F-35 in all it's Variations [Archive] - Page 4

Weasel

06-10-11, 02:34 AM

The Sound of a JSF Death Rattle

(Source: Business Spectator (Australia); published Oct. 4, 2011)

From the purile and idiotic commentary in the first article, without checking, I would assume Floppsy Bunny or one of his fart-sniffing acolytes wrote this unadulterated garbage trying to pass itself off as either realistic, true or even accurate..........the F-22 option is a non-option, its never going to happen even IF the Republicans regain power in the USA.........FMD you'd think the Business Spectator could do better................:sleep

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/f%E2%80%9335b-needs-plan-b

-ends-

The author misses the key point while pushing a Southern Hemisphere agenda (whatever it may be). The real reason why costs are soaring is that the JSF program and all recent military programs run by large contractors are (or have become) in fact, job welfare programs.

At least in Australia you admit as much when you talk of building an AWD or a submarine.

So, in the context of job welfare the JSF (F-35) is actually at bargain basement price and the government knows it.

There is a rule in business that you have to be two of three things

Be the biggest
Be the Best
Be the first

No where in this rule does being the best (in the current military market) require that component to being the best have a "value for money" factor.

This comes as a shock to many people, but it is never-the-less a "truth". Now with the pressures of a never-ending war on terrorism, and a sick economy, you are starting to see a sea change it what constitutes "Be the Best". Now it is starting to swing towards "Value for money".

That is a good and healthy thing for Defense as it means the little guy gets to play (The recent helicopter decision with the tiny Texas company proposing a contra-rotating platform for the blackhawk-revamp/replacement, being case in point).

Army acquisition is ahead of the curve, (Why? because they have been fighting a war, they know what they want and they understand value) and as such you are going to see more innovative and "better" approaches to solutions.

Where as the rest of the services are playing catchup. The USN has tried to revamp procurement with the LCS, and they have achieved some margin of success, but they still have the NGC-Shipping debacle to swallow. The USAF is a service looking for a mission and the Coast Guard procurement practices have been in free fall since their deepwater fiasco.

So, no, it is not a death rattle. It might be a serious hit for lockheed martin as who is going to go with them ever again? It is more like a healthy transition or reality check with what "best" really is.

I have every confidence that the US economy would be able to make a 5th generation fighter for the Marines, Navy, Army and Air Force tomorrow, if the F-35 was cancelled with the rising of the sun. There are 100s of companies that would fill the vacuum and they all understand what value for money is.

cheers

w

buglerbilly

06-10-11, 02:41 AM

Weasel

06-10-11, 02:45 AM

One point mate, he's not pushing a Southern Hemisphere Agenda but rather an APA one.........he's one of Floppsy's Acolytes, too unintelligent to garner his own info and hence arrive at his own conclusions.

I have no problem with the rest of your comments albeit I may not, fully, agree with them all.

Well, one that seems to be local, anyway. It's been awhile since I looked at the APA site, but from past experience, it was self serving, manipulating statistics in order to promote sister companies. They have a lot of those companies over here. You normally find them as "Not for Profits" who raise funds to lobby political agendas or attack a political candidate... Spin masters.

cheers

w

Gubler, A.

06-10-11, 07:09 AM

Gottleibson's info is pure APA bullshit, but the audience over there isn't aware of the crap they are being fed.

I try and remain a voice of reason on Business Spectator, but too many people over there have little / no understanding of defence matters.

Would be an interesting exercise to list chronologically all of the journalists whom have swallowed Goon’s line about the F-35/Super Hornet over the past 10 years and how long they stayed hooked and so on. There would be a clear geographical tendency to Melbournians. Poor bastards.

One thing from such a plot would be clear that in the past 4-5 years the frequency of ‘captured’ journalists would be significantly reducing. It must be embarrassing to be the last one [Gottleibson] and in a time where the obvious ludicrousness of the APA position becomes more and more visible to even the casual observer.

Well I must be thankful that if I had stock in Lockheed or any JSF company I wouldn’t be basing my investment strategy on throw away commentary from Business Spectator.

buglerbilly

07-10-11, 01:44 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

NEW VIDEO: 2nd Lightning II Strikes the Wasp's Nest

Posted by Amy Butler at 10/6/2011 4:03 PM CDT

The second F-35B, tail number BF-4, has landed onboard the Navy's USS Wasp amphibious ship. The landing occurred today, according to F-35 Joint Program Office spokesman Joe Dellavedova.

Uploaded by LockheedMartinVideos on Oct 6, 2011
F-35B test aircraft BF-4 executes a vertical landing on the deck of USS WASP (LHD-1) the morning of Oct. 6, 2011. BF-4 follows BF-2, which landed on Oct. 3. BF-4 is the first short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) mission systems aircraft.

BF-4 joins its sister aircraft, BF-2, for a few weeks of shipboard trials designed to validate that the single-engine stealthy fighter can operate in an around the small deck of this amphibious ship class.

buglerbilly

07-10-11, 04:24 PM

Rolls-Royce to deliver first F-35B lift fan from US factory

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

52 minutes ago

Source:

Rolls-Royce has completed the first lift fan for the Lockheed Martin F-35B to be produced at a $13 million final assembly plant opened 17 months ago.

The London, UK-headquartered manufacturer was due to deliver the first module - the 12th lift fan to be completed overall - to Lockheed on 4 October.

The roughly 1,220kg (2,690lb) lift fan activates in short take-off and vertical landing modes for the F-35B, generating an output of 19,000lb-thrust (85kN).

The fan combines with a three-bearing swivel nozzle in the exhaust and twin roll posts.

The overall system creates 40,700lb-thrust, allowing the F-35B to hover and take-off from the US Marine Corps' LHD-class amphibious carriers.

Rolls-Royce expects the new facility in Indianapolis, Indiana, to build 84 lift fans each year - although expected commitments for the F-35B have fallen in the last year, from about 520 to 400 orders.

The US Department of Defense also has frozen orders for the F-35B at six per year through 2013.

The production freeze, in particular, has made it challenging for Rolls-Royce to meet cost targets for the lift fan component, said Gregg Pyers, the company's lift fan programme director.

But the manufacturer has so far minimised changes to its production system. Although the UK Royal Navy has dropped out of the programme, Rolls-Royce has no plans to transfer work on lift fan components from the UK to Indianapolis, Pyers added.

Weasel

08-10-11, 07:46 AM

Mmmm, let me rephrase 751

"...

Army acquisition is ahead of the curve, (Why? because they have been fighting a war, they know what they want and they understand value) and as such you are going to see more innovative and "better" approaches to solutions.

..."

to

Army acquisition seems to be ahead of the curve, (Why? because they have been fighting a war, they know what they want and they understand value) and as such you are going to see more innovative and "better" approaches to solutions.

reason? Because I forgot a nightmare experience I had with them a few years ago. But (having said that) I do know they have been actively trying to improve in the last 18 to 24 months., and I was greatly encouraged by recent events :P

cheers

w

buglerbilly

11-10-11, 11:57 AM

Lockheed Martin Selects BAE Systems to Supply F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Helmet Display Solution

10 Oct 2011 | Ref. 199/2011

BAE Systems F-35 Night Vision Goggle Helmet Mounted Display with Q-SIGHT®

LONDON, United Kingdom – BAE Systems has been selected by Lockheed Martin, prime contractor for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), to supply a Night Vision Goggle Helmet Mounted Display (NVG HMD) system for the F-35 during the next phase of its development. The NVG HMD will incorporate the latest Q-SIGHT™ waveguide display and feature detachable Night Vision Goggles for night operations. It will also incorporate an optical Head Tracking System for precise weapons delivery and carrier and land-based operations. The highly accurate optical head trackers allow the HMD to achieve traditional Head-Up Display (HUD) accuracies and Primary Flight Reference criteria.

BAE Systems will begin delivery of test assets in 2012 to support the F-35 development and integration laboratories, flight simulators, and flight-test platforms.

The F-35 JSF is revolutionising the way information is collected and presented to the pilot and the NVG HMD is planned to integrate with development work to date. The precise optics and head tracker combination enables F-35 weapons delivery, navigation, landing and aircraft management under all flight regimes. The HMD’s modular design will allow for a path to binocular visor-projected displays, alternate image sources and Night Vision Cameras, depending on customer requirements and program needs.

”BAE Systems Electronic Systems is proud to be a part of the Lockheed Martin team for the F-35 HMD,” said Jim Garceau, vice president and general manager of defence avionics for BAE Systems. “The NVG HMD will enable all aspects of flight operations and it allows us to build on our long history of successful development programs with Lockheed Martin on the F-35, F-16 and F-22 programs.”

BAE Systems is a world leader in Helmet-Mounted Display Systems, a position gained through continuous investment in HMD technology and innovation. The company is proud to support the F-35 program with the next generation of Helmet Mounted Displays.

BAE Systems provides a range of display products including Q-SIGHT™ monocular helmets, binocular visor-projected helmets and digital HUDs.

Gubler, A.

11-10-11, 01:10 PM

Q Sight is tech way above most other HMDs. It uses printed chips so is cheap as. Interesting that they want a NVG module. Must have given up on DAS/HMD integration for Block III F-35.

buglerbilly

14-10-11, 01:24 AM

US defence chiefs raise alarm on cost of three F-35 variants

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

3 hours ago

Source:

The new chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has raised concerns about the cost of building three variants of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.

"I am concerned about the three variants and whether we can go forward in this fiscal environment with all three, but I am eager to learn more about that," said General Martin Dempsey, speaking at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on 13 October.

"Three variants create some fiscal challenges for us," he added.

Dempsey's comments come nine months after then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates placed the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) on a two-year probation, with the explicit threat of cancellation.

Leon Panetta, who succeeded Gates, also offered no promises about the future of any of the programme's three variants, which also include the F-35A for the air force and the F-35C for aircraft carriers.

The F-35 is "a remarkable plane. It really does the job well," Panetta said. "But what we want to do is to make sure as it goes through this test period we're able to understand all of the issues involved with it and are able to be fully confident that this plane once it goes into production is going to be totally effective and totally capable of serving the mission it is required to do."

Ironically, affordability is what drove the Department of Defense in the late-1990s to launch the joint strike fighter programme in the late-1990s with three variants. It was believed that a common production line would allow the same basic fighter to meet the diverse needs of the air force, navy and marine corps.

Since contract award 10 years ago, the programme has been delayed at least five years for the marines' F-35B variant, which has required a redesign to reduce weight and faced several structural and propulsion system glitches that delayed flight tests.

The F-35B has been making progress since Gates announced the probation status. In early October, the marines landed two flight test aircraft on the USS Wasp to launch shipboard trials.

In his testimony, Panetta emphasised the importance of flight tests for the F-35 programme's future.

"Give us a chance to test it," Panetta said. "If it performs well then obviously it will be able to make the grade."

buglerbilly

14-10-11, 02:36 AM

F-35 Pilots’ New Helmet

You’re looking at what may well be the helmet worn by the first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter pilots at the plane’s schoolhouse at Eglin Air Force Base, Fl. It’s the basis for BAE Systems’ alternate JSF helmet that is being developed due to issues with the plane’s futuristic — and kind of crazy – looking helmet made by Vision Systems International.

BAE’s brain bucket is based on the one used by Eurofighter Typhoon pilots. However, for F-35, BAE will remove the Typhoon’s display system — housed in the giant forward part of the helmet — and will replace it with a pair of night vision goggles and a single eyepiece showing Heads-Up Display-style info (shown below).

Now, VSI’s helmet was supposed to project HUD info — and most impressively — infrared imagery from the F-35’s Distributed Aperture System onto the pilots’ visors, giving them an almost bubble-like view around the aircraft in any weather ( the system would literally allow the pilot to look down and see below the aircraft.) However, projecting very high-quality images onto the visor is proving difficult.

So, with the F-35 schoolhouse standing up, F-35-maker Lockheed Martin gave BAE a contract this week to quickly develop an alternate helmet that will provide Heads-Up Display and night vision should VSI’s helmet fail to be ready in the near future.

Pilots “want the good picture that comes with the goggles that they’re used to seeing, that they’re comfortable with, that they’ve been flying with forever,” Paul Cooke, BAE’s director of business development for defense avionics told DT at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference in Washington. “What we did for Joint Strike Fighter was, we took the same two part helmet [as the Typhoon’s], the same optical tracker, we took out all the electronics and the visor projection system — just gutted that out — put a goggle bracket on the front and we take this quantum sight and hang it down in front of the right eye. So, in daytime the goggles are off and you have a HUD and nighttime you put them on the helmet, flip the goggles down and because it sits between the eye and the back of the goggle tube, you get the symbology and you also have” night vision.

“If you want an even bigger field of view you can have one” quantum sight in front of each eye, added Cooke.

“What we need today is the night vision goggles until the digital stuff catches up on the visual acuity side,” said Cooke.

DAS info could be added to the BAE helmet at a later date if it becomes the primary F-35 noggin protector.

Here’s BAE’s press release on the new helmet.

http://baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_111910143534.html

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/10/13/f-35-pilots-new-helmet/#ixzz1aiQvK7AR
Defense.org

buglerbilly

14-10-11, 02:42 AM

Joint Chiefs Chair Leaves F-35B Hanging

By Carlo Munoz

Published: October 13, 2011

Washington: The new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff put Capitol Hill on notice today, telling lawmakers that DoD may not be able to afford all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

In his first appearance before House Armed Services Committee as chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey said that buying the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps versions of the fighter up and running may just be too expensive.

Dempsey's comments came after the four-star general was pressed by panel members on whether the Pentagon is committed to the Marine's vertical-lift version of the plane.

In response, Dempsey said he was fully dedicated to buying a "fifth-generation fighter," but he did not mention the JSF by name. However, he said buying all three variants would greatly increase pressure on an already stressed budget.

Development delays and cost overruns forced former Defense Secretary Robert Gates to put the Marine Corps plane -- known as the F-35B -- on a two-year probation, after which DoD could terminate the program.

Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos, an aviator himself, has said repeatedly the plane will be ready to go well before that two-year period is up. The jet recently completed initial carrier flight tests earlier this month.

The Marines are already feeling the strain of not having the JSF in its inventory. The service is already pushing the envelope on flight hours for its fleet of AV-8B Harriers -- which the F-35 is designed to replace -- and F-18 Hornets.

The only reason the Marines decided not to buy the more advanced F/A-18 Super Hornet to replace the older versions of the fighter is they assumed the F-35 would be ready to go by 2012, Lt. Gen. Terry Robling, deputy assistant commandant for Marine Corps aviation, said last month.

Now those planes aren't expected to come into the fleet until 2014, and the Marines are considering pulling JSF funds to extend the lives of their old Hornets.

buglerbilly

18-10-11, 01:23 PM

Lockheed Martin Delivers First F-35 Weapons Load Training System to Eglin Air Force Base

(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued October 17, 2011)

ORLANDO, Fla. --- Lockheed Martin delivered and installed the first weapons load training device at the F-35 integrated pilot-and-maintenance training center (ITC) at Eglin Air Force Base's 33rd Fighter Wing.

Configured in all three variants of the F-35 Lightning II, the system allows maintenance students to hone their skills loading munitions, fuel tanks and missile systems onto the aircraft. The system is the first of up to five possible weapons load trainers to be delivered to the ITC.

Designed to be identical to the F-35 aircraft, the weapons load training simulators enable training to take place without removing aircraft from the flight schedule. As part of F-35 maintainer training, the systems will complement classroom academics and additional hands-on experience.

"We are focused on delivering an agile training capability to the newest crop of fifth-generation pilots and maintainers," said Joanne Puglisi, director of F-35 training and support at Lockheed Martin's Global Training and Logistics business. "By tailoring devices and sharing resources across the training domain, we will provide even greater affordability for the services and our F-35 partner countries."

This is the latest step in final preparation of the F-35 ITC. Earlier this year, the first two F-35 full mission simulators were installed, joining the aircraft systems maintenance trainer, the ejection seat maintenance trainer, the mission rehearsal trainer and pilot training aids. The full mission simulator system is the highest fidelity trainer in the F-35 pilot-training-device suite, accurately replicating all F-35 sensors and weapons deployment.

The F-35 ITC at Eglin AFB will be home to the latest courseware, electronic classrooms, simulators and flight events. A balance of skill and knowledge training is woven into the program with interactive courseware, desktop simulators and high-fidelity training devices.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 126,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation's 2010 sales from continuing operations were $45.8 billion.

