Many thanks to Tim for his note.
I disagree with him wholeheartedly but this is a view from across the pond...
Sol,I won't parse and refute each of his points. We've done that to death. I'll simply say I think you're wrong Tim. We've spent enough. My country can't afford this plane. Your's can't and neither can our allies.
Though I admire your change of direction, and indeed a niggle in my stomach tells me you could be right, I have to outline a couple of things that make this a project that stands above the rest that you are talking about. If find it very difficult to collate thoughts on such a huge subject, as it encompasses the whole defence project issue….
Bear with my rambles and see it from a guy who served in RN for many years, and now has son on “Bombers” in RN
Cost.
Cost is now more analysed than ever before in any airframe. But the arguments to continue usually outweigh the cancellation. We only need to look so far as the initial “Fly off” between Boeing and Lockheed to see that the cheaper option of Boeing with the Harrier technology engine sucked in hot air and was unable to land reliably in a vertical manner.
Therefore the issue we would see is that to go back to the drawing board would only cost more, and put us back in the “Unknown”.
Specification.
The airsystem Lockheed are delivering does exceed specification in many areas and fail or meet revised specification in others. It never was going to be able to do what the Sukhoi and Pak do in manoeuvre. But it would have a more modern databus and capability in electronics. This we are all reliably informed will give us the system we need. This is possibly the most contentious issue. Will the F35 do what they are asking of it, or is the expectation set to high. The only area I find disturbing is the removal of the A10. No airsystem in my opinion can replace the A10 in the role it performs. But A10 are old, and the airframes are getting stressed and I guess now dangerously in need of replacement. At what cost…. (Back to that argument)
Alliance.
This is the real jewel in the crown that the F35 presents. F35 if it is able to do what they say it can do, will give all allies that sign up to it a shared capability. It means the logistics and abilities are known to each ally. Maintenance issues, commonality of spares etc etc make this airsystem easier to support. Allies will be able to cross deck (Whether F35A to airfields) or F35B to ships. The capability of a British carrier will be enormous, when we have USMC F35B and Japanese, Italian also. No nation can go it alone, and alliance is what the world WILL be built on in the future. That has to be good for UK and especially good for the US who has shouldered responsibility of policing the world for to long. F35 brings forwards a better standard of airforce. More nations will participate in “Red Flag” type exercises, with shared purpose and experience of the air system.
Decisions Made.
This is a contentious comment, but we “reap what we sow”.
For good or bad the 3 forces of US and RAF/RN agreed to a single airsystem. Compromise was made on the whole product. USMC and RN / RAF stipulated a single engine design. US Navy wanted a twin engine, but settled for the single engine. USMC/USAF and RN/RAF can not just leave the project as they “Forced it” on the USN. The costs are totally lost, yet we have an airsystem that is flying and testing successfully.
Way forwards.
Perhaps the way forwards is actually to step up production. To call Lockheed/BAE/Pratt and Whitney. TO watch the price come down. TO be able to plan for a cheaper airsystem and then call foul if they do not meet targets. I do not believe based on watching of Typhoon, F14, F15, F22, PAK, even Airbus and Boeing that a new airsystem can be built to cutting edge without delays and cost overruns.
In summary I think we have to step up production to make the airsystem cheaper and more viable as an exported airsystem. We need to keep a hold on costs, but realise that the costs that are thrown around on the Internet are costs that will be incurred regardless of the system that is flying. So in comparison with the most numerous of airsystem (F16) the F35 will be more capable and cheaper. No reskins required and life extensions and re-engine.
We also need to review the requirements for Large Carrier capability. Just looking at the cost of the Ford class makes the eyes water. Finally an acceptance of slightly less for more quantity would also be wise decision on the next weapon system design. I am not convinced our Western desire for technology is best for us.
Regards
Ground-Control to Major Tim:
ReplyDeleteWell done. Wraps it all up with a nice bow-tie of steady reason on top.
Sol, give that man a bucket of Thermion to prep any friendly naval and commercial ship with enough deck-space to offer a global pattern of Bingo-platforms for one USMC and one RN F35-B together to hop-scotch around the world without ever touching a carrier or any onshore runways.
Now there's an exercise for the history-books !
You want deterrence ?! Do this to make a very important tactical and strategic point.
