australia signed up for US wars that other American allies refused to join. The Brits were too smart to join the American war in Vietnam. Canada was too wise to touch the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. And Wellington was so wary of US nuclear weapons that it, in effect, took the "NZ" out of ANZUS.

But Canberra sent troops into even the dumbest American wars in the belief that it was paying an insurance premium against the day when Australia needed US help.

Now that Australia finds itself facing its most precarious geopolitical situation since World War II, the insurance policy is looking pretty threadbare. Donald Trump has shown that he is happy to ignore, insult and injure American allies whenever the mood takes him.

On Friday [May 15] it was through the F-35 fighter jet program that Australia, among other allies, has relied on. Trump called it "crazy". Australia decided to join the US in supporting the F-35 program more than a decade ago under the Howard government, when it was just an idea. It was then known as the Joint Strike Fighter project.

Part of the deal was that if US allies committed to buying some of these high-tech planes, Washington would give them a share of the manufacturing work to make them. Eight American allies signed up. Canberra agreed to buy 72 jets as part of a $17 billion program. In return, some 50 Australian companies employing about 2400 people are now making components for the jets. The work is worth $1.3 billion.

Until Donald Trump decided to threaten the whole deal in an interview on Friday: "The problem is, if we have a problem with a country, you can't make the jet. We get parts from all over the place. It's so crazy. We should make everything in the US." Fewer than half the jets so far have been delivered to Australia.

[PM] Scott Morrison's response? Hoping that it's just electioneering bluster from Trump, the Australian leader said he'd "wait to see" what happens. But whatever happens with the F-35s, the episode is another reminder of how unreliable the US has become. Deputy sheriff Australia now uneasily fingers the six-shooter in its holster, wondering what the mad sheriff has in mind for the future weapon and ammo supply [read on]...
https://www.smh.com.au/national/on-the-brink-of-peril-australia-is-left-wondering-what-the-mad-sheriff-has-in-mind-20200518-p54txp.html

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

Offline Quirky

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 14,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 433
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4565 on: May 20, 2020, 13:38:44 »
F-35 crashes in Eglin. Pilot ejects and is alive.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/05/20/f-35-crashes-at-eglin-afb-pilot-successfully-ejected-and-in-stable-condition-2nd-crash-at-base-in-four-days/

Quote
For the second time in four days a fifth-generation fighter jet has crashed at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.

An F-35A Lightning II assigned to the 58th Fighter Squadron crashed upon landing around 9:30 p.m. Tuesday at Eglin, according to a media release. The pilot successfully ejected and was transported to the 96th Medical Group Hospital at Eglin for evaluation and monitoring.

The pilot is in stable condition. At the time of the accident, the pilot was participating in a routine night training sortie, according to the release.

First responders from the 96th Test Wing are on the scene and the site is secured.

The accident is under investigation. There was no loss of life or damage to civilian property. The name of the pilot is not being released this time...

Quite the last few weeks in aviation.
Life is too short to drive a boring car.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,302
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4566 on: May 22, 2020, 19:39:18 »
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2020/05/22/the-inside-story-of-two-supersonic-flights-that-changed-how-america-operates-the-f-35/

Some clarification on the speed limit placed on the B and C models. Damage occurred apparently during multiple high speed maneuvers.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 949,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,782
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4567 on: May 22, 2020, 20:29:57 »
Damage occurred apparently during multiple high speed maneuvers.

Hours and hours of high speed maneuvers, and the damage was not visible to the pilot on his walk-around inspection upon landing.

A bigger takeaway here is that assertion from the test pilot that trying to apply 4th Gen tactics to a 5th Gen fighter makes no sense. The F-35 should only be going supersonic in a SHTF moment and they're going to max out aircraft performance regardless of 50 second limitations because its a 2 way range. Very typical of militaries writ large, we're so resistant to change that when something so polar opposite of what we're used to comes along, we try to shove it back into the old doctrinal box.

Offline Drallib

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Member
  • *
  • 5,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 199
    • Making a Pilot in the RCAF
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4568 on: May 27, 2020, 08:56:11 »
Quote
F-35 doesn’t fly: the systems of Danish fighter are not functioning properly

Next year, the first new Danish F-35 fighter aircraft will be ready. But serious technical problems remain with the new fighter aircraft, learned BulgarianMilitary.com citing Danish news agency Arbejderen.