-ends-

buglerbilly

19-10-11, 01:17 AM

U.S. Marine Corps Demonstrates F-35B at Sea

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 18 Oct 2011 19:19

In an audacious display of confidence, the U.S. Marine Corps and the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program office demonstrated short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) tests of the F-35B Lightning II to reporters onboard the amphibious assault ship Wasp on Oct. 18.

A U.S. Marine Corps F-35B prepares for a vertical landing on the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship Wasp on Oct. 5. The service held a demonstration of the Lightning II aboard the Wasp on Oct. 18 for the media. (MCS 3rd Class Natasha R. Chalk / Navy)

Flown by Marine Lt. Col. Fred Shenk, F-35B test aircraft BF-04 flew a series of short take-offs and vertical landings onboard the 40,000-ton warship sailing off the Virginia coast in front of a small gaggle of press that had been flown in earlier in the day.

Naval F-35 test director Marine Col. Roger Cordell said that testing onboard the Wasp, which will end this Thursday, has gone exceedingly well. Already the test pilots have flown about 60 of the 67 required sorties, with more scheduled for later today. "We feel like we're running when we intended to crawl," he said.

The team started off the flights by using the flight envelop cleared for the AV-8B Harrier as a starting point before expanding into new territory, Cordell said. From that initial envelop, the testers expanded it up to 30 knots of headwind and down to 10 knots of headwind. They also flew the jet with a 15-degree crosswind.

The aircraft has flown very well during the sea trials, said Marine Lt. Col. Matt Kelly, lead F-35 test pilot at Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River, Md. While he couldn't compare the jet directly to the Harrier since he was an F/A-18 Hornet pilot, Kelly pointed out that the sea trials are his first experience operating from an amphibious assault ship, which is a testimony to the F-35B's excellent handling characteristics.

"I have found this airplane to be just a really nice airplane to fly in the shipboard environment," he said. "Prior to two weeks ago I had never landed or taken-off from this type of ship… It's a pleasure to fly."

Kelly added that the F-35B is easier to handle on the flight deck than he had imagined it would be. The challenge is not landing the aircraft but rather "putting the nose tire in a 1-foot-by-1-foot square box," he said.

In up and away flight, the F-35 handles magnificently, similar to a clean F/A-18 Hornet with more power, Kelly said. Additionally, during daylight hours, the aircraft's previously troublesome helmet-mounted display is now performing very well unless displaying video imagery, he said.

For getting off the ship, Cordell said that there are three short take-off modes that the team tested: manual, semi-automatic and fully automatic. Originally, the test team had only planned to do manual take-offs, but soon expanded the scope to include the other modes. Kelly said he had flow about a half-dozen automatic mode take-offs himself.

Cordell said that one piece of good news is that the "outflow" from the jet's exhaust while hovering is less intense than expected. "It's counterintuitive, but the jet has a less harsh environment hovering at 40 feet than it does at 100 feet," he said. Engineering models had predicted the outcome, but skeptics - Cordell included - had doubted those conclusions.

The hazard zone around the jet therefore has shrunk to about the same size as that of a Harrier, he said.

Similarly, the "outwash" on take-off is far less harsh than anticipated, Cordell said.

A second set of sea trials will be done early next year, Cordell said. Those trials will put the F-35B's mission systems and weaponry to the test. The team will also test night operations at sea, he said.

Later, the F-35B will return to the sea for a third time to conduct operational testing in around the August of 2013, Cordell added.

This initial set of sea trials for the F-35B is as much about the ship as it is about the aircraft.

Ansis Kalnajs, the test director for Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), said that the ship had been extensively instrumented for the test series. The instruments measure everything from sound, to heat, the velocity of the exhaust hitting the flight deck.

In order to facilitate the trials on the Wasp, some antennas have been removed, others covered, and some equipment needed to be moved to accommodate the F-35B's larger wing span compared to the AV-8B Harrier II, Kalnajs said. The ship's "tram line," which guides pilots during take-off and landings, had to be shifted by 34 inches, he said.

The flight deck and a lot of the ancillary deck equipment had to be extensively instrumented to measure the impact on the ship, Kalnajs said. From all indications, the test results are matching predictions, he said.

NAVSEA also used the F-35B trails onboard the Wasp to evaluate some non-skid material on one of the deck spots on the giant vessel, Kalnajs said. The new material was tested on a 90 square foot spot, said Navy Capt. Brenda Holdener, commander of the Wasp.

The rest of the flight deck is covered in standard material, however parts of it look different because it is newer, she said. Observers had questioned why portions of the Wasp's flight deck had a different hue than other parts of the deck surface.

Non-skid materials have and continue to be a vexing problem for the Navy, breaking down after only six or seven months, Kalnajs said. He said the Navy hopes the newer material being evaluated will last for years at a time.

The Wasp also conducted trials on how the aircraft fit into the ship's aircraft elevator and massive hangar bay, Holdener said. Hangar deck crews found that the F-35B is much easier to handle below deck, she said.

"It's actually easier to maneuver in the hangar deck," Holdener said.

tiddles

19-10-11, 01:08 PM

U.S. Air Force to train Canadian F-35 pilots?

A F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is seen a hangar in Ottawa on July 16, 2010. (Adrian Wyld / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Date: Monday Oct. 17, 2011 9:10 PM ET

OTTAWA — Canadian fighter pilots selected to fly the new F-35 could find themselves trained by either the Americans or a private contractor, according to internal air force documents.

The staggering multibillion-dollar purchase price means the Conservative government can only afford 65 of the multi-role stealth fighters.

The number -- Canada currently has 79 aging CF-18s -- stretches the ability of the air force to meet its commitments, says a series of briefings given to the air force chief last year.

Internal air force memos from the fall of 2010 lay out the "potential for NO pilot training in Canada."

A separate briefing in April 2010 says the F-35 fleet size is "constrained" by cost and other factors.

The presentations, obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information, rank U.S. Air Force training or a contracted "fee-for-service" approach higher than doing it in Canada.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay has said 65 fighters are more than enough to meet Canada's needs, but the briefing raises questions about that because the air force must keep 36 fighters on standby for North American air defence and another dozen for training.

The spring 2010 assessment, written before the government announced its intention to purchase the jets, suggested the air force "optimize operational capability by not employing (a) portion of the fleet for training."

The presentations rank training with either the U.S. Air Force -- or a contracted "fee-for-service" approach -- as better than doing it in Canada.

Getting instruction from the Americans would provide a "rich" level of experience, but still require the commitment of Canadian F-35s. Allowing an outside agency to do the training would allow the air force to "maximize" the number of aircraft in its fleet.

Under the proposal, pilots would continue to receive their initial qualification in the country, but go elsewhere for advanced training.

The spring 2010 briefing suggested initial overtures to the F-35 Program Executive Officer, the U.S. military officer in charge of the program at the Pentagon, were "positive."

A spokesman for National Defence said Monday that no decision has been made.

"The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) is currently reviewing available options and will choose the option that best meets the needs of Canada's future fighter pilot training," said Evan Koronewski in an email response.

"Canada may exercise the option to participate in a JSF Program Office managed international Pilot Training Centre (PTC). Any decision on how and where this training is conducted will be made with full consideration for specific Canadian training requirements."

Last year, MacKay and his former Parliamentary secretary Laurie Hawn announced the 65 F-35s would be split with 24 planes each at 3 Wing at Bagotville, Que. and 4 Wing in Cold Lake.

There would be training squadron, they insisted, "at a location to be announced in the future."

The plan raises questions about the future of the air force's tactical operational fighter squadron, headquartered at Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake, Alta. The trainers at 410 Squadron run one fighter pilot course every year, graduating about 20 pilots.

The training program consists of nine months of ground school, including flight simulator flights, as well as operational flying. The flight school has been doing advanced training for the air force since the 1960s.

"Until such time as a training solution is decided upon, it is not yet possible to assess the impact, if any, on the OTU (Operational Training Unit) at 4 Wing," Koronewski said.

The U.S. has expressed doubts about whether Canada would buy enough stealth jets in a WikiLeaks cable, dated Dec. 7, 2004.

The classified diplomatic cable noted that even with the current NORAD allotment, Canada is hard-pressed to defend its own cities on a 24 hour, seven-day-a-week basis in times of crisis.

"If cued and pre-positioned at a high-state of readiness, the Canadian air force could cover Vancouver, Edmonton-Calgary, Ottawa-Montreal, and Toronto," said the leaked document. "This would leave almost no capability to provide alert aircraft for Winnipeg, Halifax -- or Quebec City."

It is unclear whether the cost of farming out F-35 flight training is factored into the estimated $9-billion-to-$14 billion purchase price -- or the anticipated $7 billion-to-$15 billion sustainment costs.

The briefing also highlights some of the technical challenges facing the aircraft, including the need to install drag chutes for short runway landings and to develop an air-to-air refuelling probe. Both were considered minor modification

buglerbilly

19-10-11, 02:41 PM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

A Morning on the USS Wasp ... With BF-4

Posted by Amy Butler at 10/18/2011 8:26 PM CDT

A year ago, the F-35B was in the doghouse owing to lackluster performance in testing. Now, however, that has changed. The jets are up, operating and ticking off test points. And the timing for the turnaround is potentially fortuitous for the project as only miles inland in Washington, officials overseeing the F-35 development program are trying to defend it from bean counters on the prowl for savings in the defense budget.

In the final days of initial shipboard trials of the F-35B, the Pentagon gave a group of media a firsthand look at the testing Oct. 18. BF-2 and 4 are likely to leave the ship this week and return to NAS Patuxent River, Md.

Media were transported to the ship, which circles in a 20x20 mi. box off Wallops Island, Virginia, via MV-22.

photos and videos: Amy Butler/AWST

Once onboard we received briefings on the status of the ship and the aircraft.

There have been many questions from Ares readers about why the aft section of the deck where spots 7-9 is darker than the front of the deck. Ansis Kalnajs, a Navsea test director, explained that the rear portion of the deck had been poured at a later time than the front, accounting for the difference in color. Both are made of standard nonskid material used on ship decks. However, there is a small portion in spot 9 of Thermion, a newer deck material that officials are testing out on the Wasp. Kalnajs says Thermion may prove to be a better future material owing to reduced maintenance demands. The nonskid deck material now need frequent replacing, he says.

The Thermion is in the area where you see the lighter yellow centerline.

Media spent a few hours onboard viewing multiple vertical landings and short takeoffs. Thus far, testers onboard the aircraft say the two aircraft have accomplished more than 60 vertical landings and STOs. BF-2, the first to arrive, conducted its first VL Oct. 3. BF-4 followed shortly after. Specific numbers were not available.

Though formal data hasn’t yet been analyzed, Briggs says that the aircraft is performing as predicted by the models in terms of heat ingestion on the ship. Officials had been concerned that the F-35B would reingest its own hot exhaust, causing problems for the propulsion system. However, thus far, Col. Roger Cordell, F-35 naval variants lead at Pax River, said that there have been no performance impacts resulting from hot air ingestion. Overall, he says, the testing has gone better than expected. “We feel like we are running where we intended to crawl,” he said.

During this visit, BF-4 was conducting the testing; BF-2 had “returned to the beach” at Pax River for repairs, said Capt. Brenda Holdener, CO of the Wasp. Officials onboard did not say what repairs were needed. Last week, BF-2 was fixed after a fuel leak was discovered. Many routine repairs have been conducted on the ship, according to Tom Briggs, the integrated test team lead at Pax who is helping to oversee the trials on the ship.

Among the repairs conducted on the ship were replacement of a flat tire. Incidentally, Briggs says that the aircraft are using tires at a slower rate while on deck than during testing at Pax. There, testers found they were having to replace tires faster than expected in crosswind conditions.

Maintainers also replaced an upper lift fan door actuator on BF-4 while on the ship, Briggs says. The aircraft was down for maintenance Sunday mid-day for the fix and back flying Tuesday, he says.

Overall repairs “haven’t gotten worse out there” than testers are seeing for operations at Pax, Briggs says.

Incidentally, I snapped this pic of a Sierra landing on deck as well.

buglerbilly

24-10-11, 05:39 AM

The Canadian Press - ONLINE EDITION

Canada's first F-35s won't have built-in ability to communicate in Arctic

By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press

Posted: 10/23/2011 1:48 PM
Last Modified: 10/23/2011 6:31 PM

OTTAWA - Canada's new multibillion-dollar stealth fighters are expected to arrive without the built-in capacity to communicate from the country's most northerly regions — a gap the air force is trying to close.

A series of briefings given to the country's top air force commander last year expressed concern that the F-35's radio and satellite communications gear may not be as capable as that of the current CF-18s, which recently went through an extensive modernization.

Military aircraft operating in the high Arctic rely almost exclusively on satellite communications, where a pilot's signal is beamed into space and bounced back down to a ground station.

The F-35 Lightning will eventually have the ability to communicate with satellites, but the software will not be available in the initial production run, said a senior Lockheed Martin official, who spoke on background.

It is expected to be added to the aircraft when production reaches its fourth phase in 2019, but that is not guaranteed because research is still underway.

"That hasn't all been nailed down yet," said the official. "As you can imagine there are a lot of science projects going on, exploring what is the best . . . capability, what satellites will be available."

Additionally, Canada's request to have the upgrade placed in the fourth phase will compete with software changes sought by other countries. Norway, for example, wants to use its own missiles on the F-35 rather than U.S.-made weapons.

Defending the Arctic is one of the Harper government's key justifications for buying the aircraft, which are estimated to cost between $16 and $30 billion, including long-term maintenance.

A Defence Department spokesman denied that the F-35's communications suite will be less effective than that of CF-18s, but acknowledged that so-called beyond-line-of-sight communications is a concern.

"Communications in the Arctic represents a specific challenge to all aircraft due to lack of satellite coverage in the north," said Evan Koronewski in an email response. "Canada is working closely with the other partner nations to ensure Canadian operational requirements for communications in the Arctic are met."

Air force planners recognized the problem last year and are "considering a back-up," said an April 2010 briefing.

A study is looking at whether an external communications pod can be installed on the F-35.

Koronewski said it is one of "many options" being investigated, but wasn't able to discuss other potential solutions.

The sophisticated pods, which are carried by the CF-18s, were purchased as part of the $2.6-billion fleet upgrade, which began in 2000.

The briefing to the chief of air staff noted that installing such pods could be made more affordable if other countries participated.

The communications problem is just one of several technical issues the air force is working on.

National Defence has asked the U.S. manufacturer whether it's possible to install a different air-to-air refuelling system on Canadian F-35s. Most other air forces in the world have stopped using what's known as a "probe and drogue" connection, opting instead for a plug-in receptacle which connects to a boom on the tanker aircraft.

The request was made because it's unclear when Canada will able to upgrade its air-to-air refuellers with the booms. Lockheed Martin says it can equip the F-35s to use both systems, but a decision on whether to spend money on modification has yet to be made.

buglerbilly

25-10-11, 10:10 PM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Redesigned F-35B Lift-Fan Inlet Door Actuator Incoming

Posted by Amy Butler at 10/25/2011 12:43 PM CDT

One challenge that cropped up during the DT-1 flight trials of the F-35B onboard the USS Wasp was the performance of the most recent developmental test version of the lift-fan inlet door (LFID) actuator. The design used for the Wasp trials (version -0004) included reliability improvements over the previous version, says F-35 JPO spokesman Joe Dellavedova. “Both the -0003 and -0004 actuators are cleared for flight usage, but neither are planned to be brought into full qualification,” he says.

Amy Butler/AWST

Long term, engineers are working on a new design that will reduce weight and cost while improving reliability. The new design is slated for testing in 2012 (DT-2 is slated for then) with production versions being added to the low-rate-initial-production aircraft in Lot 7.

This -0004 actuator was replaced on BF-4 on Oct. 16 during the Wasp trials owing to a failure, according to Tom Briggs, the integrated test team engineering lead at Patuxent River.

This issue raised for me the question of how many of the parts on the JSF (in this case the F-35B) will actually be certified for the life of the aircraft while testing. And, if they are testing with temporary parts, I’m curious what data can be derived regarding reliability, which feeds heavily into an assessment on how much it costs to maintain and operate the jet.

As of Sept. 2010, here is what Av Week reported:

60% of F-35 parts have completed qualification testing and 26% of the aircraft's parts require redesign due either to reliability problems or to make them easier to produce. Of the parts that must undergo full-life trials, 50% have been tested.

After nearly three weeks of F-35B flight testing onboard the USS Wasp amphibious ship, prime contractor Lockheed Martin will continue to work on an optimum design for the lift-fan door actuators.