I'd wear a breathing-apparatus though before ladling out the Thermion sauce...
And none of that cute 'Kilroy was here' fingering the curing stuff, ye hear !!
The basic point that there is no 'high mix' alternative to the F-35 is correct. The one area in which the F-35 program has performed superbly has been its unwavering commitment to using lies and FUD to choke off development of alternatives until now it is too late. The points about decisions made and the inevitability of high mix cost over runs are also good (though a modern A-10, A-7, or F-16 would be a low mix plane and that's another issue . . . ).
ReplyDeleteAlmost everything else is wrong.
Ref the Fly Off: the only reason LockMart could take off and land vertically was that they had no weapons bays, in other words they didn't build a prototype: they built something that looked like one but weighed much less. Later, when LockMart added weapons bays, weights soared over projections and the entire program lost two years, and incurred a host of other problems, to reduce weight for VTOL performance.
Commonality is some great new thing? How many nations operate F-16s? Are they all merrily using each others airfields and going to Red Flag? The USMC and UK both operated Harriers for years: were they skipping from one country's decks to another's? No.
The idea that all you have to do to reduce costs is increase production rates is also ridiculous. Production has been delayed repeatedly because of the enormous retrofit costs the unstable design will incur later. Even Admiral Venlet, who surely understood this dilemma, recommended lower production levels till more could be sorted out. Also the lower cost predictions are based on the learning curve which does not apply to designs which are continually modified. Finally, it is questionable where the learning curve flattens out: the F-22 costs flattened out after a about a hundred units and then never went down.
The F-35 is not 'testing successfully': it is years behind schedule, has had multiple performance requirements dumbed down so it can meet them, hasn't made a carrier landing (something even the F-111B pulled off). Oh and then there's the little matter that we're only testing a small portion of the flight and weapons envelopes because a "combat ready" F-35 is years away, gated by the Block 3 software. It is a symptom of how big a debacle the F-35 is that finally getting some basic flight testing done is considered to be a huge accomplishment.
Then there's the old "yell at the vendors" chestnut: except what exactly do you threaten LockMart and P&W with? The whole program has been set up to eliminate alternatives, the USAF and USMC have both declared they will die in a ditch to protect the F-35 regardless of delays and cost over-runs: there is no where else to go and no other plane to buy. The idiots who thought up JSF never even considered what granting a fighter monopoly to LockMart would do and they actively opposed the alternative GE engine, ignoring all the historical experience with P&W's F-100 engine program. One of the decisions that was made was to give all the negotiating power to LockMart and P&W and we are reaping what was sown there as well.
extremely well said. we've dug a ditch. the only thing left to do is to stop digging and to learn from this experience.
Deleteif the Pentagon lacks the clarity or moral authority to recognize this mistake then Congress should do the hard thing and cancel the program. unfortunately Obama can't do it because he would immediately be labeled as anti-military.
i can't believe how well Lockheed Martin planned out this swindle.
the shame of it is that many of their other products i like, but the bloodbath that will come from this pig will stink up the rest of the barn. i don't know who, but someone will be left without a chair and an executive in that company will go to jail.
You know, sometimes Cassandra must have been tempted to grab a bag of popcorn and watch the world burn like she knew it would. I mean, how can Lockheed Martin be producing record profits from 2003 to now and still pulling more and more money into a program 7 years behind schedule? They've had to pay 577 million in fines for 54 counts of contractor misconduct to date, and continually earn the number one spot on the Project Government Oversight's list for "contractor misconduct."
ReplyDeleteI wonder what the correlation between F-35 cost over runs and reported profits from LM are....
wow. i scrapped a post that talked about LM getting a record amount of money withheld and yet they're still considered a buy.
Deletegreat minds and all.
it just occurred to me that a side issue that the Pentagon is going to face is a loss of trust from the American people. its already sliding because of other factors but once you add in another 600 dollar toilet seat debacle...especially during this time of economic stress, they're going to find that they have no more allies. the worst thing for the military is a loss of faith by the American people. if the military becomes viewed as just another govt agency then all is lost.
Cost.
ReplyDeleteCost is now more analysed than ever before in any airframe. But the arguments to continue usually outweigh the cancellation.
