F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[MilEME09]

An interesting article I recently read that Airbus Defense has said it would be interesting in creating a group to build a "NATO fighter", in other words the entire alliance signs on to develop and build this aircraft to fit what is needed, sounds doomed to fail but an interesting idea none the less

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In a perfect world they would share the tech, so each aircraft can use each others software, weapons, sensors and other components but I suspect they will guard that stuff jealously.

 

[dapaterson]

How is that Airbus transport doing?  Oh, right, late and over budget.

Just like every R&D aircraft, F35 included.

 

[HB_Pencil]

HB_Pencil:

Is it inaccurate to suggest that part of the capital cost differential between the F35 and its competitors could be offset by comparing it to the costs associated with recruiting, training, maintaining and flying a Backseater in each aircraft?

Sorry, I'm not quite following here... do you mean to suggest that having a second occupant basically means that you can have greater situational awareness, which can replicate some the sensor fusion advantages of the F-35's avionics' suite? If that's the case its no and yes. Much of the sensor fusion has to do with raw data processing and its correlation between different sensors. That's just improved computing which a human can't really help with. Where the backseater is helpful is the traditional area of situational awareness and overall cockpit management. Having a second person always be the best option, though the F-35's SA is a supplement in this area.... how helpful it will be and how they compare is difficult to assess. Certainly some functions of a backseater can be replicated by the F-35 avionics. However a big benefit of having a second individual is flexibility and adapting to the unexpected. A computer is only as good as its programming. Is that worth the extra costs? The RCAF did not think so after its initial assessment... and there were many individuals there who flew in the one-oh-wonder days and understood the benefits.

Turning to your cost question. At this point, the F-35 is basically the lowest cost option of the aircraft available given we're looking at Full Rate Production lots - 1 or 2 to start the our purchases. The Eurofighter and Rafale are still over $100 million a copy. The only plausibly cheaper option was the F/A-18E/F (assuming Boeing can offer an older avionics set), but even that boat has since passed. The decision this summer by congress to only purchase 5 EA-18Gs pushes the unit costs higher, as they have significant DMS issues, larger overheads, and they will have shed some of their experienced workforce... meaning a loss in manufacturing learning and increased unit costs.

Adding a backseater usually means either a bigger aircraft and/or shorter legs, I believe.

In many aircraft the structure of the aircraft are generally the same between a single and dual seat... just that the empty space behind the pilot in the single is left empty, or carries some avionics (the F-15C comes to mind). I believe there is a small fuel tank in the E model with a thousand pounds or so. It would be possible to do the calculations, but I've heard anecdotally that the range loss is about 5~15% from the E model depending on the mission variables.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Do you think the sensors/software of the F-35 will help the pilot deal with information overload or add to it?

 

[SupersonicMax]

It helps tremendously..  You do not analyze every piece of info yourself and make a decision. The analysis is pretty much done for you....

 

[HB_Pencil]

Do you think the sensors/software of the F-35 will help the pilot deal with information overload or add to it?

Oh it will definitely streamline the data being presented and reduce the pilot's workload. The system will categorize information by threat level or importance. That was a major objective of the development. The avionics will also aid in earlier identification, as the aircraft can take various bits of data from different onboard/offboard sensors and data and piece together an ID. So rather than today where the pilot is confronted with increasing amounts of data from ever improving sensors and then try to assess that information (with some aids, of course), much of the data analysis will be undertaken by the avionics and the pilot will become the decision maker.

I think there may be a cultural/generational barrier that also influences this question. It should be noted that the F-35 will be easier to fly than most of its contemporaries, with less time on "housekeeping"  and more time that can be devoted to mission-related activities.... though this isn't as significant a transition as between the 3rd gen aircraft to the 4th gen (like the CF-101, -104 and -5 to CF-18). This changes the relative value of a pilot's skill set. Thus "airmanship" skills will become less important: the aircraft has a very advanced Auto Ground Avoidance Collision system that makes it nearly impossible to crash. But what's more important is being able to exploit the avionics/UI and develop a situational awareness based on it.