The ship trials took four days longer than planned owing to weather, according to Dellavedova. The testing, including 72 vertical landings and short takeoffs, took place Oct. 3-21. BF-2 and BF-4, the two jets used for the ship trials, returned to the NAS Patuxent River, Md., test facility on Oct. 21.

“We have been pleased with the initial sea trials for the F-35B and were able to collect all of the data planned,” Dellavedova says.

These initial trials were designed to explore how the aircraft interfaces with the deck of the amphibious ships, including thermal effects of the aircraft on the deck.

buglerbilly

27-10-11, 02:51 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Concurrency & The 10th Anniversary of the F-35 Contract

Posted by Amy Butler at 10/26/2011 9:29 AM CDT

Despite talk earlier this year that the government and Lockheed Martin, the F-35 prime contractor, were hoping for less contentious negotiation for low-rate initial production (LRIP) 5 than last year's protracted LRIP 4 talks, it seems the battle lines are being drawn.

Ten years to the day of the signing of the F-35 contract, Lockheed CEO Bob Stevens exposed in an earnings telecon with reporters that the current negotiating debate between the government and the company is associated with who should bear the cost of inserting fixes for deficiencies found during flight test onto the production aircraft in LRIP 5.

The program was conceived by both the government and contractor 10 years ago to allow for -- and many say embrace -- significant concurrency in flight testing and production, and that vision has come to pass as did the reality that the risk of finding problems costs money. Flight testing will continue well into this decade, and the company is already conducting long lead activities for lot 5. It is also having to insert fixes into earlier designs via retrofit that were the results of problems discovered during flight testing.

Despite the happy afterglow of program officials -- including contractors and those in the F-35 JPO -- over the successful flight testing on the USS Wasp this month, Vice Adm. David Venlet moved even as the aircraft were on the ship to push for shared concurrency cost. This deviates from past practice.

"In the previous four LRIP contracts, all concurrency-related recurring costs have been borne 100% by the government,” says Joe Dellavedova, spokesman for the JPO. “On 19 August 2011, [the Pentagon acquisition chief] issued an acquisition decision memorandum (ADM) requiring any LRIP 5 production contract to reflect a reasonable allocation for Lockheed Martin to share in the concurrency-cost risk associated with achieving F-35 configuration and capability requirements. The government remains committed to securing a fair agreement with Lockheed Martin to share in concurrency costs. This agreement, or undefinitized contract, will happen in advance of the negotiated final contract.”

And, that is the rub for Lockheed. Stevens balks at the idea that the JPO would push to negotiate the concurrency issue before negotiating the final LRIP 5 contract, a discussion that would include pricing and other terms. Though not overtly couched thus, the implication is that the Pentagon is holding Lockheed hostage to negotiate the concurrency issue even as LRIP 5 bills pile up.

Stevens indicates that the company will not be reimbursed for unpaid bills associated with LRIP 5 long-lead activities until the concurrency issue is settled. Congress allocated roughly $500 million in long lead funding in July 2010 for long-lead items and that funding expired in February. Stevens says that the government's failure to reimburse items since then has amounted to $750 million in unpaid bills through the end of the third financial quarter and will total $1.2 billion by year end. At that time, the company would be out $150 million in cash to keep the supplier base and production operating, said Lockheed CFO Bruce Tanner.
“The expectation here is that the government will absolutely recognize and respect that effort that we have undertaken in their interest and they will provide the funding that we have requested that will be forthcoming in an undefinitized contract action … and then we together can go forward to negotiate the Lot 5 contract in total, including a provision for concurrency,” Stevens said. “We are not in any overt way suggesting that concurrency costs are not a reasonable element of conversation in a negotiation for Lot 5,” he argues, noting that release of the funding should not be contingent first on negotiation of a concurrency clause.

What Stevens is asking for, though, may not be as easy as it sounds. To pay those bills, he is asking for the Pentagon to use an undefinitized contact action (UCA), which could be a bit of a third rail for the services. The services, in particular the Air Force, ran afoul of Congress in a perceived overuse of the contracting tactic -- which allows for a program manger to get a company on contract quickly while sorting out terms and conditions at a later time. Also, the government may push back against the idea of allowing any uncertainty to come into play for LRIP 5 by authorizing work without an associated cost, especially as Pentagon financial experts and lawmakers are scrutinizing the cost of the program.

Interesting news for the 10th anniversary.

buglerbilly

27-10-11, 07:05 AM

Pentagon, Lockheed At Odds Over F-35 Fixes

Oct 26, 2011

By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com
WASHINGTON

Ten years to the date of the F-35 development contract being signed, the Pentagon is playing hardball with Lockheed Martin, its prime contractor for the roughly $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter, the largest program on the Defense Department’s books.

Bob Stevens, CEO of the Pentagon’s largest contractor, says the government has failed to reimburse the company for items associated with the low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 5 F-35 build. And, those bills may not be paid until the company agrees to negotiate what Stevens says is an “unprecedented” contract provision called a concurrency clause for the next production lot of aircraft.

Such a clause would place the burden of financial liability on the contractor team for design changes inserted onto the LRIP 5 jets as a result of discoveries made during the ongoing flight-testing program. Stevens declined to outline how much liability the government was intending to place on the contractors.

“As we requested funding to cover our termination liability and fund our supplier base on lot 5, we were advised by the government earlier this month that funding for Lot 5 that was appropriated by the Congress in April would now be contingent on our company assuming a new and unprecedented contract provision called a concurrency clause” for the Lot 5 jets, Stevens said.

Though Congress approved about $500 million in funding for these long-lead activities in July 2010, it was used by February. But the bills have continued to accrue without government payment, putting the onus on Lockheed to cover the costs. “We requested additional funding from the government which has not yet been provided,” Stevens told reporters during the third-quarter earnings telecom Oct. 26.

He says that the termination liability at the end of the third quarter totaled $750 million, a figure that would grow to $1.2 billion by year’s end without government payment. This would total $150 million in cash exposure by the end of the year, said Bruce Tanner, Lockheed’s chief financial officer. This exposure is most likely to be temporary, as it would only become an actual bill for Lockheed in the event of an F-35 program termination. However, at the very least, the company is temporarily floating the cost of these bills.

To get the additional money from the Pentagon, however, the government would need to invoke an “undefinitized contract action,” which allows for a program manager to quickly allocate funding at his discretion. UCAs have been heavily used to get contractors working quickly in support of war needs. However, the services (in particular the Air Force) raised the consternation of Congress for a perceived overuse of the tactic. At issue is that while this approach allows for a contractor to begin work quickly, the actual cost negotiations come after work has started, allowing for the specter of uncertainty in the cost of the activities up front. Last year, the Air Force conducted a concerted UCA drawdown effort and was tracking those actions closely in response to congressional inquiries.

“The expectation here is that the government will absolutely recognize and respect that effort that we have undertaken in their interest and they will provide the funding that we have requested that will be forthcoming in an undefinitized contract action … and then we together can go forward to negotiate the Lot 5 contract in total, including a provision for concurrency,” Stevens said. “We are not in any overt way suggesting that concurrency costs are not a reasonable element of conversation in a negotiation for Lot 5,” he argues, noting that release of the funding should not be contingent first on negotiation of a concurrency clause.

Though not balking entirely on the concurrency clause, Stevens does argue against what he sees as an undue burden for the financial liability of infusing fixes for discoveries in the test program onto the production line. “We would look there for a fair and equitable resolution based on what can be known about the performance of the airplane and also expecting what is unknown and not able to be predicted by the contractor or the government,” he said. “It is distinctly argued that a discovery in the program is not a deficiency or a fault of the contractor … These discoveries are not defects. They are a part of a learning process that is a very well established facet of an engineering system like this.”

The F-35 Joint Program Office, however, is sticking to its argument that concurrency cost must be shared with industry. “In the previous four LRIP contracts, all concurrency-related recurring costs have been borne 100% by the government,” says Joe Dellavedova, spokesman for the JPO. “On 19 August 2011, [the Pentagon acquisition chief] issued an acquisition decision memorandum (ADM) requiring any LRIP 5 production contract to reflect a reasonable allocation for Lockheed Martin to share in the concurrency-cost risk associated with achieving F-35 configuration and capability requirements. The government remains committed to securing a fair agreement with Lockheed Martin to share in concurrency costs. This agreement, or undefinitized contract, will happen in advance of the negotiated final contract.”

Stevens argued in his call that the company has stepped up to show its commitment to moving forward with the F-35 amid the fiscal pressures on today’s budget by agreeing one year early to the fixed-price incentive fee contract for LRIP Lot 4; that contract was negotiated late last year after protracted talks that shifted it from a cost reimbursable deal (meaning the contractor gets paid for activities) to fixed price (meaning cost is only reimbursed to a ceiling). “We understand the realities our customers are facing,” he said.

This disagreement associated with LRIP 5 comes a year after the Pentagon and company conducted what were described as unusually protracted and contentious negotiations for LRIP 4. The government’s willingness to push for this agreement is a sign that the disagreements about year-over-year lot prices and terms are not likely to let up, and the precedent set last year for LRIP 4 talks could continue into the future.

Lockheed is raising this issue on the heels of the first at-sea trails of the F-35B, the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variant that fell significantly behind schedule last year owing to reliability problems. Stevens noted that during the trials on the USS Wasp, BF-2 and BF-4 conducted 72 vertical landings and short takeoffs.

Also, as of close of business on Oct. 25, the entire program has conducted 803 flights, exceeding the 749 planned and 6,287 test points against 5,796 planned.

Stevens acknowledges that a design review is ongoing to explore a new approach to the arrested landing hook for the F-35C carrier version, which has not performed well during tests.

Stevens also acknowledged that the program is about two months behind in software development work, an issue that senior program officials acknowledged was one of concern earlier this year. While the 1B software is flying, the Block 2 software was expected to be ready for release for flight testing. Stevens says the company is working to recover the lost time.

Photo: Lockheed Martin

buglerbilly

27-10-11, 01:28 PM

Lockheed complains about F-35 contract switch

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

50 minutes ago

Source:

Lockheed Martin has aired complaints about a US government decision to change the terms of its next yearly F-35 production contract more than five months after the company submitted its proposal.

Lockheed chief executive Robert Stevens disclosed in the company's third-quarter earnings statement that government negotiators have inserted a new issue into the negotiations over the contract for the fifth lot of F-35s in the low-rate initial production (LRIP) phase.

Three weeks ago, the F-35 joint programme office informed Lockheed that the company must absorb the higher costs of output in future aircraft because of redesigns and other problems discovered in prior years, Stevens said.

© Lockheed Martin

Moreover, the Department of Defense told Lockheed that payments now valued at $750 million will continue to be withheld until the firm agrees to the change of the F-35 contract structure.

Steven complained that "to have submitted [the LRIP 5] proposal in April, and to three weeks ago be confronted with a new contract requirement that wasn't reflected in the price we had offered"

"And then we were advised that the additional funding that we have been requesting since February was, in fact, conditioned on the successful negotiation of a concurrency clause. My preference would be to negotiate all the terms and conditions at the same time and not selectively address increments and pieces," Stevens continued.

The change exposes Lockheed to unexpected costs in the short-term and alters one of the fundamental terms for all weapon systems purchased by the DoD.

Despite Lockheed's objections about the government's negotiating style, Stevens did not say whether the company would reject the terms and accept the termination of the F-35 contract.

"I will certainly tell you our intention is to negotiate in good faith with the government," Stevens said.

The company is still grappling with the implications of the government's proposed change in the contracting terms.

"We're fundamentally ploughing some new ground here," Stevens said.

The disclosure of friction in the Lot 5 negotiation comes days after the programme achieved one of its most important goals in the flight test programme.

The US Marine Corps completed shipboard trials of the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant in 18 days.

The programme had scheduled the tests to run between two and six weeks, depending on the number of unexpected issues were to arose.

buglerbilly

28-10-11, 02:24 AM

Australia Launches F-35 Review

By NIGEL PITTAWAY

Published: 27 Oct 2011 15:07

FORT WORTH, Texas -Australian government officials have begun auditing the F-35 program because of concerns that the first tranche of aircraft would not be delivered on schedule, Lockheed Martin officials confirmed.

The review, rare in Australian defense programs, could lead officials to defer the planned order for the first aircraft.

"A Scheduled Compliance Risk Assessment Methodology (SCRAM) team is here in response to the defense minister's undertaking last July to conduct a review of the Australian F-35 program," Keith Knotts, the company's F-35 business development manager for Australia and Canada, told Australian reporters at the jet's assembly plant here. "They will be here this week to assess the program's health."

It was the first public acknowledgment that the review is underway.

The SCRAM team, from the Australian Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO), will report its findings to the government via the New Air Combat Capability (NACC) project office by the end of the year. It will look at the F-35 program using root-cause analysis to measure the achievements of the technical baseline review ordered by the U.S. Joint Project Office.

Australia has a requirement for up to 100 conventional takeoff and landing F-35As, and plans to sign a deal for the first tranche of 14 in 2012. Under the current plan, it wants to take delivery of the first two aircraft in 2014 for training in the United States and delivery of all 14 to Australia in 2017.

The aircraft are scheduled to come from Low-Rate Initial Production lots Six (two aircraft), Eight (four) and Nine (eight). They will allow the F/A-18A/B Hornets to retire around 2018.

The review follows Defence Minister Stephen Smith's promise to launch an "exhaustive risk assessment of the schedule" by year's end.

In July, Smith told the Australian Broadcast Corp.'s "Meet The Press" program that he has concerns about Lockheed's ability to deliver to its planned schedule and has flagged the possibility of a further purchase of Super Hornets in the interim.

"I have made it clear, both in Australia and in the United States, that the last thing I will allow to occur will be a gap in capability," he said.

Australia has 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets and must decide whether to convert a number of them to an EA-18G Growler configuration early next year.

buglerbilly

28-10-11, 03:01 AM

F-35C Done With First Round of Cat Tests

Well, with the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter wrapping up its first batch of sea trials last week, the F-35C carrier variant has completed its initial catapult testing.

F-35C test plane, CF-3 has returned to NAS Patuxent River, Md., after performing more than 50 catapult launches since July at the Navy’s Lakehurst, N.J., air engineering and test center.

This round of tests measured the jet’s ability to withstand launch stresses and the impact of catapult steam ingestion into the engine, according to NAVAIR.

“The testing went very well,” said Tom Chaillou, lead government ship suitability engineer in a NAVAIR press release. “The aircraft completed the structural survey, and the steam ingestion was a non-factor.”

“[The F-35C] did really well from the cockpit perspective,” said Cmdr. Eric Buus, F-35 test pilot in the same release. “The aircraft actually flew away after launch a bit better than was predicted.” (His call-sign is Magic, just like The Who song, get it?.)

Cat tests will continue at Lakehurst and Pax River where F-35Cs will be launched at varying weights and with a variety of stores, and “with increased mission system functionality.”

While the steam ingestion was a “non-factor”, I’d like to know how the launch stress portion of the testing went. I’d also like to know when the F-35C will take its first launch from the Navy’s new electromagnetic catapults known as EMALS.

The F-35C has bigger wings and a tougher body to withstand the stresses of carrier landings and take-offs. The plane is set to be operated by the U.S. Navy and Marines Corps as well as the Royal Air Force (and possibly the Royal Navy if its Naval Strike Wing is reconstituted to fly the JSF).

Click through the jump to watch a video of the F-35C’s first cat shot back in July:

http://www.military.com/video/military-aircraft-operations/catapults/lockheed-first-f-35c-catapult-launch/1092738876001/

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2011/10/27/f-35c-done-with-first-round-of-cat-tests/#ixzz1c2P9T5O5
Defense.org

geof

28-10-11, 09:20 AM

buglerbilly

28-10-11, 01:26 PM

Lockheed Airs Gripes with Pentagon Contract Demands (excerpt)

(Source: Reuters; published Oct 27, 2011)

WASHINGTON/ATLANTA --- After months of grumbling behind the scenes, U.S. arms makers are now publicly criticizing Pentagon plans to change the way it buys weapons and make industry shoulder more of the risks of development.

No. 1 U.S. defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp used its quarterly earnings report to flag concerns about what it called an "unprecedented" move by the Defense Department's push to make the company pay for design changes in the F-35 fighter jet that come up during developmental testing, which is continuing even as the plane has already entered production.

Lockheed said the company needed funding to cover costs associated with the next production lot of F-35 planes, but Pentagon officials said such funding would be contingent on the company agreeing to be responsible for certain costs of changes arising from testing, under a "concurrency clause."