--Actually, there has not been a proper cost audit of the F-35. We have frequent reports of costs being more than X, and less than Y, but no actual cost figures. Government reports have included three different types of cost calculations -- PAUCs, APUCs, URFs -- and none of them are informative. Recently Lockheed has crowed that F-25A unit cost for LRIP 6 and 7 is below $100 million, and Amy Butler at Aviation Week has stenoed that figure as the F-35A cost, but they fail to say that doesn't include the engine!
You want an engine with that?
Add another, well we don't know how much, but I'm estimating about $38 million for a total cost of about $138 million. That's the F-35A, B and C are higher. (The UK is taking the F-35B.) Winslow Wheeler has higher figures for total cost: The breakdown of each year’s procurement spending and authorized production yields an annual F-35 unit production cost. For 2014, F-35As will cost $188.5 million each; F-35Bs and Cs will average $277.9 million each, and all F-35s will cost, on average, $219.3 million.
Specification.
ReplyDeleteThe airsystem Lockheed are delivering does exceed specification in many areas and fail or meet revised specification in others.
--The specifications for all three variants pertaining to transonic acceleration and sustained turn rates have been reduced. Worst hit in terms of acceleration is the US Navy's F-35C carrier-based model. The U.S. Air Force, by far the largest presumed user of the F-35 fighter, has agreed to declare initial operational capability with a much more limited software and weapons capability that initially planned, Chief tester Gilmore: "Although mission systems testing has been able to keep pace with the program plans for generating sorties and accomplishing the test points, the program is falling behind in achieving progress in delivering capability." All of this news is preliminary since the F-35 has completed less than half its development testing and none of its operational testing.
--Problems to date include cracking of wing flange , frame and avionics floor. There have been subsystem problems with fan door actuator (B), thermal fan, battery, controller, fuel pump, compressor valve, display processor, nacelle fan and the vital display management computer/helmet. The aircraft has been prohibited from flying close formation, aerobatics, and stalls, and can't fly close to lightning.
--The F-35 is the most complex aircraft ever built. The F-35 requires more than 8 million lines of software code, three times more than the F-22, plus another 16 million lines for the entire program. The final Block 2B software configuration is now forecast to be delivered to flight test eight months later than expected by the current integrated master schedule—a delay from August 2013 to April 2014. Less than two percent of the Block 2b ("placeholder") software has been tested. So any F-35s that the Marines say they can take into combat in 2015 are not only ill equipped for combat but will likely require airborne protection by the very planes the F-35 is supposed to replace. The F-35 won't really be operationally capable until it has the Block 3i software onboard. The Block 3F software, scheduled for delivery at the end of the development program in 2017, is necessary for the F-35’s core mission‚ such as multi-ship suppression, destruction of enemy air defenses and new air-to-air and air-to-ground modes. This package also will include the full complement of weapons carried internally and externally on the aircraft.
Speaking from extreme ignorance (and no particular fan of the F35)
ReplyDeleteThe F35 is flawed, but so are the Typhoon and the F22, and the Typhoon and the F22 have been happily shooting down entire squadrons of the aircraft they replaced.
Will a single F35 be able to knock out 6/8/12 F18s?
Because the 22s and Typhoons have scored those sort of kills. (although who knows what the rules of the exercises were)
The A10 is an anomaly.
Is the A10 so good at CAS, because its so good at CAS, or because its so bad at CAP?
Is the A10 actually better at CAS than a Brimstone laden F35? Or is it just that the airforce is going to pull any Air Combat capable aircraft from the CAS role to the favoured fighter ace side, and they are forced to use the A10 as ground support?
When new versions of the F-15 and F-16 were proposed the USAF didnt even consider them...
ReplyDeleteNow look were we are.
The solution is simple:
-restart the F-22 production
-Buy new versions of the F-15 and F-16(some of these proposals are actually better performing than JSF and cheaper)
-The Navy went this way and can afford to lose the F-35...
The USMC should also buy the SuperHornet...If they want to keep the foward basing concept how about the Gripen?
Nuno, you and I both know the Marines don't want the Super.
DeleteThat had a whole decade to decide on it, and they said no.
Also, Brazil WILL NOT be buying it, as Ms. Roussef hates the USA now due to the NSA.
The gripen is a essentially an F-16 with fewer hard-points, and canards.