In discussions with pilots and engineers, many believe that younger pilots are more adept at managing the transition to the F-35. They are viewed as part of the iPad or Nintendo Generation, are just more adept at interfacing with such a UI. They may be less proficient at airmanship however, but that is a less valuable. Older pilots, who are often better at airmanship, may at times face difficulty adapting to the new UI and exploiting it to its potential. That isn't an insurmountable issue by any means, just a challenge that adds a wrinkle to this area.

 

[CougarKing]

An update on Australia's F-35s:

Joint Strike Fighters: Australia's first F-35 jet takes inaugural flight in United States
Posted 30 Sep 2014, 4:17pmTue 30 Sep 2014, 4:17pm

ABC News (Australia

The first of Australia's F-35 Joint Strike Fighters has been put through its paces in its inaugural flight in the United States.

In a statement, manufacturer Lockheed Martin said its chief test pilot took the aircraft through "a series of functional checks" in a two-hour flight check.

The first of the Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) is scheduled for delivery to the Royal Australian Air Force later this year and will be assigned to an Arizona Air Force base where it will be used for pilot training.

The Federal Government pledged $24 billion to buy and deploy 72 of the futuristic stealth fighter jets, in what is Australia's largest military acquisition.

< Edited >

 

[MarkOttawa]

Confirmed (usual copyright disclaimer):

Israel to stagger purchase of second F-35 batch

(Reuters) - Israel will stagger the purchase of its second batch of 31 U.S.-made F-35 fighter jets over the next three years, an Israeli defense official said on Sunday after budget wrangling among Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's top cabinet colleagues.

Under a compromise plan approved by the ministerial committee, Israel will buy 14 of the aircraft now and another 17 in 2017, the official said without providing price details. The second stage of the purchase will be subject to another vote of approval nearer the time, the official added.

Israel bought 19 of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35s for $2.75 billion in 2010, with delivery scheduled between 2016 and 2018. The new purchase will bring the number of the planes in Israel's inventory to 50, or two squadrons. Under the 2010 deal, it has an option to order an additional squadron's worth.

Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon reached a preliminary agreement on the 31 F-35s during a visit to Washington last month, but met opposition from some Israeli ministers who voiced misgivings about the jet's high cost and untested capabilities...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/30/us-lockheed-martin-fighter-israel-idUSKCN0JE0V420141130

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

AvWeek (not Bill Sweetman, usual copyright disclaimer):

Opinion: Plenty Of Risk Remains For The F-35 Program

...there is no absence of future challenges for F-35.

The first is how the F-35 fares if the Defense Department is forced to cut the program by the Budget Control Act. Current plans show U.S. orders for 34 F-35s in 2015, 55 in 2016, 58 in 2017, and 90 and more in 2018 and 2019. It is far from clear whether the U.S. midterm elections can lead to climate change in Washington, enabling some sort of deal or compromise that would remove the sequestration threat to a budget that is above the act’s cap levels in the. Last spring, the department released some details of its plan if it had to operate at the caps. The U.S. F-35 buy would be slashed by 16 aircraft in fiscal 2016 and one in fiscal 2017. The out-year plan for 90 and 96 orders in fiscal 2018 and 2019, respectively, would not be touched. 

The second issue is international demand, which is a critical component for growth in the program. The production rate and unit price create something of a chicken-and-egg problem for the program, as 70-80% of the anticipated unit price decline results from higher production. But those lower prices can’t be realized without the orders to increase production. An international bloc buy is being explored by the program and could do a lot to remedy this.

Lot 8 included 14 international F-35s, or 33% of the 43 aircraft ordered. Out-year plans show international customers (both program partners and buyers under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales plan) accounting for 42-49% of annual buys through 2019. Here, too, there are uncertainties that rest with the size and timing of non-U.S. buys.

The U.K. and Canada both have elections in 2015 and following the U.K. vote, there will be another strategic defense review. Israel is likely to scale back its current plan for at least three squadrons of F-35s. Denmark is expected to make a decision on its plan to replace its F-16s in 2015, and Belgium might do so by the end of the decade. These are apt to be small buys, however. The point is that without a bloc buy in place, international rate increases are uncertain...