Chief Executive Robert Stevens told reporters after the earnings release on Wednesday that Lockheed would be reluctant to accept "unbounded liabilities for unpredictable or unknown events."

"I think the problem for industry everywhere would be ... to have a requirement or a responsibility to be accountable for things that aren't known, that you can't predict, that no one can reasonably at this time look forward and either schedule or define or articulate in some way," Stevens said.

Lockheed's F-35, or Joint Strike Fighter program, has been under tough scrutiny since it is the largest U.S. weapons program and has already seen costs rise sharply over the past 10 years -- making it a prime target for future cuts.

Officials estimate it will cost $382 billion to develop and build 2,447 of the radar-evading fighter jets for the U.S. military.

The F-35 may be a bellwether for the fate of other weapons programs as arms makers brace for up to $1 trillion in defense spending cuts over the next decade.

And Lockheed's frustration with Pentagon contract negotiations reflects growing unease across the industry.

"The defense industry has grown accustomed to certain kinds of terms and profits over the last 10 years and it simply isn't willing to sign up to the tougher conditions that the Pentagon is now imposing," said defense consultant Loren Thompson. "There's no way that a company could sign up for unbounded risk; shareholders wouldn't stand for it," he said.

Lockheed said in its earnings report that it faces millions in potential termination liability for work it has funded should additional government funds not come for the next batch of F-35 production jets.

Wes Bush, chief executive of Northrop Grumman Corp, a key supplier on the F-35, said it was crucial to get the next production contract funded to keep the program and its entire supply chain on track.

"We're not in the business of financing these programs so there comes a limit in everyone's capacity to deal with that," Bush said during Northrop's earnings call, citing a "strong alignment" across industry on the issue.

A spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office on Wednesday said the department had cut the number of planes to be bought under the fifth batch by four planes to 30, to help fund cost overruns and the cost of design changes that arose from testing on the first four production lots.

The change will reduce the value of the contract by hundreds of millions of dollars. (end of excerpt)

(EDITOR’S NOTE: In his statement on the company’s third quarter results, Lockheed Martin chairman and CEO had this to say about F-35 financing:

“We received customer authorization and initial funding in July 2010 to begin work on low-rate initial production (LRIP) 5. In January 2011, we notified our customer that additional funding would be required to continue the advanced procurement.

Despite not yet receiving such funding, we and our industry team have continued work in an effort to meet our customer’s desired aircraft delivery dates for the LRIP 5 aircraft. As a result, as of Sept. 25, 2011, we have approximately $750 million in potential termination liability exposure.

Without additional funding or contract coverage, we estimate that our exposure by the end of 2011 will be approximately $1.2 billion.

We are in the process of negotiating with our customer to obtain additional funding and finalize contract negotiations.”)

(ends)

Joint Strike Fighter Program Office Statement On LRIP 5 UCA

(Source: JSF Program Office; dated Oct. 26, 2011)

Today Lockheed Martin made some financial disclosures public that show their investment of company funds in support of 30 F-35s that are proposed for purchase in Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contract 5.

While we do not have a signed production contract for LRIP 5 aircraft, the Government continues to work in good faith with Lockheed Martin to discuss an agreement that is in the best interests of the American taxpayers.

At issue is the Government’s ability to secure an agreement to share concurrency modification costs with Lockheed Martin. F-35 production aircraft are being built at the same time as, or concurrently with, development efforts under the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract. Due to this concurrency, the LRIP 5 configuration of F-35 aircraft may evolve or change as the design matures and systems are tested and qualified under the SDD contract.

In the previous four LRIP contracts, all concurrency-related recurring costs have been borne 100% by the Government.

On 19 August 2011, USD (AT&L) issued an Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) requiring any LRIP 5 production contract to reflect a reasonable allocation for Lockheed Martin to share in the concurrency-cost risk associated with achieving F-35 configuration and capability requirements.

The Government remains committed to securing a fair agreement with Lockheed Martin to share in concurrency costs.

This agreement, or undefinitized contract, will happen in advance of the negotiated final contract.

-ends-

buglerbilly

28-10-11, 01:28 PM

F-35 Does Not Have Communication Problems

(Source: Norwegian Ministry of Defence; issued Oct. 27, 2011)

(Issued in Norwegian only; unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)

In today's edition of Aftenposten, one can get the impression that the F-35 fighter cannot communicate when it flies in the northern areas.

“Of course this is not correct. F-35 has exactly the same communication capabilities as the current F-16,” says State Secretary Roger Ingebrigtsen in the Ministry of Defence.

However, there is a demand for even better solutions for the F-35, and there is a plan for upgrades.

“Norway continually assesses the technology plan integrated into the F-35. We are also considering alternative options to secure communications over longer distances. This can be a satellite in several forms, as well as other types of communications. It is still too early to say anything about the final solution. It will initially be on the same level as today’s and will be gradually improved,” says Roger Ingebrigtsen.

(ends)

Satellite Project Might Fix F-35 Radio Woes

(Source: The Canadian Press; published Oct. 24, 2011)

OTTAWA --- A potential solution to the F-35's northern communication woes has been grinding its way through the federal bureaucracy for three years and has yet to receive the green light, The Canadian Press has learned.

The Canadian Space Agency has been studying polar communications and determined in September 2008 that a pair of satellites over the High Arctic would vastly improve not only aircraft communication, but broadband access and climate change weather forecasting.

A decision on whether to build the satellites as part of the Polar Communications and Weather project is unclear because agency, in partnership with National Defence and Environment Canada, is still consulting on the socio-economic impact.

The Canadian Press has revealed that software, which allows the F-35 stealth fighter to communicate in the Arctic, won't be installed on its operating system until at least 2019 -- at least three years after Canada takes possession of its first plane.

There has been no long-term commitment to the project, sources both inside and outside of government said Monday. The pair of satellites would cost $600 million to put in orbit above the North Pole by 2017.

The air force is working on potential fixes, including the addition of a communications suite currently used on the aging CF-18s.

One of the most important unknowns for software developers at U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin, the F-35 manufacturer, is what satellites will be available to allow the jets to communicate through in the coming years.

The uncertainty over communications prompted New Democrats and Liberals to claim the jet is still a long way from being ready for prime time.

"There is no logical or reasonable explanation for the government's inflexibility on the F-35s," said NDP MP Matthew Kellway, a member of the House of Commons defence committee. "We now learn they don't even work in the North. Will the Conservative now admit that a $150 million per piece is a bit expensive for a plane that doesn't even work?"

The purchase price of the highly-advanced jet was the subject of debate during last spring's federal election and the Conservative government continues to insist the cost per aircraft will in the neighbourhood of $75 million.

Both Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Government House Leader Peter Van Loan said opposition accusations were "totally false" and that the Defence Department was working on solutions.

"This aircraft will have state-of-the-art communications," MacKay told the Commons. "We won't take receipt of this aircraft for another five years and we're working closely with partners within the consortium to see that it has all of the operational capability for the 21st Century."

Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae used the controversy to once again demand the Harper government put the F-35 contract out to tender.

The Polar Communications and Weather satellites are being developed in concert with Richmond, B.C-based MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. (MDA), which received the initial contract to study the concept polar satellites.

The space agency only issued a request to study the economic impact of the project last month.

"These new Canadian capabilities are particularly important because of increasing Arctic exploration, the requirement to protect Canada's vast northern natural resources and for Canadian sovereignty in times of changing climate, political and economical conditions," said the Sept. 21 request for proposal.

Neither the company nor the space agency was available to answer questions Monday.

(ends)

New Fighter Jets Lack Arctic Abilities

(Source: Views & News from Norway; posted October 27, 2011)

The new US-made fighter jets meant to replace Norway’s ageing fleet of F-16s lack equipment needed for communication in Arctic areas. Canadian officials who’ve also ordered the expensive jets are already complaining, and Norwegian politicians want a solution as well.

“The northern areas are among the most important of our areas of operation,” Ine Eriksen Søreide, who leads the parliament’ foreign affairs and defense committee for the Conservative Party, told newspaper Aftenposten. “Having complete communications systems is incredibly important.”

Søreide is sending written questions on the issue to Defense Minister Grete Faremo. “This is something Faremo has to clear up,” Søreide said.

The problem was debated among Canadian politicians this week as well, after it emerged that the F-35 Lightning jets, formerly known as Joint Strike Fighter, which Canada’s government has agreed to buy also will lack communications equipment suitable for Arctic areas. Standard radio signals don’t operate well north of the Arctic Circle, meaning the jets’ pilots need to be able to communicate via satellite.

The four prototype F-35s due for delivery in 2016 won’t have such equipment and Aftenposten reported there’s no guarantee as to when the jets’ producer, defense contractor Lockheed Martin, will have the necessary programming equipment in place.

The communications problem is the latest in a long string of challenges for Lockheed Martin, which also faces severe budget pressure and must set difficult priorities.

Stein Erik Nodeland, who leads the Norwegian fighter jet program for the Defense Ministry, confirmed that the jets so far lack integrated capacity for satellite communications. He told Aftenposten that various solutions are being evaluated.

-ends-

ADMk2

28-10-11, 02:52 PM

...
As I have touched on in earlier posts, I can not believe the time frames on this project ... 2017 !!! thats five fucking years away ... for fucks sake, all three models are well and truly in the air ... sorry but I can not get my head around what else needs to be tested that will take five years... just start punching them out ...

About 15% of the flight testing has been completed so far. It has another 18 months to go just to finish SDD. It's a long way from entering service anywhere yet and if you think the F-35 is taking an inordinate amout of time to deliver, here are a few facts on what it takes to design, test and build a modern fighter from first flight to entry into service:

The F-35 will take aprox. 3500 days to go from first flight to entry into service. (+ or - 5%)
The F-22 took 3021 days to go from first flight to entry into service.
The Dassult Raffle took 5267 days to go from first flight to entry into service.
The Eurofighter took 3417 days to go from first flight to entry into service.
The F-18E took 2409 days to go from first flight to entry into service. (Which is rather long considering it wasn't a clean sheet design)
The F-16 took 1657 days to go from first flight to entry into service.
The F-15 took 1261 days to go from first flight to entry into service.
The F-14 took 1350 days to go from first flight to entry into service.
The F-4 took 948 days to go from first flight to entry into service

Unlike most of those programs, F-35 has to deliver 3 separate variants in that timeframe. Apart from Rafale (which only has 2) and F-4 (which doesn't count really because it was only a Navy aircraft to begin with, USAF adopted it after USN variant was already developed) the F-35 is the only multiple variant fighter in that whole group.

Overall it doesn't look too bad to me. It just seems like it's taking a LONG time. If it had stuck to it's original 2007 development schedule, it would have actually been one of the fastest developed fighters in modern history. As it is, it is still right up there, considering the extent of the engineering challenges with this aircraft.

1. Concurrent development of CTOL, CV and STOVL aircraft from the same basic platform.

2. Near F-15E Strike Eagle level range and payload carried internally in an aircraft the size of a Hornet.

3. Full LO.

4. Supersonic flight capability in a STOVL capable airframe.

5. STOVL capability with first ever operational lift fan design.

6. Unique thrust vectoring engine design.

7. Advanced sensors and sensor fusion capability including advanced helmet that is to replace the traditional heads-up display.

8. Differing weapons bays between variants and so on.

9. Advanced cooling/electrical capability due to space constraints (Hornet sized airframe with avionics/sensor capability that dwarfs even the F-22).

On top of which the "entry to service" aircraft will have a full range of air to air and air to ground capabilities fully cleared for use on day 1 of it's entry to service. All it's targetting capabilities including EO/IRST, AESA Radar, HMS, EW/ESM will all be available from day 1. How may of those aircraft above could boast all of that on day 1? Rafale still doesn't have a helmet mounted sight, IRST or an AESA radar. Typhoon doesn't have an AESA radar. F-22 doesn't have IRST, EO/IR targetting or any HMS capability. How many of those aircraft could employ Paveway II/III/IV, JDAM, JSOW, SDB's, JAGM, AMRAAM and AIM-9X/ASRAAM on on their first day of service? Most of those aircraft don't have that range of weapons capability today...

Take all that into consideration before criticising the effort so far. Things could definitely have been done better. On paper. None of the critics however have ever tried to do what L-M is doing here.

buglerbilly

29-10-11, 02:03 AM

Navy Sees Few Anomalies in F-35B Ship Trials

Oct 28, 2011

By Amy Butler
Onboard the USS Wasp

Within sight of the Virginia coast, the USS Wasp amphibious assault ship has been circling since the beginning of the month in a 20 X 20-mi. box quietly—until now—making history as the host of the very first sea trials of the Lockheed Martin F-35B, which is designed for short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) operations for the U.S. Marine Corps.

Only miles inland, in Washington, Pentagon officials and lawmakers continue debating the fate of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, which—as the single most expensive planned Pentagon procurement—is perhaps the most vulnerable to funding cuts, in light of deficit talks.

But, last week before wrapping up the first developmental test period for the aircraft, the U.S. Marine Corps and F-35 Joint Program office broke their silence on the testing and invited a handful of reporters onto the amphibious assault ship for a firsthand look. The limited results that have been released have largely indicated no major anomalies. But, it is unclear whether testing progress can save not only the F-35B but the entire nine-nation program as customers scramble to secure funds for their development and purchasing commitments amid mounting national debts.

Only a year ago, test aircraft BF-1 was stuck on the ground related to repairs and the failure to produce the vertical landings needed to clear the envelope for the remainder of the test fleet; this bottlenecked progress with other Stovl test aircraft and earned the variant an “on probation” status by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

With a dearth of test data, the Marine Corps at the time was arguing in favor of the program based largely on faith that Lockheed Martin’s projections and the company’s models would prove valid. Now, however, the service has a windfall of data from work this year as well as from these inaugural ship-based operations. In defending once again against killing the “B”—the most expensive of the F-35 variants—the service now plans to lean on knowledge rather than faith.

The trials were designed to test basic integration of the F-35B with the LHD-class ships; Marines plan to house up to six F-35Bs on the ships to provide air support for activities at sea and during assault landings. Thus far, officials have conducted more than 60 vertical landings and short takeoffs (STO) here.

They have also determined that the B has better deck and hangar-handling qualities than the AV-8B, the aircraft the JSF will replace on these decks, says Capt. Brenda Holdener, the Wasp’s commanding officer.

Testing experts at NAS Patuxent River, Md., are combing through data to explore the thermal dynamics on the ship. Test officials are keenly interested in understanding how the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, and its hot exhaust, as well as the Integrated Power Pack affects the deck itself and impacts operations.

The vertical landing approaches mirror those used by the AV-8B, says Marine Corps Col. Roger Cordell, director of test and evaluation for the F-35B as well as the “C” designed for aircraft carrier use. He says that pilots initially approached from stern to bow and crossed over above the deck at a 90-deg. angle. Only after ship operators were comfortable with pilots’ skills were they able to begin cutting that angle to 45 deg. Harrier pilots use both angles.

Although in land testing the F-35B pilots often conduct hovers around 100 ft., Cordell says that on deck they have narrowed that down to 40 ft. “It is counterintuitive, but the airplane has a less harsh environment hovering at 40 ft. than it does at 100 ft.,” he says. “Land-based, we did most of our hovers at 100 ft. to avoid kicking up rocks . . . and then we worked our way to a reasonable height for the ship.” During descent, the aircraft is set to reduce its altitude by 7 fps.; officials say they will eventually experiment with that number to widen the envelope.

Lt. Col. Matt Kelly, the lead F-35 test pilot at Patuxent River, originally a Hornet pilot, says that his first time conducting a vertical landing on an L-class ship was with the F-35B. “The challenge is not ‘am I going to get my aircraft onboard,’” he says. “The challenge really becomes 'can I put my nose tire in a 1 ft. X 1-ft. square box where I want to on the deck.’ That is really a testament to the flight controls and the tools that pilots have.”

Kelly acknowledges that the deck motion does impact landing operations, but “the control law you have is so good, you can compensate.”

Thermal impacts to the ship’s deck have been a concern leading up to these trials. Though formal data haven’t yet been analyzed, Tom Briggs, the integrated test team engineering lead at Patuxent River who is helping to oversee the ship trials, says the aircraft is performing as predicted by the models in terms of heat ingestion on the ship. Officials had been concerned that the F-35B would reingest its own hot exhaust, impacting performance of the propulsion system and potentially damaging hardware. There are no such performance impacts thus far, Cordell says. “We feel like we are running where we intended to crawl.”

