F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[MilEME09]

Not surprised actually...just feel it would be a better fit than the Super Hornet option; not the F-35 option.

Any option is better then the F-35 IMO, though the Dassault Rafale is warming up on me. Not to mention a full technology transfer is a big carrot, now if only we could have say bombardier assemble them. It would be a win for us, build some I'm France and the rest here that way we also build the capacity to do overhauls and other modifications.

 

[SupersonicMax]

What do you get for $100M? 

Who would we put in the backseats?  I agree, if we DO NOT get the JSF, it is the best platform to get.  It sure beats the SH for what we want to do with it.

MilEME:  based on what exactly?

 

[Good2Golf]

What the pilots "want" and what the country "requires" are mot necessarily the same thing.

As well, it seems that people continue to fall into the "what does it cost per airframe" trap.  No country has ever bought a modern warplane 'à la carte' according to an individual price off the menu.  Countries buy fighter aircraft under total cost programs that include aircraft acqusition, ground support equipment, spare parts, maintenance and test equipment, and In-service and engineering support  contracting.  While one can divide the total program cost by the number of airframes procured to arrive at an average acquisition and support cost, every county's program will be different to tailor to that country's specific operating and support needs, so average unit cost will be different.  People who try to compare 'per unit cost' in a facile manner fail to appreciate the complexity of such programs and end up in apples/oranges/toasters comparisons.  To do any comparison service, one would have to clarify what is, and what is not bein provided as part of the program.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[ringo]

Perhaps its time for USAF USN to return to Hi-Lo mix.
F-35 is provide to be much more expensive so existing types F-15 F-16 and F-18 types should be produced operated in parallel to F-35 F-22, reducing F-35 production by 1/3 or 1/2.

 

[WingsofFury]

Any option is better then the F-35 IMO, though the Dassault Rafale is warming up on me. Not to mention a full technology transfer is a big carrot, now if only we could have say bombardier assemble them. It would be a win for us, build some I'm France and the rest here that way we also build the capacity to do overhauls and other modifications.

Actually no, any option ISN'T better than the F-35.

Especially the Rafale, which is more costly and the weaponry is totally different from what we have on store.

 

[WingsofFury]

Perhaps its time for USAF USN to return to Hi-Lo mix.
F-35 is provide to be much more expensive so existing types F-15 F-16 and F-18 types should be produced operated in parallel to F-35 F-22, reducing F-35 production by 1/3 or 1/2.

It isn't much more expensive....please do some research.  It's actually on par and cheaper than other we've mentioned.

 

[MarkOttawa]

F-35 costs improving:

DoD Acquisition Starting To Begin To Turn Corner? F-35 Costs Down 2%

...the F-35A version comes in at $108 million (with engine) for LRIP 8 [US FY 2014, started Oct. 1, 2013]. That is $4 million lower than lot 7. prices...
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/03/dod-acquisition-starting-to-begin-to-turn-corner-f-35-costs-down-2/

Selected Acquisition Reports (SAR) 2014 news release:
http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=17181

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MilEME09]

Actually no, any option ISN'T better than the F-35.

Especially the Rafale, which is more costly and the weaponry is totally different from what we have on store.

According to the above post the F-35A is now at a estimated $108 million per unit, the Rafale is at $94 million per unit for the single seater, and $101 for the twin seater. With a full technology transfer as well, as offered by Dassault, conversion to our weapon standards would be much easier. Cheaper? not by much but it is, now the Advanced Super Hornet on the other hand would be an estimated $63-$67 million per unit according to Boeing when it submitted information to the government.

 

[Loachman]

According to the above post the F-35A is now at a estimated $108 million per unit, the Rafale is at $94 million per unit for the single seater, and $101 for the twin seater.

As well, it seems that people continue to fall into the "what does it cost per airframe" trap.  No country has ever bought a modern warplane 'à la carte' according to an individual price off the menu.  Countries buy fighter aircraft under total cost programs that include aircraft acqusition, ground support equipment, spare parts, maintenance and test equipment, and In-service and engineering support  contracting.  While one can divide the total program cost by the number of airframes procured to arrive at an average acquisition and support cost, every county's program will be different to tailor to that country's specific operating and support needs, so average unit cost will be different.  People who try to compare 'per unit cost' in a facile manner fail to appreciate the complexity of such programs and end up in apples/oranges/toasters comparisons.  To do any comparison service, one would have to clarify what is, and what is not bein provided as part of the program.

You seem to have skipped that post.

Additionally, an extremely important factor is the lifetime costs of the type selected.

Once production lines close, maintenance and upgrade costs rise.