So, where do you get and keep intact those 'Hornet/Gripen-correct' runways in any USMC expeditionary amphibious assault context ?
ReplyDeletewho knows.
DeleteFor the Gripen at least, you can use nearly any kind of road. Depending on the load, the Gripen can take off and land with any road that is roughly 400m. The Swedes have also proven that it can be refueled and rearmed in under 10 minutes by using a few trucks. What they usually do it coordinate with their pilots on where they plan on landing after their mission is over and then send the trucks out to that spot in advance. Once the Gripen lands they refuel, rearm, send the Gripen on its way, and work to coordinate the next landing site.
DeleteThis method hasn't been proven in combat, but it looks promising and would certainly be a useful alternative if your runway was taken out by an enemy cruise missile attack.
The Super Hornet is relatively low maintenance as well and can take off about 600m (if I remember correctly) with a light load. The US Navy has never tried to see if they could refuel and rearm with a few trucks, but just from what I know it seems possible.
To be honest, I think this plane has actually hurt our relationships with our allies rather than helped it, especially in Canada and Italy. The controversy surrounding the F-35 in Canada makes it seem like we are forcing the plane on them to help fuel our military industry when it clearly doesn't suit their needs as well as the Super Hornet would and it is clearly out of their price range. In Italy there was a grass-movement outrage over the fact that the Italian government had decided to go ahead with the purchase of the plane even after learning its obscene price. The outrage was so much that Lockheed decided to cancel a ceremony that had been planned for the opening of one of their production plants in the country because they feared a mass protest would ignite outside of it. I think having a good relationship is far more important than being able to share the same toys.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to that the broad spread scheme of logistics and production for this plane has made it much more vulnerable to cyber attacks and having its data stolen. When asked about the security of the data of this airplane most officials will say that they can account for Lockheed Martin, but not any of its subcontractors or those of our foreign allies. Needless to say, when the J-31 appeared in Chinese skies not too many people were actually surprised by it all. In fact a couple months ago hackers from the US Navy broke into classified F-35 logistics information just to prove that they could do it and show how vulnerable it really was. (This may also have been the USN showing how much they didn't want the plane.)
The F-35's data processing and sensors are the best in the world, but those avionics could easily benefit our armed forces if they were retro-fitted back onto our F-teen series fighters, the Eurofighter, and the Gripen. What we really need is better ordnance for our fighters. Share ammunition and avionics without trying to share the same airframe.
that Italian "movement" is a load of bullshit.
DeleteIt's a bunch of left wingers who hate anything military related.
and it's not like you can just attached those sensor to a Teen series fighter. They are not plug and play, and none of the teen series jets are wired for them.
DeleteIn Italy, from news reports:
DeleteThe F-35 fiasco has unsettled the government--
--Plans to spend 11.8 billion euros ($15.4 billion) on the jets over 45 years from 2015 have caused bitter debate after years of spending cuts and tax rises to manage Italy's huge public debt, rocking the stability of the fragile left-right coalition government.
And removed any semblance of democracy on the subject--
--The agreement that future spending on the long-running contract be approved by parliament is a non-binding political commitment that may have little weight, as President Giorgio Napolitano this month said such decisions are up to the government, not parliament. Some politicians reacted with outrage Wednesday after Italy's Supreme Defence Council said it retained the right to approve the multi-billion euro purchase of new jet fighters.
also in this poisonous atmosphere, as noted, public F-35 functions are not possible--
--Internal politics in Italy have prompted Alenia Aermacchi and Lockheed Martin to dash long-held plans for a ceremony to celebrate the opening of the Italian final assembly and checkout (FACO) facility for the stealthy F-35 fighter.
It's because the F-35 is too expensive--
--Delays and cost overruns have doubled the projected unit price from 65 million to 133 million USD.
David, you do realize that most Italians are a bunch of left wingers that don't necessarily have a taste for anything military related right? They signed onto the F-35 program with the promise that it was going to be very cheap. Why else do you think Lockheed cancelled the ceremony? Italians were outraged that the F-35 is too expensive and that it was being purchased against their wishes. The ceremony would have made it seem like Lockheed was celebrating a victory over the Italian system. There would have been serious backlash and they knew it so they killed the ceremony.