Additionally, there is “nothing mysterious” about the thermal qualities of the F-35B on the deck, says Ansis Kalnajs, a test director for Naval Sea Systems Command who is leading the effort to study the aircraft impacts on the ship.

Pilots and crews were qualified in Harriers in advance of the F-35Bs’ arrival Oct. 3.

Prior to that work, the ship received a number of standard modifications, such as a new aft non-skid deck coating in parking spots 7-9, Holdener says. The remaining spots on deck appear lighter in color owing to the aging of the deck.

Also, in a square on spot 9, Navy officials laid a new material called Thermion, which is expected to require less upkeep while withstanding the same temperatures as the existing formula. The impacts of F-35B vertical landing operations can be studied on the Thermion as part of these trials.

The yellow tramline used by pilots as a target for the nose gear upon landing was moved roughly 38 in. outboard on the Wasp to accommodate the wider wingspan of the F-35B. Officials also removed a WSC satellite antenna, some life rafts and a missile launcher, and shielded other equipment to reduce the potential of harming sensitive electronics on the aircraft; this was done for testing only.

Though vertical landings are quite similar to those of the Harrier, the STO operations do vary for the F-35 owing to the different lift qualities of the F-35s’ stealthy, supersonic-capable design. For testing on the Wasp, the nozzles and control surfaces actuate with 225 ft. of runway remaining on deck, creating an angle of attack and allowing for the wings to produce enough lift for takeoff from the deck, Cordell says. The Harrier’s rotation line is at the bow, owing to its wing design creating the required lift without the corresponding angle-of-attack change. Cordell says that the testing equipment at the ship’s bow has also not detected any problems with the F-35’s nozzle clearance as it takes off.

Pilots were qualified using the heart of the Harrier wind envelope. During testing they have expanded that up to a 30-kt. headwind, 10-kt. crosswind and 5-kt. tailwind. Pilots report good handling qualities, Cordell says.

The goal for STO testing was to establish the wind envelope for at-sea performance of manual settings on the aircraft. There are three methods for takeoff: manual (pilot pulling back on the stick); using a button that actuates the nozzle at the rotation line; or auto STO, which places the aircraft at a known distance from the rotation line. In this auto setting the aircraft will actuate automatically when the pilot reaches that rotation line. Cordell says pilots were able expand the scope to experiment with the auto-STO mode.

Tests have been conducted on the ship by BF-2, designed for flight sciences and BF-4, optimized with a data-collecting pod in the weapons bay, for mission systems. During the Oct. 18 visit, BF-4 conducted two VLs and two STOs. BF-2 had “returned to the beach” at Patuxent River for undisclosed repairs and checkout, Holdener said. Earlier in testing, BF-2 also underwent repairs related to a fuel leak. Several repairs have been conducted on the ship, according to Briggs.

Among them was the replacement of a flat tire, which required an aircraft to be hoisted on jacks in the hangar—a first for the F-35 program. Incidentally, Briggs says the aircraft are using tires at a slower rate while on deck than during testing at Patuxent River. There, maintainers were replacing tires faster than expected in crosswind conditions.

Maintainers also replaced a testy upper lift fan door actuator on BF-4 while on the ship, Briggs says. The aircraft was down for this repair midday Oct. 16 and back flying Oct. 18. BF-4 suffered another problem with this actuator shortly after reporters left the deck. And, BF-2 returned to the Wasp late on Oct. 18. Overall, repairs “haven’t gotten worse out there [than at Pax],” Briggs says.

Rear Adm. Kevin Scott, commander of Expeditionary Strike Group 2, says lessons from the Wasp trials could eventually inform F-35C carrier-based testing.

Ground-based trap landing continues by the team at Patuxent River. Briggs says the team is exploring a new tailhook design, as the existing model is not catching the arrested landing wire.

Conducting the Wasp trials was one of five goals for which F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin can earn fees in 2011; in 2010 the company earned only $7 million of $35 million in available fees (AW&ST Oct. 3, p. 30). The Marine Corps intends to declare initial operational capability for the F-35B in 2015; the original plan was 2012 and was later slipped to 2014. After the U.K. opted to forgo the F-35B, the Marine Corps and Italy remain its only likely customers.

Photo: Amy Butler

geof

29-10-11, 02:30 AM

About 15% of the flight testing has been completed so far. It has another 18 months to go just to finish SDD. It's a long way from entering service anywhere yet and if you think the F-35 is taking an inordinate amout of time to deliver, here are a few facts on what it takes to design, test and build a modern fighter from first flight to entry into service:

The F-35 will take aprox. 3500 days to go from first flight to entry into service. (+ or - 5%)
The F-22 took 3021 days to go from first flight to entry into service.
The Dassult Raffle took 5267 days to go from first flight to entry into service.
The Eurofighter took 3417 days to go from first flight to entry into service.
The F-18E took 2409 days to go from first flight to entry into service. (Which is rather long considering it wasn't a clean sheet design)
The F-16 took 1657 days to go from first flight to entry into service.
The F-15 took 1261 days to go from first flight to entry into service.
The F-14 took 1350 days to go from first flight to entry into service.
The F-4 took 948 days to go from first flight to entry into service

Unlike most of those programs, F-35 has to deliver 3 separate variants in that timeframe. Apart from Rafale (which only has 2) and F-4 (which doesn't count really because it was only a Navy aircraft to begin with, USAF adopted it after USN variant was already developed) the F-35 is the only multiple variant fighter in that whole group.

Overall it doesn't look too bad to me. It just seems like it's taking a LONG time. If it had stuck to it's original 2007 development schedule, it would have actually been one of the fastest developed fighters in modern history. As it is, it is still right up there, considering the extent of the engineering challenges with this aircraft.

1. Concurrent development of CTOL, CV and STOVL aircraft from the same basic platform.

2. Near F-15E Strike Eagle level range and payload carried internally in an aircraft the size of a Hornet.

3. Full LO.

4. Supersonic flight capability in a STOVL capable airframe.

5. STOVL capability with first ever operational lift fan design.

6. Unique thrust vectoring engine design.

7. Advanced sensors and sensor fusion capability including advanced helmet that is to replace the traditional heads-up display.

8. Differing weapons bays between variants and so on.

9. Advanced cooling/electrical capability due to space constraints (Hornet sized airframe with avionics/sensor capability that dwarfs even the F-22).

On top of which the "entry to service" aircraft will have a full range of air to air and air to ground capabilities fully cleared for use on day 1 of it's entry to service. All it's targetting capabilities including EO/IRST, AESA Radar, HMS, EW/ESM will all be available from day 1. How may of those aircraft above could boast all of that on day 1? Rafale still doesn't have a helmet mounted sight, IRST or an AESA radar. Typhoon doesn't have an AESA radar. F-22 doesn't have IRST, EO/IR targetting or any HMS capability. How many of those aircraft could employ Paveway II/III/IV, JDAM, JSOW, SDB's, JAGM, AMRAAM and AIM-9X/ASRAAM on on their first day of service? Most of those aircraft don't have that range of weapons capability today...

Take all that into consideration before criticising the effort so far. Things could definitely have been done better. On paper. None of the critics however have ever tried to do what L-M is doing here.

.. Well that will teach me to open my big mouth (after several beers mind you) not that that's any excuse ... I had no idea those other fighters took those times to enter service ... Raffle 5276 days !! whoa that has to be a record 14 years ... Thanks for all the other info ADMk2 , I still have a lot to lern ...

ADMk2

29-10-11, 07:16 AM

.. Well that will teach me to open my big mouth (after several beers mind you) not that that's any excuse ... I had no idea those other fighters took those times to enter service ... Raffle 5276 days !! whoa that has to be a record 14 years ... Thanks for all the other info ADMk2 , I still have a lot to lern ...

No dramas. I think it's symptomatic of the F-35 being the first aircraft developed in the "Internet" age and it's an interesting phenomena. The scope of the information available about it is unprecedented and these daily releases (and criticisms) make it seem like the program is dragging on forever.

In reality, the program is going along quite well, not as fast as initially (and overly optimistically in hindsight) expected, but still quite well compared to most other programs, especially when you consider the scope of the engineering challenges they have in front of them as I outlined above.

If the program continues as it is at present, the SDD phase will be completed or nearly so in 18 months time and many of the "insurmountable" problems critics are complaining of will seem like historical speedbumps, rather than the 'show-stoppers' some describe them as now...

Weasel

29-10-11, 09:56 PM

No dramas. I think it's symptomatic of the F-35 being the first aircraft developed in the "Internet" age and it's an interesting phenomena. The scope of the information available about it is unprecedented and these daily releases (and criticisms) make it seem like the program is dragging on forever.

In reality, the program is going along quite well, not as fast as initially (and overly optimistically in hindsight) expected, but still quite well compared to most other programs, especially when you consider the scope of the engineering challenges they have in front of them as I outlined above.

If the program continues as it is at present, the SDD phase will be completed or nearly so in 18 months time and many of the "insurmountable" problems critics are complaining of will seem like historical speedbumps, rather than the 'show-stoppers' some describe them as now...

No drama other than that the increase in time to produce (anything) for defense is a hot wet mess and needs to be fixed. The reality is it is taking too long, and the key reason it is taking so long is that progressive generations have lost the skill set to get things done in short order.

This is fast becoming a key area of in what you guys call "human factors" research. It is endemic, meaning "across the board", therefore it has every chance of being symptomatic of a cultural paradigm.

cheers

w

ADMk2

30-10-11, 08:58 AM

No drama other than that the increase in time to produce (anything) for defense is a hot wet mess and needs to be fixed. The reality is it is taking too long, and the key reason it is taking so long is that progressive generations have lost the skill set to get things done in short order.

This is fast becoming a key area of in what you guys call "human factors" research. It is endemic, meaning "across the board", therefore it has every chance of being symptomatic of a cultural paradigm.

cheers

w

And the increasing sophistication and engineering complexity of the tasks, combined with increasing political interference and the decreasing budgets available has nothing to do with it?

US Congress was responsible for demanding the F/A-18A-D, F-16A-D and AV-8b Harrier II Be replaced with a single relatively common platform.

Many of the performance shortfalls people see with the A and C models (although I don't agree as to how critical they are) stem from this issue. Undoubtedly many of the funding issues have stemmed from this as well.

If the A-C had been common and the B separate, common radars, EO/IR sensors, mission systems, avionics, EW and LO tech could still have been shared giving comparable combat capability on the "tech" side, with significantly less complicated engineering issues with the "conventional" aircraft meaning that they wouldn't have been tied implicitly to the STOVL aircraft's development schedule, nor hamstrung by it's design requirements. The majority of the US TACAIR replacement aircraft for F-16/F/A-18 would likely have been much further ahead than it is now and without the design compromises forced on the A-C models by the B, may have allowed a much more suitable F-15 replacement too, meaning the US wouldn't have been forced into the long term requirement to keep F-15C Golden Eagles and F-15E Strike Eagles in-service.

Many say the USAF wouldn't have accepted a twin engine design, but if that twin engine designed replaced the 400+ strong F-15C/F-15E fleets as well, the fuel burn and supporting cost figures may well have favoured an F-35 twin engine design, especially with the known fuel burn costs of the extremely hot running and powerful F135. An evolved GE F414 twin engine design (for example) may well been cheaper and easier to develop and the same engine could have been chosen to upgrade the Super Hornet in future years, keeping it's performance combat relevant in years to come and reducing the overall engine support costs for the majority of the US fleet.

It may also have been possible to keep 2 manufacturers employed making 5th Gen fighters and 2 engine developers manufacturing advanced engines too...

buglerbilly

30-10-11, 10:01 AM

Pilots await go-ahead for F-35 flight ops

By Dave Majumdar - Staff writer

Posted : Friday Oct 28, 2011 18:12:06 EDT

Angel DelCueto, Photographer
This Air Force version of the F-35 Lightning II completes a test flight in April 2010 from Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base, Texas. F-35As are undergoing final tests before pilots will be able to fly them for training.

Pilots at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., are eagerly awaiting the go-ahead to fly their new F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters.

There are currently four Air Force conventional takeoff F-35As at the seaside base that are being used for validating technical data for the aircraft, said Col. Andrew Toth, who commands of the 33rd Fighter Wing.

“That’s helping us do preparations in order to get us flying later this fall,” Toth said.

The base’s pilots are waiting for a military flight release to begin flight operations on their new mount.

“We expect that flight release to come no earlier than the end of October,” he said. The month ends on Monday.

Around the same time, in the latter half of November and early December, new Marine Corps F-35B short-takeoff, vertical-landing, or STOVL, jets will begin to arrive at the base, Toth said.

The Air Force leads a triservice command that will oversee aircraft and entire squadrons from the Navy and Marine Corps.

Currently, Eglin has two lead instructor pilots who are qualified to fly and teach in the F-35: Marine Maj. Joseph Bachmann and Air Force Lt. Col. Eric Smith. The two veteran test pilots recently completed a set of “maturity tests” at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., which mimicked the initial pilot syllabus at Eglin, in order to make sure the jets are ready for instructor pilots and students to begin training.

Once the pilots at Eglin receive their flight clearance, Smith and Bachmann will clear the rest of the unit’s instructor pilots, including Toth, to fly and instruct in the new jet.

The first class they will teach will be part of an operational utility evaluation, which will validate the training course, Toth said.

“It’s just to make sure our training system is in place, up and running, and can effectively produce pilots in a transition-type course,” he said.

Once the unit completes the evaluation course, Air Education and Training Command will declare the unit ready for training.

The initial class will consist of two pilots from the 33rd Fighter Wing and two operational test pilots who will go on to fly at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., with the Joint Operational Test Team. The start date is “event driven,” Toth said, but he expects the flying portion of the evaluation course to start in the “very, very early spring.”

The initial transition course, which will teach basic airmanship in the jet, will last 12 weeks: six weeks of academics followed by 120 hours of classes, 14 simulator flights and six real flights, Toth said.

“That’s what this first course is, it’s the fundamentals of the airplane and basic flying: take off, land, navigation, those sorts of things,” Toth said. “All of the advanced mission stuff comes as we grow and develop.”

One major change from previous types is that the academics are conducted electronically on laptoplike devices, said Marine Col. Arthur Tomassetti, vice commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing.

The pilots will initially have a limited flight envelope — 450 knots and 5 Gs — but that’s more than enough for the first group of aviators, Toth said.

“Even that 5 G limit is more than what we’d use on a given day,” he said.

Eglin’s F-35s will initially fly under visual flight rules; instrument flying will be introduced around the middle of next year. As more capabilities are released, the syllabus will be updated to accommodate new functions, Toth said.

Even the F-35B aircraft will operate in their conventional mode for now, deferring training for STOVL mode until the F-35B model receives its flight release for that regime, Tomassetti said.

“It should be pretty easy for us to just take those folks and cycle them through those training events that were deferred,” he said.

The focus right now is simply to build up a cadre of instructor pilots, Toth said. The training demand will grow rapidly in the near future.

Currently, the base has 35 pilots from three services who it must train to be F-35 instructor pilots, Tomassetti said. Already the Marines have about a dozen pilots at the base, he said. There about 17 Air Force pilots and six Navy pilots, Toth said.

For the Marine pilots transitioning from the AV-8B Harrier to the F-35B, the biggest change will be that instead of practicing takeoffs and landings, the majority of their time will be spent flying tactical training sorties, said Tomassetti, a veteran Harrier aviator and the original test pilot for the X-35B prototype. That would put the Marine STOVL force on the same footing as other tactical fighters.

But what will truly make the F-35 different from a macro perspective is that, as it becomes operational, the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps will have early opportunities to share expertise and concepts.

“The ability for our pilots to be in the squadron and have that cross-flow between the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force is extremely important,” Toth said.

Weasel

31-10-11, 12:14 AM

And the increasing sophistication and engineering complexity of the tasks, combined with increasing political interference and the decreasing budgets available has nothing to do with it?

That is my point. The technical risk to achieve parity with past project performance is actually decreasing, not increasing. Why? because we have more computing power, for one. So, rather then see an actual decrease in time-to-product, we are seeing the opposite. This is a symptom of an unbalanced system. One that cannot expect to continue to exist within the normal parameters of a free market economy.

I've got to go.

cheers

w

ADMk2

31-10-11, 04:34 AM

That is my point. The technical risk to achieve parity with past project performance is actually decreasing, not increasing. Why? because we have more computing power, for one. So, rather then see an actual decrease in time-to-product, we are seeing the opposite. This is a symptom of an unbalanced system. One that cannot expect to continue to exist within the normal parameters of a free market economy.