Which of the contenders will be in production the longest, be used by the most nations, have the the best access to parts, and the cheapest upgrade costs?

Based upon capabilities, costs, compatibility with allies, and benefits to Canadian industry, I see only one viable choice. That's not Rafale or an Eagle or Hornet variant.

 

[WingsofFury]

The current Legacy Hornets that we fly are a better option that the Super Hornet.  Imports from Europe aren't an option, never have been or will be.

Agreed, the only real viable option is the F-35A.

That being said, I feel that a competition against the SLAM Eagle would be an interesting one.

Just my  :2c:.

 

[Loachman]

That "competition" cliche again...

Nobody who bandies that about has ever suggested the form that such a "competition" should take. All of the knowable information is already known, I should think, and an evaluation can be made from that.

I invite suggestions for the "competition" from all who push for one. Dual to the death between one of each type, fully loaded with actual weapons? Would one iteration be adequate, or do we have to send multiple Bomber Bilots to Valhalla?

Better yet, give each company's lawyers a quickie course each and let them compete thus. As the losers would only attempt to sue the winner and the Canadian Government anyway, this could cut down on their ability to do so.

 

[WingsofFury]

Would have to respectfully disagree with you.

During a competition certain features which are normally classified are declassified which opens the door to a greater number of characteristics evaluations which could be done.

I still think that the F-35 would win, make no mistake.

I'd just like it to go up against what would be a potential candidate that meets the criteria of its critics.

That would be an Eagle as outlined previously.

 

[Loachman]

I would expect that very little information is kept secret from prospective purchasers, especially if it was likely to be discovered during a "competition".

That whole notion of a "competition" is a construct of wilfully-ignorant journalists and other assorted Harper-haters.

But, again, of what would this "competition" consist? What would it discover or determine that is not already known?

 

[dapaterson]

What would it discover or determine that is not already known?

It might discover that certain aircraft specs provided my manufacturers are somewhat optimistic, or that certain "features" are still under development, and thus those aircraft are not compliant with the stated requirement.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The problem is how do they accurately test the stealthiness against likely threats, as the Russians won't want to let you play with their systems. Plus how do you weigh the different factors which each aircraft brings, the F-15 carries more and further, the F-35 will have better sensors and may be stealthier, but these come at a cost of range and capacity. Plus there has been at least 2 issues already with it's internal load area (temperature and fitting of ordnance). 

 

[Rifleman62]

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/581024/first-luke-f-35-student-takes-to-the-sky.aspx

First Luke F-35 student takes to the sky

By 56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs, / Published March 19, 2015  LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. (AFNS)

The 56th Fighter Wing officially began training new F-35 Lightning II pilots when the first student, Brig. Gen. Scott Pleus, the commander of the 56th Fighter Wing, flew the wing's first training sortie March 18.

Luke has a long and storied history of training fighter pilots. Advanced flight training in the AT-6 began at Luke in 1941 and by 1944 pilots at Luke had achieved one million hours of flying time. That legacy will continue with the F-35, an unprecedented fifth generation fighter combining stealth technology with fighter speed and agility, fully integrated sensors and network enabled operations, and state-of-the-art avionics.

Luke's operators and maintainers will continue to generate local F-35 sorties. The 56th FW will continue to build the pilot and maintainer cadre and complete training systems preparations for the start of formal training with our international partners in May.

On Jan. 23, Pleus flew his last sortie in an F-16 Fighting Falcon. It represented a personal milestone for Pleus and also a step forward for the Airmen at Luke in realizing its new mission – training the world's greatest F-35 and F-16 fighter pilots.

The first official class of student pilots is scheduled to begin May 4, at the Academic Training Center, a 145,000-square-foot, two-story state-of-the-art training facility. Pleus will complete his training and join the cadre of instructor pilots training that first class of students.

The 61st Fighter Squadron is the first squadron in the 56th Fighter Wing scheduled to accomplish F-35 flying training for future F-35 instructor, operational and test pilots. It will train partner nation and follow-on Air Force pilots thereafter.

"Just over a year ago, the squadron moved into a new building, stood up new facilities and developed processes required for operating a fighter squadron and integrating into the 56th Fighter Wing," said Lt. Col. Michael Ebner, the commander of the 61st Fighter Squadron. "Our 23 instructor pilots are honing instructional skills while exercising all the aircraft capabilities and our maintenance professionals continue to refine training processes and convert maintainers from all over the Air Force into F-35 experts."

Luke's F-35 program hit the ground running when the first F-35 arrived at Luke March 10, 2014, and in the coming weeks will reach the 1,000th F-35 sortie milestone.