Byron Callan is a director at Capital Alpha Partners.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-plenty-risk-remains-f-35-program

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Italy (usual copyright disclaimer):

U.S., Lockheed see no change in Italy's F-35 plans


(Reuters) - Italy has not signaled any plans to reduce its expected purchase of 90 F-35 fighter jets, despite suggestions by Italian lawmakers that the purchase should be halved, senior U.S. and Lockheed Martin Corp officials said Wednesday [Nov. 3].

"Italy remains committed to the F-35 program of record and its plan to buy 90 jets in coming years," said one U.S. official, who was not authorized to speak publicly.

Lorraine Martin, Lockheed's F-35 program manager, told reporters at a defense conference, that the Italian government had not notified the company of any change from the planned order of 90 jets...

Martin said a decrease in the number would affect how many aircraft could be assembled at the large "final assembly and checkout" plant, or FACO, and in turn, how quickly the cost of those aircraft would come down the "learning curve."

"It would have ramifications if they changed their order numbers, primarily for getting up the learning curve at the FACO," she added...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/03/lockheedmartin-fighter-italy-idUSL2N0TN23U20141203

2012:

Italy to Cut F-35 Fighter Jet Orders as Part of Defense Revamp

(Bloomberg) -- Italy will reduce its planned order of Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 fighter jets and trim the size of the military as part of defense-spending cuts, Defense Minister Giampaolo Di Paola said.

Italy will purchase 90 F-35s rather than the originally planned 131, Di Paola said in Rome in testimony before a joint defense committee of both houses of Parliament...
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-16/italy-to-cut-f-35-fighter-jet-orders-as-part-of-defense-revamp.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Training--60% sims (usual copyright disclaimer):

F-35 Sim Incorporates Real, Not Emulated, Software
F-35 training underpinned by simulation, not emulation

With initial operational capability (IOC) for the Pentagon’s newest fighter expected next summer for the U.S. Marine Corps, and the following year for the Air Force, pilot training is a major focus moving forward.

But the design of the single-seat, stealthy fighter does not allow for buddy rides. When a student pilot steps into the cockpit of the F-35 for his first check-out flight, he is flying solo.

With a price exceeding $100 million and cost per flying hour for the A-model at roughly $24,000, each mission has to count. But Lockheed Martin says pilots are getting the education they need, thanks to improved simulation technology incorporated into the program’s full-mission simulators (FMS).

The simulators employ the actual F-35 software used by flying aircraft, while many training simulators for legacy aircraft rely more on emulation than simulation, says Mike Luntz, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 training system director. “We fly the same software, just like the jet does,” he says.

Already, five FMS are installed at Eglin AFB, Florida, the initial training base for F-35 pilots and maintainers. Another two are at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), in Yuma, Arizona—where the first squadron of Marine F-35Bs will be based—and two more at MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina, which will be the service’s main training base.

“They are the same software setup. They are the same hardware setup. They are very high-fidelity simulators,” Luntz says. “There are differences in the side panels between the actual CV, CTOL and Stovl. And because of the high fidelity of the simulators we have panels that we place in there that are actually removable . . . and we swap those side panels out,” to accommodate the unique controls for the F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing (Stovl) version for the Marines, U.K., and Italy, and F-35C carrier variant for the Navy. The A-model, optimized for conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL), will constitute the bulk of the fleet.