I've got to go.

cheers

w

I agree with that and lord knows L-M are certainly not blameless in failing to deliver what they've promised, but what is the root cause of all these overly optimistic promises, that can't realistically be delivered? As I showed above, on the current F-35 schedule it's not tracking too badly compared to earlier programs given what it is required to deliver and this schedule has significant delays in it, compared to what L-M said they would deliver under the "2007 schedule".

A schedule that proved hopelessly optimistic with the benefit of hindsight. But if they HAD delivered under that schedule then the enormous JSF program would have been delivered at a better rate than just about any aircraft built in the last 30 years. So my question is where does the simultaneous pressures come from that new capability must be far more advanced than virtually anything seen before, it must cost far less and must be developed and delivered far quicker than anything else in history?

Surely those requirements are in fact mutually exclusive rather than inclusive? Fine ideals sure, but the reality must intrude on the pie in the sky dreams at some point? Surely someone in the DoD must look critically at the issue and say, "No. You will NOT be able to deliver 19 million lines of software code, fully developed, tested and stable, within X amount years. It IS going to take Y amount of years more likely. We've seen before on your own company's OTHER contracted programs that you have not even been able to meet HALF of such a schedule. Therefore we will NOT agree to it because it will NOT happen. Come back to us with a realistic schedule and we'll talk..."

Weasel

31-10-11, 06:05 AM

I agree with that and lord knows L-M are certainly not blameless in failing to deliver what they've promised, but what is the root cause of all these overly optimistic promises, that can't realistically be delivered? As I showed above, on the current F-35 schedule it's not tracking too badly compared to earlier programs given what it is required to deliver and this schedule has significant delays in it, compared to what L-M said they would deliver under the "2007 schedule".

A schedule that proved hopelessly optimistic with the benefit of hindsight. But if they HAD delivered under that schedule then the enormous JSF program would have been delivered at a better rate than just about any aircraft built in the last 30 years. So my question is where does the simultaneous pressures come from that new capability must be far more advanced than virtually anything seen before, it must cost far less and must be developed and delivered far quicker than anything else in history?

Surely those requirements are in fact mutually exclusive rather than inclusive? Fine ideals sure, but the reality must intrude on the pie in the sky dreams at some point? Surely someone in the DoD must look critically at the issue and say, "No. You will NOT be able to deliver 19 million lines of software code, fully developed, tested and stable, within X amount years. It IS going to take Y amount of years more likely. We've seen before on your own company's OTHER contracted programs that you have not even been able to meet HALF of such a schedule. Therefore we will NOT agree to it because it will NOT happen. Come back to us with a realistic schedule and we'll talk..."

Mmmm, yes I have heard the 19 million lines of code thing before. There are other ways to get around coding. But lets take (for example) the X-29. This aircraft was "unstable" and a a wunder-kind of computer control of it's time which took an amazing...wait for it... 60 calculations per second to fly. (insert pause for monkey thought here):monkey

The latest Audi car available in the USA makes an amazing 2000 calculations per second....just to enhance your driving experience.

Why then couldn't you fly (as in fly, you know, staying up in the air) an F-35B with an i-phone?

The answer is "no-reason", and not only that, you could make said i-phone powered f-35b capable of compensating for pitch and roll of the ship it was trying to land on and cross winds to boot.

I would suggest that one of the things that is "broke" is that the relationship that the customer has with the defense-industrial-complex has become inherently (as in subconsciously) nepotistic. In other words something that is so ingrained that even though the customer needs a jeep, they want the audi that can do 2000 calculations per second. why? because they "want", not "need" and the defense contractor of choice cater's to this techno-greed but offering the "over-optimistic" claims.

If they didn't, they wouldn't get the sale and so it goes.

So you have a service that feels it has to complete a mission [as is the mission so too is the service...they become intertwined in some sort of self-justification feedback loop], so mission X, becomes so very much bigger than is actually needed that the resultant requirement is based upon speculative aims for a service of the future with a mission of the future. Iraq and Afghanistan have brought that wistful program speculation back in check, so much so, that in the halls of the pentagon people (uniformed people) have actually started to pose the question "Do we need an Air Force?"

It's not just the F-35 program that is in question here. It has been such a debacle that people are wondering why we have an Air Force in the first place. Why not just roll them together with the Army, Marines and Navy like we did in WW2? Or like we did with Homeland Security? The Army is certainly capable of running it's own planes and doing it's thing with planes and might be more efficient to boot. The Navy does it all the time and the Marines are quite good at it too.

Now, that I have planted that little seed of thought, why then if I was a Marine Commandant, wouldn't I make it a priority to get the F-35B into action as quickly as possible? I can tell you right now, 18 days for ship trials is way too long for the USMC. Despite what people may think, they are very used to having to battle congress to justify their existence. The USMC has oft been targeted for extinction and now they are saddled with ANOTHER over weight program? Fourteen days was the "reach" goal and 7 days would have been better. Eighteen days is a good start but it needs to get better.

cheers

w

ADMk2

31-10-11, 06:36 AM

Actually the USMC kind of saddled themselves with the current program. If they hadn't pushed so hard to get a STOVL, VLO, supersonic capable platform to replace the Harrier and F/A-18A-D with a single type, they'd likely be far better off. Sure they'd have less capable platform than the F-35B is likely to become, if it survives, but the F-35C would have made up the difference in a significant way and they've already had to change plans and buy the F-35C in addition to the F-35B anyway.

They insisted upon operating 3 variants of a single relatively common airframe type, Congress saw the "wisdom" in that idea and then forced the idea upon all the other services. Now getting somewhat closer to "coming out the other side" of the F-35 program and actually seeing production aircraft being delivered to air bases, it seems like very few of the "lessons" that have apparently been learnt, have ACTUALLY been learnt. Words are great. Actions are better. For all USMC's best efforts, they'll still end up with 2 different platform types. 2 different engine types (significant differences between the F135-400 and F135-600), two different training and logistical streams and so on because the USN aren't going to fly -B models from their Carriers and the USMC have to provide TACAIR squadrons to support the USN under the current arrangements.

Is anyone going to argue that if the -B model had been run as a separate program, if the design changes to accomodate the B variant hadn't been imposed upon the A and C model that we would have had a far smoother development program for each, that the capability in the A and C models in particular would have been greater and it probably would have been cheaper overall in hindsight?

I cannot believe for a second that a company couldn't have produced an economically viable STOVL program to replace the AV-8b/Harrier II without being lumped into the JSF program as a whole? The -B model was looking at initial interest in excess of 600 aircraft. Most modern programs haven't sold anywhere near those numbers and still seem viable...

AS to whether or not the the USAF should exist, or whether the Army Air Corps should be reinstated, I wonder whether the cost to transfer it back would be less than the efficiency savings? Unless there are significant efficiencies to be gained, I wonder about the point of it?

geof

31-10-11, 12:23 PM

Found this pic with external stores ..
[/IMG]

ADMk2

31-10-11, 03:39 PM

It's a pretty sweet loadout. Up to 6x 500lbs LGB's/JDAM's, 2x AMRAAM and 2x WVR missiles, plus the gun pod tucked away in there...

Or if you load up SDB or JAGM/Brimstone the weapons loads start getting very serious...

buglerbilly

31-10-11, 05:51 PM

Pentagon Slices F-35 Buy To Pay For Overruns

Oct 31, 2011

By Amy Butler

The Pentagon is reducing the next buy of Lockheed Martin F-35s to 30 from 35 aircraft in order cover cost overruns incurred in earlier production lots, according to the Joint Program Office (JPO).

The Navy and Air Force have agreed to reduce their quantities in low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 5 to “pay for the bills,” says Joe Dellavedova, JPO spokesman. “Controlling costs is an absolute must.”

The government is responsible for paying $771 million in overruns for the 28 aircraft included in LRIP Lots 1-3, he adds. Of that total, roughly $136 million is outlined as “concurrency cost.” These are costs incurred to retrofit jets in early lots based on findings from the ongoing testing program. The overruns amount to roughly $27.5 million extra per aircraft if evenly applied to the 28-aircraft buy, $4.86 million of which is associated solely with concurrency cost.

In July, Dellavedova characterized the concurrency funding as needed “to modify early production aircraft to attain useful service life capabilities. F-35 concurrency is generating significant change that both perturbs the learning cost reduction and adds costs for modifying delivered jets.” He repeats that mantra in a recent statement.

Also in July, Dellavedova said that the teams led by Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney would have their fees reduced by $283 million to pay for their portions of the overruns.

Cost progress has not yet been reported for the LRIP 4, which includes 31 aircraft (and a priced option).

Concurrency cost has recently become an issue of some debate between the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin. During a third-quarter earnings teleconference on Oct. 26, CEO Bob Stevens said the government is pushing for industry to share in these concurrency costs in future lots; until now, the government has picked up the tab. Stevens balked at the notion that the Pentagon wants to first negotiate the concurrency cost issue before releasing more funding for LRIP 5 work.

CFO Bruce Tanner says Lockheed Martin will face $150 million in cost exposure by year-end due to unpaid bills on LRIP 5. The bills now total $750 million and are projected at $1.2 billion by the end of the year, Stevens said.

Despite this dispute and the overruns, Dellavedova said the JPO remains confident in the company’s plans to “get the development program back on track” and is “pleased with signs of emerging stability in the manufacturing flow at Lockheed Martin.”

The U.S. estimates its cost for the F-35, including all three variants, to be $382 billion. It is joined by eight partner nations in the development programs, with still others interested in buying production aircraft in the future.

Photo: Lockheed Martin

buglerbilly

01-11-11, 02:34 AM

Pentagon Tester: JSF F-35 Program Risking a "Serious Mishap"

Posted by Nick Schwellenbach Monday, October 31, 2011 at 1:44 pm

The Joint Strike Fighter (U.S. Navy photo/Chief Petty Officer Eric A. Clement)

The Pentagon's top official for weapons testing sent a sternly worded letter warning the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program and the Air Force that their plans to start unmonitored flight training on the Air Force variant of the JSF F-35 this fall "risks the occurrence of a serious mishap," according to an October 21 memo, first published by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO). The JSF program and Air Force disagree with the test official's assessment, saying they are appropriately mitigating safety risks. The dispute has gone all the way up to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, reported Bloomberg Government's Tony Capaccio, who first broke news of the memo in a story behind a paywall.

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation Michael Gilmore explained that due to the relatively small amount of monitored flight hours on the JSF (and an even smaller amount on just the Air Force version of the plane), along with a higher abort rate than expected at this point in the program, indicates "the relative immaturity of aircraft." When the test office ran the numbers, they found the Air Force variant had an air abort rate "equivalent to 3,000 aborts per 100,000 flight hours" triple the rate the JSF program itself believes is prudent before unmonitored flight training begins. (Battleland checked in on this debate over the F-35's so-called concurrency last week.)

Air aborts can be caused by aircraft system malfunctions, according to Air Force guidance. They can be expensive too. According to Bloomberg, "Aborts use up spare parts and lead to costly additional delays in a development phase that's already been extended four years." Remember there are a limited number of test planes -- and if the pace of testing slows, the rest of the program can be affected.

Furthermore, the test office warned that "a high abort rate correlates to a higher risk of catastrophic failure, including a Class A mishap." Class As are bad, real bad. They involve damage greater than $2 million or even loss of aircraft. Even worse, the Class As can involve death or permanent total disability for the test pilots.

The testers, using a historical model with data from the JSF program plugged in, project "at least four ground aborts and four air aborts, including one in-flight emergency" if unmonitored flight training begins with the Air Force variant at its current level of maturity. The warning gets worse too: "Historical experience also indicates the rate of discovery of new failures during flight follows the air abort rate. Thus, there is a significant risk new failures will be discovered during flight training in an unmonitored environment for which there would be no corrective actions developed for the pilot to implement." Translated to English, this roughly means that after the air abort, the shit might continue to hit the fan in unexpected ways while still flying and there will be no emergency procedures developed beforehand to help the pilots get control of the situation.

The bottomline: "The consequences of a mishap at Eglin [Air Force Base] would overwhelm the very modest benefits of beginning flight training this fall," according to Gilmore. The Pentagon test office recommends a delay to unmonitored training flights, saying up to 10 more months might be required for the JSF to meet its own goals on reducing air abort rates and "resolving other safety-related issues."

But the Air Force and JSF don't agree, saying that they're being careful. They dispute the test office's characterization of risk in a reply to Gilmore's concerns.

"The abort rate and risk of mishap historical data presented in the memo was discussed at length during the 3-star Risk Assessment Board," wrote Vice Admiral David Venlet, head of the JSF program, and Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas Owen in an October 24 memo.

Venlet and Owen then put the screws to Gilmore. "The operational test community participated in this event and was included in these discussions. The board discussed risk acceptance and mitigation in the context of planned training scope and limitations, while also considering the seniority of the initial cadre of pilots," according to the memo by Owen and Venlet. "Those important details are missing from the memo and the PO [program office] and AF [Air Force] offer to engage in a dialogue again on this issue with and the operational test community to ensure that context is understood." Ouch!

Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Frank Kendell had the dispute dropped on his lap and promptly sent a memo on October 25 to the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force asking them to resolve the matter.

Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/10/31/pentagon-tester-jsf-program-risking-a-serious-mishap/#ixzz1cPgEnK5g

buglerbilly

02-11-11, 12:11 AM

DoD, Lockheed To Discuss F-35 'Should-Cost' Review

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 1 Nov 2011 15:02

The U.S. Defense Department will brief F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) manufacturer Lockheed Martin within the next two days on the results of its "should-cost" review of the $382 billion stealth fighter program.

"The contractor will be briefed soon, perhaps as soon as tomorrow or the next day," said Cheryl Irwin, a spokeswoman for the Defense Department.

The F-35 program office will use the numbers from the should-cost review as its negotiating position when bargaining with Lockheed for the low rate initial production (LRIP) lot 5, said JSF program office spokesman Joe Dellavedova.

On Oct. 31, the F-35 program office said the production numbers for the LRIP 5 production lot would be truncated to pay for cost overruns on the first three production lots.

"The first three initial production contracts are exceeding target costs by 11 percent to 15 percent. The U.S. Government is responsible for paying $771 million," Dellavedova said in an emailed statement. "To help fund over target and concurrency costs, the Air Force and Navy are expected to reduce their F-35 A and C procurement quantities for the fifth low rate initial production to 30 aircraft."

Dellavedova said controlling costs is crucial to the F-35 effort and, as a result the JSF program, has started to use fixed-price contracting starting with the fourth production lot, which is two years ahead of schedule. Under the LRIP 4 contract, cost overruns are equally shared by Lockheed and the Defense Department up to a ceiling price. Costs in excess of that would be borne by Lockheed Martin.

Early production aircraft always cost more because design changes are being made during production.

"F-35 concurrency is generating significant change that both perturbs the learning cost reduction and adds costs for modifying delivered jets," Dellavedova said. "We are pleased with signs of emerging stability in the manufacturing flow at Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney and in their supplier teams."

buglerbilly

02-11-11, 12:39 AM

F-35 Production Costs, Line Changes Drop: Lockheed

By Richard Whittle

Published: November 1, 2011

Fort Worth: Lockheed Martin's mile-long aircraft factory here sent the the twelfth F-35 Joint Strike Fighter produced this year to Eglin Air Force Base last Wednesday. Though no cause for champagne, the delivery marks an important milestone in the company's efforts to ramp up production. The plane took less than half as many touch-labor hours to assemble as did the first two Air Force versions, both of which came off the production line on May 17 last year.

Company officials, about to enter negotiations for the fifth tranche of low rate initial production (LRIP 5), say the dramatic reduction over the past 18 months in the amount of time it takes Lockheed mechanics to put together one of the complex stealth fighters is a sign the program is recovering from the crisis it faced in February 2010. That's when former Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired the government's F-35 program manager and withheld $614 million in payments to Lockheed because of cost overruns and schedule delays in the project, whose goal is to build more than 2,000 fighters for the United States and 10 other countries.

"We're seeing learning curves that are really the best that have been seen in this industry at this point," says Larry Lawson, executive vice president and general manager of the F-35 program for Lockheed. "We're getting incredible performance in reducing those hours."

Lawson ran Lockheed's F-22 Raptor fighter program from 2004 until the company moved him to the Joint Strike Fighter in August 2010. When I interviewed him in his Fort Worth office Oct. 19, he was beaming over the good results of sea trial flight tests of the F-35B, as the STOVL (short take off/vertical landing) variant being built for the Marine Corps is designated. Those trials, which were still going on aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp at the time, ended Oct. 21 after two F-35Bs successfully completed 72 vertical landings on the ship.

