Thanks for the article Contrarian!
via LM Press Release.
Over the past year, the team behind the F-35C carrier variant has made progress delivering the first jets to the U.S. Navy, standing up the first training squadron and accomplishing test points.Uh Wow.
Join us as an F-35 expert and an F-35 test pilot discuss the largest F-35 variant, the capability it will bring to strengthen the carrier strike group and upcoming milestones. We'll take a deeper look into what the future holds for this 5th Generation fighter, including:
• CV ship trials
• Deliveries to the first Naval Air Station
• Preparation for the Navy's Initial Operating Capability
Featuring:
Bill Gigliotti, F-35 Test Pilot
Steve Callaghan, Director F-35 and Naval Aviation Programs
Have a question about the F-35C? Our F-35 experts will also be answering live audience questions during the event.
These bastards are getting nervous. They talk up progress but ignore the elephant in the room...the tailhook.
Quite honestly if it was just to announce that they had the tailhook fixed they wouldn't need to do this. They'd loudly and proudly proclaim it so that they could shut up people like me over the issue.
This means that they're sensing that the Navy is ready to go a different direction. They're seeking to shore up/develop support for the airplane.
They're about to go from nervous to desperate if they can't solve the tailhook.
Sidenote: Could Lockheed Martin be so desperate that they're lining us all up for a land based Navy fighter proposal with regard to the F-35?
I think you're reading too much into it. They have been doing these webinars since F-35.com when live.
ReplyDeleteI've been on a few.
Involving the public in these will not do a thing for USN decisions re the F-35 as they get have access to MUCH more info then we could ever dream of.
Besides, they cannot declare the hook "fixed" until it does shipboard trials next year. Until then we will continue to get incremental bits of info as it passes each stage of testing (Roll In, Land-based traps, etc).
general webinars on the state of the program in general ... not on an individual airplane model. wait they did do one when the B started costing more. but the fact of the matter is this. if the C had made 10 out of 10 traps on land then LM would be shouting that they had the problem licked and were looking forward to sea trials. they haven't done that so you fill in the blanks.
DeleteI know of at least one that was dedicated to the B that was done in Dec of 2012.
DeleteHere it is:
Spud, this is another area where I greatly disagree with you.
DeleteThe only time LM does this is after they are dangerously close to losing a buy or a considerable amount of orders. Keep in mind that they hosted a webinar with Canadians regarding the F-35A sell to them only after the chaos that ensued over the revelation of the true cost of the airplane to them. Canada was dangerously close to impeaching Harper over it. LM only does a webinar when things look REALLY BAD.
Also keep in mind that after the webinar happened Lockheed subsequently resorted to economically blackmailing Canada over it. Now Canada has remained silent over the F-35 and is waiting for its next elections. The contract for Canada was "punted" to be decided on in 2015 after elections are over. THAT'S PRETTY BAD.
What I think is happening is that shortly after it was recently announced that there would be fewer F-35 orders someone somewhere started pitching the idea that all the cuts in orders should come out of the carrier variant because it is the most expensive, has less common parts with the F-35A than the F-35B does, and is considered the most costly to fix with regard to the tailhook. It just makes the most sense for cuts to come from it.
Aside from that, after the Navy got bitch slapped over trying to buy more Super Hornets and now is considering the Advanced Super Hornet upgrades it's clear that the Navy is above all the most resentful of the services regarding the F-35. A cut in F-35C orders could open the door for the Navy to buy more Super Hornets or buy the upgrades, which would be a major loss to Lockheed and a major win for Boeing. This webinar is another sign of desperation.
This webinar has been scheduled since September. Still, the tail hook trials originally planned for the summer are now taking place in December, and the webinar takes place before then...
DeleteThey should be nervous, since the first carrier variants were delivered over three years ago. The CNO probably has indicated a bit of interest also. I understand that Admiral Greenert has a calm and measured demeanor -- that might save them.
ReplyDeleterecent news:
Speaking at IQPC’s International Fighter conference in London on 13 November, the Joint Program Office representative said flight testing involving a new tailhook design for the carrier variant F-35C should be completed at the US Navy’s Lakehurst site in New Jersey “next month”. The type should begin its first carrier-based trials “late next summer”, he adds, on the way to a first active duty deployment in the fourth quarter of 2018.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-on-track-to-meet-ioc-targets-official-says-393029/
Presumably if the current Lakehurst tests are successful, it will take them until August 2014 to modify enough F-35C's for the first carrier operational testing. --- USN IOC: Aug 2018 - Feb 2019
Not bad for a development program starting in 1996. :-))
It's too bad it's not open to the public. It would be too funny to mention if LockMart did and it became as bad as the epic failure as the JP Morgan's quickly-cancelled Q&A.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.zdnet.com/epic-troll-jp-morgans-failed-askjpm-shows-people-are-paying-attention-7000023233/
There are some comments made by the American public which could, potentially, be applicable if the webinar is open to the public.
Sol, if you find my comment to be "not applicable", please feel free to remove. :)
LockMart announced a similar "Webinar" for Canadians shortly after Ottawa announced the F-35 purchase to be "reset".
ReplyDeleteIt was filled with platitudes and assurances that the F-35 makes perfect sense for Canada, as well as providing plenty of jobs. Most of it was utter bullshit, like how stealth will "needed for arctic patrols". Why stealth is needed for that, they wouldn't, or couldn't explain. It should be noted that current arctic patrols are done by the CP-140 Aurora, which is little more than a P-3 Orion variant.