This also was stated in the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) latest report on the development of the F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter) fighter aircraft.

“After several years of development and testing, the system is not functioning properly. Inaccurate and lack of data has led ALIS (the fighter aircraft’s IT system, ed.) to keep aircraft on the ground,” writes the US National Audit Office among others.

The report concludes that there have been eight years of delays in developing the software for the F-35 aircraft and that the IT system is based on up to 15 years of knowledge.

It has serious consequences for the aircraft. In fact, fighter jets have only been fully operational for 31.6 percent of the time, GAO concludes.

According to the GAO, planes are only “safe” 59.5 percent of the time, and GAO reports of planes going on the wings, although the systems warn of serious errors.

As of September last year, there were 4700 deficiencies reported in the fighter aircraft’s IT system – of which 34 percent were already identified in 2017 or earlier. More than a fifth (22 percent) of reports are considered critical, the Norwegian media ABC News reports.

The report from the US National Audit Office has sparked debate in Norway, which has already received six F-35 fighter jets.

According to the Office of the Auditor General, aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin’s production does not meet the quality requirements set for reliable aircraft.

“Specifically, only about 3,000 of the over 10,000 key processes in aircraft production meet the predefined design standards needed to ensure product quality. Moreover, the over 500 aircraft delivered do not meet the program’s reliability and maintenance goals,” GAO writes.

The US arms company Lockheed Martin began producing the first parts of the new Danish F-35 fighter aircraft in January. The first Danish fighter planes are scheduled to be delivered to Luke Air Force Base in the USA, where the Danish pilots will be trained to fly the new fighter aircraft.

In 2016, a majority of the Parliament (the former Left government, the Social Democracy, the Danish People’s Party, the Liberal Alliance and the Radical Left) agreed to buy 27 pieces at a cost of a total of DKK 56 billion for procurement and operations.

The technical problems have caused the fighter aircraft to be upgraded with a new software system. This means that costs are rising.

Defense Minister Trine Bramsen has just delivered his annual report on the procurement of the new fighter aircraft to the Danish Parliament.

This shows that a number of the costs associated with the acquisition of the new fighter aircraft are increasing more than expected.

“It should be noted that the latest reported operating cost estimates from the US F-35 program show an increasing trend,” writes the Secretary of Defense, among others.

Apart from the fact that the fighter’s IT system is full of errors and is outdated and needs to be replaced, the expansion of Flyvestation Skrydstrup will be almost twice as expensive as expected. This is partly due to the fact that the flight station must meet a number of strict requirements before the fighter planes are allowed to land. In addition, it costs far more money than expected to try to dampen the noise nuisance of the fighter aircraft.

The Minister of Defense expects the price of the construction project to be DKK 1.1 billion [$161 million] against the original DKK 650 million [$96 million].

This is “a large and complicated construction, where very specific requirements for the facilities and safety of F-35 fighter aircraft apply, and where most of the contracts have not yet been concluded. The construction project is therefore subject to uncertainty. noise compensation, which is expected to amount to DKK 250 million,” [$37 million] writes the Minister of Defense.

On the other hand, it has been found that the fighter aircraft frame is getting cheaper and that the fighter factory is now starting to benefit from economies of scale because many allied countries have ordered the fighter aircraft. Therefore, the total cost of the fighter jets will not rise, the defense minister predicts.

When the expansion of Skrydstrup Flight Station is completed in 2023, the first F-35 fighter aircraft will land in Denmark. The last fighter aircraft are expected to be delivered to Denmark in 2026.

The Parliament is just now in the process of considering a 61-page bill from the Minister of Defense, which will give green light to expand the Skrydstrup flight station so that it meets the new requirements.

The United States has set a number of requirements for how Air Force Skrydstrup should be set up before the new Joint Strike Fighter fighter jets are allowed to land in Denmark.

https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2020/05/27/f-35-doesnt-fly-the-systems-of-danish-fighter-are-not-functioning-properly/

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 101,820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,216
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4569 on: May 27, 2020, 17:43:03 »
Get the Chinese to do the software. ;D  :rofl:

Trudeau is cheering.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2020, 19:05:30 by Rifleman62 »
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,259
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4570 on: May 27, 2020, 17:49:09 »
Get the Chinese to do the software.