DeleteAlso, I am convinced for every electronic problem there is a work-around and the F-35 avionics are no exception. No, I don't know what the avionics entail exactly or how much it would cost to retrofit them, but I am convinced that it can be done, even it means that a portion of those avionics may need to be added in a podded system. The US Navy has classified upgrades that they say will make the Super Hornet relevant into the late 2030s. That's all I need to know, that the F-teen series can be pushed to new limits to handle future threats well into this century.
how in the world are the Italians (who i'm fond of) going to afford a stealth fighter when they're recieving aid from the EU and in particular Germany just to keep their economy afloat? when the people are having their pensions cut? when govt services are being reduced?
Deleteyou can scratch the Italian offer. what they're trying to do is hang on long enough for everyone else to buy the plane so they can cancel and then make money off the assembly plant. if they wait then the program won't be able to afford the hiccup of moving production out of the country....that would drive up costs even further.
the italians are playing a game with lockheed and lockheed knows it. but lockheed won't call them on it because they both need the illusion to continue.
It's funny how the Brits and the Italians "have" to have their F-35s while Germany (the most financially stable of the European nations) is making do with their Typhoons, etc.
DeleteIs there a lesson to be learned here?
5 STOVL-carriers would want F-35B. Italy's fleet-assets really helped topple Khaddafy.
ReplyDeleteMost of his arguments are based on faith. 12 years after contract award and there is still no credible aircraft to look at. Not even close. Other statements that the system was never supposed to be this or that are valid until you consider the marketing onslaught by LM and their fan base. As for starting over. Of interest, in the late 1980's when they saw that the YF-22 was not going to work out, the design team had the courage to throw it all away and start again from a clean sheet of paper. Not unlike...the F-15 concept. It was never going to work until Boyd came in and talked about the reality of life to the group-thinkers. As for the F-35, it now meets all the definitions of a failed project. Stating this is not all doom and gloom. We have all this talent currently building the wrong aircraft. Get them involved building the right aircraft.
ReplyDeleteExactly this.
DeleteThe JSF as a whole is a flawed concept. If it didn't have to be a stealthy STOVL, it might have had a chance. But stealth aircraft are notoriously difficult to design and are expensive (see: B-2, F-22, A-12, etc). STOVL aircraft are also notoriously difficult and expensive to design (see: Harrier, Osprey, even the Pogo and Vertijet).
Stealth is hard. STOVL is hard. Stealthy STOVL? Nigh impossible.
It's scary. The program Exec recently: “There are pieces and parts on this airplane that are simply breaking too much,” Bogdan said, likening the situation to a game of Whac-A-Mole.
ReplyDeleteLockheed has contracts for 163 aircraft, of which 78 have been delivered, and "pieces and parts on this airplane that are simply breaking too much."
Say you're in Lockheed engineering, and you get the task to come up with a fix for one of these problems. The wing aft spar lower flanges are cracking, so heavier flanges are needed. So you come up with a new flange design which can be sent to the machine shop in Cleveland or Tel Aviv or wherever that makes these flanges. When they arrive, they can be fitted on the planes in construction.
But you've got 78 (or more) planes in the field now that need new wing aft spar lower flanges. How do you retrofit these planes with the new flanges? Thankfully none of them have been allowed to leave the country. That's a blessing. And almost half of this new fleet are at Eglin. But then you've got F-35's strung out from Edwards in the West, to Nellis and Yuma, and Pax River in Maryland and you've got to finagle a way to get the fix onto the planes. So you do it.
And then after you miraculously get these new flanges installed in the 78 aircraft, comes the eternal engineer's worry: With these stronger parts did I "chase" the problem to another part that is now going to crack and fail? And if so, where? We need an inspection program to detect if this does happen.
And okay, the new flanges don't add much weight. But when all the weight increases of all the newly retrofitted parts are added up, it just might have an impact on performance.
And that's just one of General Bogdan's "pieces and parts on this airplane that are simply breaking too much." It's a messy, scary situation brought about by what many have correctly characterized as mistaken concurrency of development testing and production of a new design.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletewant back in? send me an email
DeleteBtw has anyone heard a rumor that the South Koreans will decide whether or not to buy the F-15SE in two days? I heard it was on the 24th or the 25th the decision becomes final.
ReplyDelete