Doug, don't you know that LO is vital for every mission and only F35 can deliver?
DeleteFirst day of war?check.
CAS?check.
Fighting Taliban in Afghanistan?check.
Fighting ALQueada in Yemen? Check.
Looking for polar bears in the Arctic?check.....
Flyovers for Super Bowl? Check....
Every one of these things is the same:
DeleteQ: "Why do we need the F-35?"
A: "Because STEALTH! You NEED it for EVERYTHING!"
Q: "Okay then... What else BESIDES stealth?"
A: "INTEROPERABILITY! If you don't pick the F-35, you can't every work with the USA every again... For anything!"
On a sidenote, Boeing is continuing testing of the Advanced Super Hornet.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/dubai-air-show/2013-11-15/boeing-pitches-advanced-super-hornet-future-threats
Most notable quotes:
"Next year, Boeing plans to incorporate an internally mounted Lockheed Martin infrared search-and-track system under a Super Hornet nose as part of a “multi-ship/multi-spectral” demonstration of data sharing with the Navy, involving an E-2D Hawkeye airborne early-warning aircraft. Participating aircraft will share data from multiple sensors using Rockwell Collins’ tactical targeting network technology (TTNT) waveform, which supports high data-rate, long-range communications."
"Mike Gibbons, Boeing’s F/A-18 and EA-18G program vice president, said the cost of developing the entire set, including an upgraded GE Aviation F414-GE-400 engine, would be 'less than a billion dollars' and could be done by 2020."
The Super Hornet already has sensor fusion technology being integrated, but with these other upgrades who needs the F-35?
---"Involving the public in these will not do a thing for USN decisions re the F-35 as they get have access to MUCH more info then we could ever dream of"--- Yes, they do have access to much more info. But neither faith nor the loyal model air-plane glue sniffing brigade can hid its' many faults.
ReplyDeleteKind of disappointed, I was hoping to see the new quad rotor the Chinese fan boys keep talking about, oh well, looks like China might have reversed engineered a Chinook.....not sure if it is true or fake pictures.
ReplyDeletehttp://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_6987396_1.html&usg=ALkJrhjTiJdAmdropWD8K26UQgPwkKNN1Q
Looks like it's done deal in SK, BA let that one get away. Wonder how much SK are going to end up paying for those 60 F35s?
ReplyDeletehttp://finance.yahoo.com/news/korea-joint-chiefs-set-back-140332396.html
A speculative piece by Andrea Shalal-Esa for Reuters.
DeleteI just looked at here tweets and saw:
"Exclusive: Retrofits to add $1.7 billion to cost of F-35 - GAO report."
https://twitter.com/AShalalNews
NICO,
DeleteThat article is incorrect(reads like a Lockheed ad) because the parliament is adamant they won't increase budget(The opposition party in fact announced a cut to F-X budget via the clawback of unspent money in next year's budget bill, not increase it), the president is against the budget increase, and the head of other military branch are opposing the F-35 because of the $3 billion additional funding that would cut into their own arms procurement funding.
Now, what the insiders and the press are talking right now over there is a split buy of either the F-15 or the Typhoon right now and defer the decision on the stealth jet until the 2020s.
oops -- turns out that was back in March.
DeleteYeah, we have to be careful because Lockheed has bought off so many 'journalists.' Like after the non-news Netherlands news, there were published reports of the prospects for a blizzard of new JSF purchase decisions, which didn't happen.
DeleteDon Bacon,
DeleteWhatever happens, Korea is not buying 60 F-35s for one simple reason; there is no money for it. The opposition with 45% of parliamentary seats is dead set against any budget increase(They want to claw back the money, not increase it), the president is also against any budget increase to fund her corporate welfare and social welfare programs, and the head of military branches are afraid of their own funding cuts.
The most likely scenario being circulated around is 40 F-15SAs(2017, 2018, 2019, 2020) + 20 F-35s(2021, 2022), because they believe they could buy 60 jets within the imposed budget limit with this split ratio.
I just registered for the webinair
ReplyDeleteTuesday, November 19, 2013 -- 11:00am until 12:00pm in CST
https://www.facebook.com/thef35
I'm looking forward to the Q&A
I previously posted some info on the major problem with the CV, the tailhook --
ReplyDeletehttp://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2013/11/f-35-navys-plan-b-is-staring-us-in-face.html#comment-form
In a nutshell, the major problem is that because of stealth the hook is closer to the wheels, a geometry problem which must be overcome. The problem was identified in run-in/rolling tests undertaken at NAS Lakehurst in August 2011, ans still hasn't been corrected as far as we know.
'Don Bacon' perhaps you may enjoy watching this slow motion video of an F-35C arresting from a fly in approach c.Aug 2012? Whilst the second URL is one of the very informative pages about F-35C hook issues if you read forwards - reading backwards is good also if background required. First the video:
ReplyDeleteF-35C Arrest SloMo Orig NOW 1-8slow Again HiDef
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFbsH7tsyHY
Reading link onwards: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&start=300
Thank you SS. This is informative also:
DeleteA brief history of tailhook design
http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/12/brief-history-of-tailhook-design.html
This is good news, still work to do but it is nice to see that this problem should be fixed. Good info SpazSinbad.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. More faith. The aircraft has to be consistent at trapping under a wide variety of real conditions. Not occasionally under limited conditions. 2013, 12 years after contract award, and it has not consistently trapped and launched from a ship under realistic conditions. Total involvement of the U.S. in WWII? 3 years, 9 months.
ReplyDelete