Trudeau is cheering.


Get the Chinese to do the software?  I think we want them to have LESS problems, not more...   ;)
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 86,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,156
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4571 on: May 29, 2020, 11:04:44 »
Plane should be fully fixed by time RCAF ever gets them, if it does:

Quote
F-35 Costs Drop for Building Jets But Rise for Operating Them
*Pentagon estimates development, procurement will decline 7.1%
*Report projects long-term operation, maintenance rising 7.8%


The Pentagon’s costliest program, Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35, is starting to look a little less expensive, with the latest estimate for development and procurement down 7.1% to $397.8 billion.

Less encouraging for the lawmakers who craft defense budgets and for taxpayers: Operating and maintaining the fleet for 66 years is projected to cost $1.182 trillion, a 7.8% increase over the estimate from the Pentagon’s F-35 office last year, according to the Defense Department’s annual assessment of the jet obtained by Bloomberg News.

The lower acquisition estimate produced by the F-35 program office is the latest in a string of good news that also includes improved on-time delivery of aircraft, the elimination of all flaws that were considered life-threatening to pilots and a steady reduction since 2018 in the number of potentially mission-crippling software deficiencies.

The Selected Acquisition Report, which hasn’t been released to the public, also said the F-35 program anticipates sales over time of 809 aircraft to international partners, up from the 764 projected last year [emphasis added].

Cumulatively, the improvements might protect the F-35 from pressure to cut defense budgets as the federal deficit balloons due to spending for the Covid-19 pandemic. The Pentagon is already projecting mostly flat budgets through 2025.

Even under the current budget forecast, the Pentagon report discloses that previous plans to buy 94 F-35s in fiscal 2022 will be reduced by nine. The blueprint then calls for buying 94 each year in fiscal 2023 and 2024 and 96 in fiscal 2025. Those are up from the 79 requested for fiscal 2021.

The report was prepared in December before the coronavirus pandemic crippled the global economy. Lockheed announced last week that Covid-19 impacts will temporarily slow F-35 production because of subcontractor parts delays and that the Bethesda, Maryland-based company might fail to deliver as many as 24 of a planned 141 jets this year [emphasis added].

More than 500 of a potential 3,200 F-35s for the U.S. and allies already have been delivered and will have to be retrofitted as flaws are fixed, at a cost of as much as $1.4 billion [emphasis added]. The F-35 is in the final stages of intense combat testing to demonstrate it’s effective against the most advanced Russian, Chinese and Iranian threats...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-29/f-35-costs-drop-for-building-jets-but-rise-for-operating-them

Mark
Ottawa

Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Drallib

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Member
  • *
  • 5,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 199
    • Making a Pilot in the RCAF
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4572 on: June 09, 2020, 09:37:42 »
Quote
F-35A Landing Gear Malfunctions at Hill AFB

An F-35A fighter jet’s landing gear collapsed at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, on June 8 when the aircraft was returning from a routine training flight, according to a base spokesperson.

The accident occurred at 10:45 a.m. local time. The pilot, part of the 388th Fighter Wing, was able to exit the aircraft and is undergoing a medical evaluation. Safety investigators will look into the incident, Hill Public Affairs Director Thomas Mullican said in an email.

“In response to the incident, the runway is currently closed and aircraft from Hill AFB in flight at the time of the incident have been diverted to other airports,” Mullican said. “Additional training flights have been paused until the runway reopens.”

The Lockheed Martin-built Joint Strike Fighter is the latest plane to suffer from a landing gear malfunction or other mishap in recent months. This is the third F-35A crash overall, including a USAF F-35 crash in May at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., and another involving a Japanese-owned jet. Four aircraft across the entire F-35 inventory, which spans Navy and Marine Corps and overseas variants, have experienced mishaps.

An F-15C’s landing gear also collapsed upon landing in Maryland in early May, and an A-10 landed on its belly in April.


Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 124,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,556
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4573 on: June 30, 2020, 08:23:00 »

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 124,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,556
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #4574 on: June 30, 2020, 08:26:27 »