While about 40% of an F-16 pilot’s training is done in the simulator, the F-35 pilot’s education is at least 60% simulator based [emphasis added]. This is possible because of the fidelity of the simulator technology, Luntz says. Older simulators are motion-based, or mounted on a platform that moves with the pilot to add physicality to the maneuvers as he inputs commands. The F-35 FMS, however, is fixed. But the training is not lacking, Luntz asserts...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-sim-incorporates-real-not-emulated-software

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

And CAS:

A Look at F-35 Close Air Support Tactics Development
http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/12/a-look-at-f-35-close-air-support-tactics-development/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Privateer]

This, from "Foxtrot Alpha" site:

The F-35 Can't Run On Warm Gas From A Fuel Truck That Sat In The Sun :

According to the USAF, the troubled fighter cannot use gas from standard green colored USAF fuel trucks if it has been sitting in the sun.
...
The answer for the F-35's fuel finicky conundrum, one of many heat related issues with the jets since their testing began, is being addressed outside of the F-35 aircraft itself, in the form of repainting standard USAF fuel trucks with bright white solar reflective paint.
...

Link: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668120726

Edited to add:  This site seems slanted against the F-35 in general, and I am hardly a military aviation expert, so take it as you will.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

His claim is that the aircraft uses the fuel as a heat sink and warm fuel prevent that function. A point he brings up, what happens when you arrive at a another airbase that does not have cooled fuel?

 

[Loachman]

And that previous article led me to http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/7-things-the-marines-have-to-do-to-make-the-f-35b-worth-1560672069 and http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/we-finally-know-why-an-f-35-burned-on-the-runway-1630541564.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Four extra F35s LRIP 9, 15 Growlers keeping line going:

U.S. spending bill adds $1.46 bln for military to buy 15 Boeing jets

Dec 9 (Reuters) - A spending bill agreed by lawmakers from the U.S. House and Senate provides $554.2 billion in funding for the U.S. military in fiscal 2015, including $1.46 billion for 15 EA-18G electronic attack jets built by Boeing Co...

Boeing lobbied hard for funding to extend its St. Louis production line for EA-18G Growlers, which had been due to end at the end of 2016. The added funding, which was included in both the House and Senate appropriations bills, will keep the line running through 2017, company officials have said.

The measure also includes $224 million for two additional Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets for the U.S. Air Force and $255 million for two additional F-35s for the U.S. Navy, the summary said. The measure funds a total of 38 F-35 fighters, nine more than in fiscal 2014 [LRIP 8]...
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/12/10/usa-congress-budget-military-idINL1N0TU05L20141210

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Further to this post,
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/22809/post-1340827.html#msg1340827

more on Italy--and Japan:

First F-35 Assembled In Italy To Roll Out Early Next Year

Officials in Italy are preparing for the rollout of their first F-35A from the final assembly and checkout (FACO) facility at Cameri Air Base in northern Italy early next year.

That first aircraft is slated to roll off the line by March 2015.

Italy invested about $1 billion in building the facility amid political infighting about the status of purchases for the fighter; it began operations last year. Cameri is the site of Italy’s hub for long-running Eurofighter Typhoon and Tornado work.

The military leadership there had hoped to assemble at least 250 fighters at the FACO...

Meanwhile, work on constructing Japan’s FACO in Nagoya continues; construction began in May. The first major subcomponents are slated to be loaded into Japan’s electronic mate and assembly tooling – the same tooling used for assembly at Lockheed Martin’s final assembly plant in Fort Worth – in December 2015.

The first four of Japan’s 42 F-35s will come from the Forth Worth plant. The first Japanese assembled F-35A is slated to roll off the line in Nagoya in fall 2017, with delivery for operations in 2018.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/first-f-35-assembled-italy-roll-out-early-next-year

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Government releases bunch of reports:
http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/rplanseptv-sevenptplan-eng.html

Mark Collins

 

[MilEME09]

A few very interesting things I got out of it, One we seem to be looking towards the Australian mixed fleet model, and the report discusses the risk vs reward of a mixed fleet of lower cost aircraft to do all NORAD + some NATO missions, and having a small number of high cost aircraft to do the rest/everything. Though the summery says it may not be cost effective unless the lower cost aircraft would cost less then half the higher cost ones (with the high cost of the F-35 i think that's easy), Two SAAB didn't provide information for the report, could they be fed up with the government?, and three in the Critical Enabling Factors Assessment, the State on state war fighting section it was rated between medium to significant between 2020 and 2030, likely due to the treat of Russia but its an eye into what the government is thinking.