"This is another step forward for Luke (AFB), the 56th Fighter Wing, and our Air Force," Pleus said. "The F-35 is going to be the backbone of the Air Force's fighter fleet for decades to come and Luke will play a vital role in producing the world's greatest, most lethal F-35 pilots. It's important that I complete my flying training here with our Airmen, in our airspace, so I could help refine and validate our program meeting the needs of our Air Force. With (initial operating capability) scheduled to occur late next year, it's important that we get our training program and process dialed in and as efficient and refined as our F-16 training program is so we can help meet the Air Force's scheduled goal."

Pleus also reflected on the years of work that have gone into the F-35 program and putting Luke AFB in a position to begin training in May.

"We're about to fly our one thousandth F-35 sortie at Luke and my flight today was just one of those, “Pleus said. “Getting to this point hasn't just been accomplished over the past few months. It's really been done over the last few years. Lots of amazing Airmen who have already departed from Luke are the reason we are where we are with the F-35 program.

What they did back then to set the base up is the reason why we will be so successful training the world's greatest F-35 pilots. I've got to say that I'm absolutely honored to fly the F-35. But the fact that I got to have my first flight again in the 61st Fighter Squadron really brings this full circle for me."

There are 20 F-35s assigned at Luke AFB, two of which belong to the Royal Australian Air Force, an F-35 pilot training partner nation.

Photo Caption: Brig. Gen. Scott Pleus dons his helmet before his first F-35 sortie flight March 18, 2015, at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz. Pleus is the commander of the 56th Fighter Wing. Pleus will now be the first commander to switch to the F-35 on Luke AFB.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Fusing:

Patching The F-35’s Data Fusion Gap
Software patch designed to fix snag in ship-to-ship F-35 data ‘fusion’
Mar 20, 2015 Amy Butler and Guy Norris Aviation Week & Space Technology
...
Late last year, U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program executive officer, said the latest software challenge was to create an accurate “fused” picture across multiship formations.

“Ideally with fusion working at the 100% level, each F-35 has its picture from its own sensors and shares that picture over the data links—all the wingmen in that link also have their own-ship sensor picture as well as the shared info,” says one program official. “Fusion should correlate what wingmen are seeing to what each own-ship sees so that there is one and only one symbol on each airplane’s [display] for each target out there.”

That is the ideal. Test pilots have reported problems when targets on the display have more than one symbol—a sign the system has not “fused” the inputs on that particular target. Or in some cases, not all wingmen are seeing everything the other pilots in their formation are viewing on the displays.

This latest patch—called the “engineering test build” or ETB by testers—is not a full software release. It is akin to an update one might implement on a mobile telephone and is geared specifically to address multiship fusion shortcomings. It was decided among the test team and JPO to move forward with it in parallel with work to certify the 2B software with which the U.S. Marine Corps plans to declare F-35B initial operational capability (IOC) in July.

...the test fleet is working with the 2B, 3i and 3F software packages at varying levels. This is possible, in part, because of the infusion of five mission systems aircraft—some pulled or on loan from other locations and missions. These were added when the program was restructured in 2011 to mitigate risk in the software work delaying fielding. Originally, the team planned for a single mission systems jet.

Earlier in the program, officials assumed the bulk of mission system testing would take place in ground-based laboratories or in the Combined Avionics Testbed, a flying Boeing 737 modified with an F-35 radar, sensors and leading edges, Cregier says.

Thus far, the F-35 is about 60% through development, which is slated to finish in 2017.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/patching-f-35-s-data-fusion-gap

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MilEME09]

The problem is how do they accurately test the stealthiness against likely threats, as the Russians won't want to let you play with their systems. Plus how do you weigh the different factors which each aircraft brings, the F-15 carries more and further, the F-35 will have better sensors and may be stealthier, but these come at a cost of range and capacity. Plus there has been at least 2 issues already with it's internal load area (temperature and fitting of ordnance).

My problem with internal bays is that it limits what you can take because some won't fit and future ordnance have to be designed to fit in it or be externally carried and cut into the stealth factor, so the F-35 is great at first strike. Problem is it can only carry 3,000 lbs internally, so if its not a single target mission but a CAS mission fully loaded with its max 18,000 pounds of ordnance how stealthy is it really now with all those none stealthy weapons hanging off its wings?

 

[Loachman]

A few bombs carried with greater aircraft survivability outweigh more bombs with reduced aircraft survivability, unless one has an unlimited supply of aircraft and Pilots.

Where "stealth" is not required, a greater amount of weaponry can be carried.

This increases mission flexibility.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Loachman I see a lot of talk about the erosion of stealthiness, what is your take on the subject?