Lawson emphasized that it's up to the government to decide how and when the F-35B can get off the undefined "probation" Gates declared it to be on last January because of engine, weight and potential cost problems, but the executive said he was confident Lockheed had solutions in place or in process that would resolve those issues.

"Corrective action" has been taken, he said, to solve problems with an innovative "lift fan" behind the F-35B's cockpit. The fan's 50-inch diameter counter-rotating blades turn when engaged by a clutch connected by a drive shaft to the jet's Pratt & Whitney engine, creating a column of air that produces 18,000 lbs. of thrust under the plane as it hovers or lands vertically. A swiveling engine exhaust nozzle at the aft of the F-35B directs another 18,000 lbs. of jet thrust downward while two "roll post" nozzles in the wings each funnel down yet another 2,000 lbs. of vertical thrust to provide lateral balance.

Lockheed has also redesigned and next year will flight-test two doors that open behind the lift fan atop the fuselage to provide extra air for the engine when the B variant is hovering, Lawson said. The original auxiliary air intake doors -- still being flown on F-35Bs performing flight tests -- oscillate when open, creating no safety problem but making it likely they will wear out far earlier than they should.

The company has also gathered "a lot of data," Lawson said, that will enable engineers to come up with ways to mitigate a phenomenon called "suck down," in which turbulence under the F-35B as it lands vertically can create a vacuum that pulls the plane down too rapidly -- a potential danger, especially for a pilot returning from a mission with unexpended bombs or missiles.

The final assembly learning curve (as the reduction in the touch-labor hours it takes to put the aircraft together is called) has come down rapidly and should keep falling as Lockheed builds the next few lots of F-35s because the factory floor has finally absorbed production changes required when the B variant was redesigned five years ago, Lawson said. The redesign was required to shed the STOVL plane of 3,500 lbs. of unacceptable weight.

"When you have a high amount of change in the system, that churn creates problems in your supply base, which creates shortages to the factory," Lawson explained. One result of such supply shortages was that certain steps in assembly had to be done out of order, meaning they were being done at the wrong work station, on the wrong industrial tool and often by the wrong workers. That, obviously, slowed the assembly line down. Now, however, the F-35 line is not doing such "out of station work," he said.

Don Kinard, deputy director of the F-35 Fighter Production System -- i.e., the factory floor -- said the latest F-35A took about 110,000 touch-labor hours to assemble rather than the roughly 250,000 hours the first A variants required.

One reason for this steeply falling learning curve, Kinard said, is that Lockheed's F-35 mechanics are simply learning to put the planes together faster. That's no surprise. Just as consumers who buy build-it-yourself furniture find it easier to put a bookshelf or table together if they've done one before, aircraft assemblers -- like other industrial workers -- need less time to do their tasks as they repeat them, up to a point.

Other reasons for the learning curve decline include the fact that a large amount of the F-35 assembly work is automated -- done by robotic machinery. Finally, the company constantly works to improve assembly processes.

Along with an increase in the number of aircraft ordered in Low Rate Intitial Production Lot 4 as compared to LRIP Lot 1, the learning curve drop is one reason the plane that left Fort Worth on Wednesday cost $111 million, roughly half the price the government paid for each of the first two LRIP F-35As.

"What to me is remarkable is that with three different variants, we're still able to maintain a legacy learning curve," Kinard said, meaning a curve that is falling at roughly the same rate as did the learning curves for Lockheed's single-variant F-22 and F-16 fighter planes. While 100 percent of mission systems, such as avionics and software, are the same in each variant of the F-35, the conventional takeoff A variant, the STOVL B variant and the C variant for use on aircraft carriers share only 20 percent common structure, Kinard said. The F-35C has a larger wing and heavier landing gear than the other two variants, for example, while the B variant is the only one with the lift fan and boasts a smaller weapons bay than the other two.

At the moment, Kinard said, it takes the factory two years to assemble an F-35. In the future, the learning curve should bring the amount of touch-labor hours down to about 50,000 and reduce the span of time the factory needs to produce a single aircraft to somewhere between 12 and 14 months.

Whether Lockheed will need to build them that fast anytime soon, however, is uncertain. The day after the latest F-35A was flown to Eglin Air Force Base, the government program office announced that, to cover previous cost overruns, five aircraft -- four for the Air Force and one for the Navy -- will be cut from the next and fifth production lot, making it 30 instead of 35 aircraft expected to be bought this year and built by 2013.

buglerbilly

02-11-11, 02:38 AM

Pentagon Awaits India’s Interest in Lockheed F-35 Fighter

November 01, 2011, 7:11 PM EDT

By Viola Gienger

(Updates with Lieberman comment in fifth paragraph, India contest setbacks in eighth, technology transfer in 10th through 12th paragraphs.)

Nov. 1 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Defense Department expressed eagerness to work more closely with India, including sharing information on its top weapons program, Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

“Should India indicate interest in the JSF, the United States would be prepared to provide information on the JSF and its requirements,” including on security and infrastructure, the Defense Department said today in a congressionally mandated report on U.S.-India security cooperation.

More joint work on science and technology “may lead to co- development opportunities with India as a partner,” the Defense Department said in the report.

The nine-page review of defense ties with India was prepared in response to a legislative provision sponsored earlier this year by Senate Armed Services Committee members Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, and John Cornyn, a Texas Republican. Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin builds the F-35 in Texas. United Technologies Corp. makes the plane’s engines in Connecticut.

“Our two governments must be proactive in finding new ways to take on emerging security challenges together,” Lieberman said today in an e-mail, citing cybersecurity and counterterrorism.

Nuclear Technology

The report reflects the desire by successive U.S. administrations to convince India to increase security cooperation and buy American equipment as it expands and modernizes its military. The push included a years-long fight for congressional approval in 2008 of an agreement intended to clear the way for U.S. manufacturers such as General Electric Co. to sell India nuclear-energy technology.

The U.S. expected the nuclear-energy agreement to help increase a range of technology sales to India, especially in the defense sector.

The Pentagon report alludes to disappointing results. It cites the “setback” in April, when Lockheed’s F-16 jet fighter and Boeing Co.’s F/A-18 Super Hornet were eliminated from the $11 billion Indian competition to replace the subcontinent’s aging fleet of 1970s-era MiG-21s.

Aircraft on the shortlist were Dassault Aviation SA’s Rafale and the Eurofighter made by BAE Systems Plc, Finmeccanica SpA and European Aeronautic, Defense & Space Co.

Weapons Cooperation

Lockheed Martin said in June it may offer the F-35 stealth fighter to India. The Cornyn-Lieberman requirement for the security cooperation report helped open an avenue to do that, Lockheed Senior Vice President Patrick Dewar said in a June interview at the Paris Air Show.

India has urged the U.S. to give it more access to technology so that the two countries can develop weapons together. The Pentagon acknowledged that goal in the report.

“The United States wants to develop deeper defense industrial cooperation with India, including a range of cooperative research and development,” they wrote in the assessment. “The United States is committed to providing India with top-of-the-line technology.”

The Cornyn-Lieberman provision had called for the Pentagon to assess the potential for jointly developing equipment such as a replacement for the U.S. Air Force T-38 trainer jet. Today’s report didn’t specifically address that system.

Efforts for the next five years will place “particular emphasis on maritime security and counterterrorism activities and expanding defense trade and armaments cooperation,” the Pentagon reported.

--With assistance from Gopal Ratnam in Washington. Editors: Steven Komarow, Jim Rubin.

To contact the reporter on this story: Viola Gienger in Washington at vgienger@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at Msilva34@bloomberg.net.

buglerbilly

03-11-11, 03:00 PM

Rolls-Royce Delivers First LiftFan from New Advanced Facility

(Source: Rolls-Royce; issued November 2, 2011)

INDIANAPOLIS --- Rolls-Royce, the global power systems company, has delivered the first Rolls-Royce LiftFan for the F-35B Lightning II to have been assembled at its new LiftFan Factory near Indianapolis, IN, US.

The new facility is dedicated to the LiftFan program and delivers world-leading production efficiency, by introducing state-of-the-art manufacturing techniques and innovative technologies. This will result in lower costs for the F-35B Lightning II Program.

The LiftFan is part of the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem that provides Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) capability for the first aircraft in history to combine the technology with stealth and supersonic speed. This fifth-generation fighter will provide the US Marine Corps and other future customers with increased capability and the option to deploy from forward bases.

Neil Mehta, Rolls-Royce, LiftSystem Program Director, said: “Rolls-Royce has a proud heritage in vertical lift technology. The LiftSystem continues to build on that legacy. This new focused facility will enable us to deliver this unique capability to the customer while reducing cost.”

John Gallo, Rolls-Royce, Executive Vice President, Business Operations, said: “Our new LiftFan Factory features state-of-the-art manufacturing technology, making it one of the most efficient Rolls-Royce facilities anywhere in the world. This purpose built facility will enable us to deliver even greater value for our customer.”

The Rolls-Royce LiftSystem is the only propulsion system of its type in the world. The LiftSystem comprises a LiftFan, Roll Posts and 3 Bearing Swivel Module.

-ends-

buglerbilly

04-11-11, 06:16 AM

Sixty-five stealth jets sufficient for now, top soldier reassures MPs

campbell clark

OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update

Posted on Thursday, November 3, 2011 3:20PM EDT

General Walter Natynczyk, the Chief of Defence Staff, appears before a Commons committee in Ottawa on Nov. 3, 2011.
THE CANADIAN PRESS

Canada’s top soldier says the 65 stealth fighters the government is planning to buy are the minimum number the military needs – but he hinted the back-up if jets are destroyed is that more will be for sale later.

General Walter Natynczyk, the Chief of Defence Staff, told members of the Commons defence committee Thursday that the 65 F-35 fighters the government is planning to buy “is the minimum operational essential for the needs of Canada.”

He said the government’s policy is not to buy “attrition aircraft” for any kind of plane – in other words, not to buy spares in case some are shot down, crash, or break. But he added that the good thing is that the next-generation aircraft will be coming off the production line in big numbers for many years.

“I think the positive with the F-35, it’s going to be built in the thousands over a long period of time,” he told reporters.

Defence Minister Peter Mackay maintains the fleet of 65 jets will be enough, but military planners have expressed concerns in briefing notes about how the military will handle the gap when planes are lost.

Gen. Natynczyk didn’t say how big a fleet of fighters would make the military feel comfortable that it can handle losses. He repeated that the government policy is not to buy for attrition, and that the military’s focus is on getting 65 when it needs them, between 2017 and 2020.

“Sixty-five is the minimal operational requirement for us,” he told the defence committee. “We need to have these aircraft both for our sovereignty of Canada and to meet our international obligations as set by the government of Canada.”

The F-35 acquisition, to be the most expensive purchase of military equipment in Canadian history, is riddled with questions. Cost estimates in the United States now far exceed Ottawa’s estimates that it will pay $14.7-billion to buy and maintain the planes for 20 years. Production is being delayed, a Pentagon official has urged training on the aircraft to be delayed for 10 months because it is still too risky, and both U.S. military officials and politicians have raised concerns the planes won’t be affordable .

Gen. Natynczyk told the committee the problem is that there are few fighter planes on the market, and to prepare for unpredictable long-term threats, the F-35 is the best technology available – a so-called “fifth-generation” fighter with low-visibility stealth technology and control systems. And he told reporters that Canadian fighter pilots say that’s what they think is the best. The plane, however, has yet to emerge from early flight testing.

The F-35s are slated to replace Canada’s current fleet of about 77 CF-18 fighters – seven of which are now returning from operations in Libya.

Attrition has been a fact of life with the CF-18s. Canada initially bought 120 of the fighters, but decided to upgrade only 80 of the remaining jets in 2001. The Defence Department expects attrition, at a rate of losing one CF-18 from the fleet every two years.

buglerbilly

05-11-11, 03:07 AM

Lockheed Shows Off F-35 Fighter Amid Budget Concerns

November 04, 2011

Philadelphia Inquirer|by Edward Colimore

Tucked into a tight cockpit simulator of the U.S. military's newest fighter jet, Gina Diorio seemed a little overwhelmed by the high-tech gadgetry around her.

She caught on fast, taking off, retracting landing gear, then climbing to engage "enemy" aircraft. Two missiles, seen on big screens, cut through the sky to their targets.

"It was fun and informative," said Diorio, district office director for U.S. Rep. Scott Garrett (D., N.J.). She polished off her flight with two victory rolls.

The demonstration of the controversial F-35 Lightning II fighter and an update on its development and production Thursday at Lockheed Martin in Mount Laurel had a celebratory tone to it.

Officials at the company -- which plans to construct more than 2,443 of the fighters for the Marines, Navy, and Air Force -- highlighted the $382 billion project's local economic impact, the crafts' stealth and vertical-landing capabilities, and the need to replace the nation's aging fighters.

What didn't come up were the project's massive cost overruns, delays, and future prospects, considering the economic downturn and the mandate to reduce federal spending.

If Congress' bipartisan Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction can't agree on budget-cutting recommendations by Nov. 23 or Congress fails to enact them by Dec. 23, the result would be $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts in January 2013. Half would come from Pentagon programs.

"It would be inappropriate for Lockheed Martin to comment on the specific budget negotiations concerning budget cuts currently taking place," Sam Grizzle, spokesman for the company's aviation programs, said Thursday.

"We remain focused on delivering value to our customers by supporting their global security missions including the F-35 program," he said. " . . . We continue to make progress towards meeting the expectations of our U.S. and Allied forces."

The F-35 project is the military's largest weapons procurement program in history. U.S. allies including Britain, Australia, Canada, Israel, Italy, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Turkey have expressed interest in buying the aircraft, which cost an estimated $65 million each.

Defense Department officials said this month that India's military also could use a jet like the F-35, which has a top speed of up to 1,200 miles an hour.

Delivery of the aircraft, originally set for 2010, is expected in 2016.

"For more than a decade, the U.S. and our allies have invested in the development of the F-35, which will serve as a cornerstone of global security for many years," said Stephen Callaghan, director of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Programs in Washington.

The program will impact the U.S. economy directly and indirectly, generating over 127,000 jobs, he added.

With 51 suppliers in New Jersey -- including Camden's L-3 Communications, which manufactures defense systems and equipment -- company officials said the program has provided 950 jobs in the state and pumped more than $63 million into the economy.

In Pennsylvania, it supports 260 jobs through 47 suppliers and has added $31 million to the economy.

Lockheed Martin has been part of the Delaware Valley economy for almost 60 years, said Dale Bennett, president of the Mission Systems and Sensors business unit in Mount Laurel.

It employs more than 9,000 people in the region, Bennett said, and pays New Jersey-based suppliers approximately $770 million annually.

"The F-35 program is a critical element to our success in this region," he said.

The Joint Strike Fighter has been undergoing tests at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst to assess its capability to take off and land on an aircraft carrier deck.

Barring any reduction in federal spending, the Air Force expects to purchase 1,763 F-35s, while the Navy and Marines will buy a total of 680. More than 500 will go to allies.

Air Force and Navy versions are designed for conventional takeoff and landing on fixed runways and aircraft carriers. The Marines' F-35, the most complex model, is designed for short takeoffs and vertical landing.

"We are developing and testing," said Callaghan, a retired Navy aviator, who gave his update Thursday to New Jersey suppliers, elected officials, and Lockheed Martin executives.

"We are 9 to 10 percent ahead of plan on flights tests. We're making very good strides," he said.

The various F-35 versions share common parts, helping to keep costs down, officials said. The cost also is affected by the number of aircraft put into production. Lockheed Martin eventually hopes to turn out about 17 planes a month.

"As our [current fighter] planes get older, they become more expensive to maintain and operate," Callaghan said. "The threats in the world continue to advance, and the older ones won't survive. . . . We need the next generation" of fighters.

© Copyright 2011 Philadelphia Inquirer. All rights reserved.

buglerbilly

05-11-11, 03:11 AM

F-35 JSF Flight Test Update

So, Lockheed Martin just released the latest numbers for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter flight testing.

Here’s the quick and dirty from Lockheed:

October was the busiest month for flying in the history of the F-35 flight test program, with F-35 aircraft executing 122 flights. The F-35B aircraft known as BF-2 accomplished 22 flights, the most ever for an F-35 in one month.

■ F-35Bs completed their 500th flight on Sept. 30. In October, F-35Bs executed the most vertical landings (73) for a single month in the history of the flight test program, including the 200th vertical landing for the program Oct. 4.

■ AF-12 and AF-13 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aircraft were delivered to the 33d Fighter Wing at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., on Oct. 19 and 26, respectively. This marked the fifth and sixth delivery of CTOL jets to Eglin and the 12th overall delivery of an F-35 to the Department of Defense in 2011.

■ As of Nov. 3, F-35C carrier variant (CV) jets had executed 59 successful catapult launches and three arrestments.

■ F-35C aircraft achieved 200 flight hours on Sept. 22.

■ The F-35A known as AF-1 achieved the F-35’s maximum design limit speed of Mach 1.6 for the first time on Oct. 25.

Cumulative flight test activity totals for 2011 are provided below:

■ F-35A CTOL jets have flown 407 times.
■ F-35B STOVL aircraft have completed 296 flights.
■ F-35C CV jets have flown 134 times.

From the start of flight testing in December 2006 through Nov. 3, F-35s flew 1,432 times, including the production-model flights and AA-1, the original flight test aircraft.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/#ixzz1cnDfAg1J
Defense.org

ADMk2

05-11-11, 03:51 AM

Interesting flight test update.

Goon has been saying for years F-35 won't reach M1.6 because of unspecified 'gremlins' in the airframe. Now that it has, he's moved on to arguing F-35 isn't good enough as the JORD document specified M1.8 and it won't make that speed (in his not so humble opinion).

Can't wait to see what he'll say when it does...

buglerbilly

05-11-11, 08:00 AM

Can't wait to see what he'll say when it does...

"Tell 'em they're dreaming............" *Hic*

buglerbilly

10-11-11, 03:03 PM

Photo release: First F-35C catapult launch at NAS Patuxent River

Navy test pilot Lt. Chris Tabert flies F-35C test aircraft CF-3 off the TC-7 steam catapult at NAS Patuxent River Nov. 4. (U.S. Navy photo)

Nov 8, 2011

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – Navy test pilot Lt. Chris Tabert flies F-35C test aircraft CF-3 off the TC-7 steam catapult at NAS Patuxent River Nov. 4. The launch was the first time the test catapult here launched an F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. Previous catapult testing occurred in Lakehurst, N.J. The F-35C carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is distinct from the F-35A and F-35B variants with its larger wing surfaces and reinforced landing gear to withstand catapult launches and deck landing impacts associated with the demanding aircraft carrier environment. Initial carrier trials for the F-35C are scheduled for 2013. The F-35C is undergoing test and evaluation at NAS Patuxent River before delivery to the fleet. (U.S. Navy photo)

Uploaded by NAVAIRSYSCOM on Nov 8, 2011
NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. -- Navy test pilot Lt. Chris Tabert flies F-35C test aircraft CF-3 off the TC-7 steam catapult at NAS Patuxent River Nov. 4. The launch was the first time the test catapult here launched an F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. Previous catapult testing occurred in Lakehurst, N.J. The F-35C carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is distinct from the F-35A and F-35B variants with its larger wing surfaces and reinforced landing gear to withstand catapult launches and deck landing impacts associated with the demanding aircraft carrier environment. Initial carrier trials for the F-35C are scheduled for 2013. The F-35C is undergoing test and evaluation at NAS Patuxent River before delivery to the fleet.

PEO(JSF) Public Affairs
(301) 757-2211

ADMk2

11-11-11, 03:49 AM

Goon predictably poo-pooed this on Ares. It launched light on fuel he criticised. The nose gear had a little bobble he whinged, this proves nothing and requires more testing and so on...

1. Of course it launched light. It's the very first cat-shot. It was intended to fly, do a single lap of the racetrack, land again, refuel, reset on the cat and probably launched again. As a flight test engineer one would think he would thoroughly approve of the cautious, methodical way that testing is proceeding, the way that flight hours and test points are continually being met and increasing weekly, but no. Unfortunately it's the F-35 that is doing this. Can't let several years of successful testing and more nd more confidence that L-M's claims are right, get in the way of years of unmitigated spite...

2.The nose gear bobbled. Wow the strut dampening wasn't set exactly perfectly on the very first cat-shot. Clearly the end of the JSF program is in sight then.. I'm surprised he hasn't emailed a US Senator about it...

Anyone who follows his crap should see this for what it is. It wouldn't matter if that -C model had launched carry 10 tons of stores, had supercruised at Mach 2 for 800nm at 70,000 feet with an RCS the size of a gnat and had a bring-back capability of 9 of those 10 tons. He'd still find fault with it...

buglerbilly

11-11-11, 05:18 AM

Is it Goon that posts as AirPower?

He's a moron, a dogmatic idiot...................

ADMk2

11-11-11, 05:28 AM

Not sure, though with his habit of creating multiple pseudonyms and then arguing with himself until his 'Horde' persona is 'proven' right, it wouldn't surprise me...

His later claim to proof is the computer game Harpoon 3. That's where he gets his 'simulation' results from...

Gubler, A.

11-11-11, 07:58 AM

Reminds me of his carrier F-22 with canards mounted on the nose gear doors. He flew that in Windows Flight Simulator... Proven!

ADMk2

11-11-11, 08:10 AM

Reminds me of his carrier F-22 with canards mounted on the nose gear doors. He flew that in Windows Flight Simulator... Proven!

Well it's wrong to expect too much I guess. He is employed formally within a 'not for profit' entity afterall. Interesting that he professes expertise in the "marketplace" though when his last 12-15 years has been as the head of not-for-profit entities (APA and AFTS)...

:D

Gubler, A.

11-11-11, 08:33 AM

You too can benefit from the expertise of Mr Goon for only $1500 a pop. Wonder how this is working out for him? Do I really need to ask...

http://www.bestthinking.com/transactions/peter-a-goon

While he is waiting for his speaker engagements to roll in he seems to have a thing for John McCain and Annabel Crabb on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/horde_

buglerbilly

11-11-11, 10:17 AM

Is Floppsy still "teaching" at Uni? Or was that just another of his bizarre mis-persona's.................???

It beggars the mind to think what kind of "trash" students result from his lessons, the poor things.......:cuckoo

ADMk2

11-11-11, 02:12 PM

buglerbilly

11-11-11, 02:28 PM

He doesn't teach Defence? How disappointing.............

ADMk2

11-11-11, 02:53 PM

He doesn't teach Defence? How disappointing.............

Don't blame me, but if you click that link then yes, you'll realise he "teaches" a bit of defence stuff, based on his vast defence experience and training, obviously...

buglerbilly

11-11-11, 03:11 PM

Don't blame me, but if you click that link then yes, you'll realise he "teaches" a bit of defence stuff, based on his vast defence experience and training, obviously...

I wonder WHY the Uni thinks or thought he was suitable to do so? I don't have a high opinion of some of our Centres of Learning as it is, with at least half of the Lecturers I've met borderline morons...........the dick that was teaching Procurement here in WA a few years ago, had never even held a Procurement job!!! THAT sounded logical, so no surprise the Mad Bunny is teaching even a modicum of Defence matters...............

buglerbilly

14-11-11, 09:50 AM

DUBAI: Lockheed F-35 is 'coming' to the Middle East

By: Stephen Trimble Dubai

4 hours ago

Source:

Lockheed Martin is still barred from selling or even marketing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in the Persian Gulf region, but perhaps not for long.

Asked about the conspicuous absence of F-35 promotional materials at the Dubai air show, Lockheed vice-president of business development George Standridge predicted that situation would not last forever.

"It's coming. It's coming," Standridge said, referring to the stealth fighter that is currently in development and production.

© Lockheed Martin

Export control officials in Washington DC must clear defence contractors to share information about US-owned weapons technologies. So far, the F-35 has not been cleared for export to Middle East countries outside Israel and Turkey, and that is despite the stated interest of the UAE air force and one of Lockheed's marketing briefings from 2007.

It is, however, possible that the F-35's export status in the Middle East is under review by export control officials. Asked if there was a process underway to clear the F-35 for export in the UAE, Standridge replied: "I think the appropriate communications are occurring," but he declined to elaborate.

The UAE is among several air forces in the Middle East that Lockheed included on a 2007 marketing slide that identified possible future F-35 buyers. On the same slide is named Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain and Kuwait.

Meanwhile, Maj Gen Ibrahim Naser al-Alawi, deputy chief of the UAE air force, showed a picture of the F-35 and the Lockheed F-22 during a presentation about the country's air combat requirements in a 2009 presentation.

On 12 November, al-Alawi also revealed that the UAE planned to acquire a "next generation fighter" in the 2018-2035 timeframe.

buglerbilly

14-11-11, 01:14 PM

Joint Strike Fighter Can Carry Raytheon Joint Standoff Weapon Internally

(Source: Raytheon Company; issued November 13, 2011)

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates --- Raytheon Company has completed a fit check of the Joint Standoff Weapon in the internal carriage bay of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

"The capabilities of the JSF combined with JSOW C-1's ability to precisely engage moving ships at sea from standoff ranges would give the U.S. and coalition warfighter a powerful capability," said Cmdr. Samuel Hanaki , U.S. Navy JSOW deputy program manager.

During the fit check, Raytheon technicians loaded a JSOW shape in the JSF's internal carriage bay and conducted a series of tests to prove the bay door could close properly without damaging the aircraft or the weapon.

"JSOW C-1 is the world's first net-enabled standoff weapon that can engage a moving maritime target," said Phyllis McEnroe, JSOW program director for Raytheon Missile Systems. "With its more than 110 kilometer range (68 statute miles) and tunnel defeat capability, JSOW C-1 will give members of the JSF a critical capability no other weapon can provide."

JSOW is a family of low-cost, air-to-ground weapons that employs an integrated GPS- inertial navigation system and terminal imaging infrared seeker, guiding the weapon to the target. JSOW C-1 adds moving maritime target capability and the two-way strike common weapon datalink to the combat-proven weapon.

-- JSOW C-1 is the world's first networked weapon, and has a range of more than 110 kilometers (60 nautical miles).
-- The U.S. Navy completed the first free-flight test of JSOW C-1 on July 26, 2011.

Raytheon Company, with 2010 sales of $25 billion, is a technology and innovation leader specializing in defense, homeland security and other government markets throughout the world. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass. , Raytheon employs 72,000 people worldwide.

-ends-

ADMk2

16-11-11, 01:41 PM

buglerbilly

17-11-11, 02:11 PM

Lockheed Martin Awards Vision Systems International Contract for F-35 Helmet Mounted Display Systems Enhancements

(Source: Vision Systems International; issued November 16, 2011)

SAN JOSE, Calif. --- Lockheed Martin Aerospace has awarded Vision Systems International (VSI) two additional phases in the development of the helmet mounted display system (HMDS) on the F-35. The contract will enable VSI to enhance the F-35 HMDS currently in production for the 5th generation Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

"This award reaffirms the confidence that Lockheed Martin has in VSI to advance the fifth generation HMDS capabilities that are integral to the success of the F-35 program," said Drew Brugal , president of VSI.

The VSI team began working to mitigate display jitter affecting the display symbology, enhance the helmet system's night-vision performance capabilities, and incorporate the latest digital imaging sensor capabilities into the HMDS to improve night vision performance in March of 2011. Additionally, VSI has modified the current magnetic receiver unit (MRU) contained in the pilot's HMDS to detect both seat and aircraft vibration frequencies and filter them out in both the hardware and software contained in the HMDS display processor. "We have already tested this new MRU capability and proven that it works," said Dan Nash, Vice President of F-35 Programs at VSI.

To enhance night-vision performance capabilities, VSI is incorporating new digital night-vision sensors in both the fixed camera mounted in the cockpit and the helmet camera with the pilot's helmet mounted display (HMD). The resulting images will be sharper and more viewable at extremely low light levels.

"We have been receiving very positive feedback from both the System Development and Demonstration (SSD) and Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) pilots using the HMD system, and from those who participated in the successful catapult testing in early August and the shipboard Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) flight tests on the Wasp over a three-week period in October," Brugal said. Deliveries of the enhanced HMDS are scheduled to begin in the third quarter of 2013.

Founded in 1996, VSI is a joint venture between Elbit Systems of America, a subsidiary of Elbit Systems Ltd. and Rockwell Collins VSI has produced more than 4,500 joint helmet mounted cueing systems (JHMCS) for the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft. Additionally, VSI is under contract to deliver Night Vision Cueing and Display Systems (NVCD) to the US Air Force and Navy, and the Fifth Generation HMDS for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. VSI also produces the Targo HMDs for multiple aviation platforms including fighters, light attack, military airlift and trainers.

-ends-

buglerbilly

17-11-11, 09:08 PM

Canada Dismisses 'Apocryphal' Talk of F-35

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 16 Nov 2011 18:49

OTTAWA - Canada's defense minister said it was premature to signal the end of the F-35 fighter jet that is to become the backbone of its air force, after his U.S. counterpart said the program may have to be axed.

"This sort of apocryphal language that the Joint Strike Fighter program is coming to an end and that countries are pulling back is not correct. It's premature to make those kinds of judgments," Defense Minister Peter MacKay said Nov. 16.

"A lot of this, clearly, is brought about by budgetary pressures, and Canada, like every country, is concerned about delays in delivery and discussions around the cost."

MacKay said Canada is in discussions with the manufacturer Lockheed Martin as well as other countries that committed to buying the next-generation fighters.

"Let's not get ahead of ourselves," he told reporters.

Pentagon chief Leon Panetta this week warned it would have to look at draconian measures, including possibly ending the F-35 fighter jet program if Congress fails this month to reach a deal to reduce the country's deficit and prevent deep defense budget cuts.

Canada has made plans to spend billions on its own F-35 fleet.

Earlier, Prime Minister Stephen Harper affirmed in parliament that Canada is proceeding with the purchase while a junior minister said the F-35 "is critical to maintaining Canada's sovereignty."

"There is no indication that anybody is walking away from the F-35 program," Associate Minister of National Defense Julian Fantino added.

"The aircraft are coming off the production line. Pilots are flying them," Fantino said. "They are being delivered to countries. Our program is on track, on time and we are staying with it."

geof

18-11-11, 06:34 AM

buglerbilly

18-11-11, 11:24 AM

New cracks stop vertical landings on some F-35Bs

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

20 minutes ago

Source:

Three of the five developmental Lockheed Martin F-35Bs have developed tiny cracks in a lift fan-related component which prevent the flight-test aircraft from reconfiguring in flight and landing vertically.

Two flight-test aircraft - BF-1 and BF-2 - are now being modified with a redesigned actuator support beam, according to the joint programme office.

BF-4 has also developed "hairline" cracks in the same part, but is continuing to fly in conventional mode only until the part is modified, the programme said.

The potential for cracks to develop in the actuator support beam was identified several years ago. A redesigned beam was installed on the fifth short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) test aircraft during final assembly, the programme said. That means the BF-5 test aircraft can continue to make vertical landings as part of the flight-test programme.

The only remaining test aircraft - BF-3 - has accumulated fewer flight hours. No cracks have yet been found. BF-3 is not technically restricted from completing vertical landings, but has only flown in conventional mode since the cracking problem was discovered.

The overall impact on the flight-test programme is expected to be light, programme officials said. BF-5 was the only STOVL variant scheduled to complete more vertical landings this year.

The cracks were discovered about a month after BF-2 and BF-4 completed a series of shipboard vertical landings on the USS Wasp, an LHD-class amphibious carrier.

The 18-day period aboard the Wasp was hailed as a landmark in the F-35B flight-test programme, symbolising its recovery from technical issues that had limited the STOVL variant to 10 vertical landings in 2010.

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates placed the F-35B variant on a loosely defined "probation" earlier this year, warning that further problems could result in the programme's termination.

The F-35B appeared to rebound after Gates' announcement on 6 January. Three of the five propulsion system glitches have been fixed, with the remaining two expected to be cleared by February. A cracked bulkhead discovered in durability tests last November has also been redesigned.

However, the F-35B continues to face higher scrutiny amid the US military's uncertain budget situation.

Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, and a noted F-35 critic, links the newly-discovered cracks on the actuator support beam to his overall case against the F-35B.

"The least capable, most complex, most expensive, most problematic F-35 is amply demonstrating its doomed-from-the-start heritage," Wheeler said.

What a dipshit comment pandering to the audience of similar disaffected moaning pissants who know doodly shit.............

Weasel

18-11-11, 12:57 PM

Latest Lockmart F-35 video here:

Do yourself a favour and watch in HD too. Very nice and shiny...

Enjoy the EOTS vision of USS Wasp towards the end of the video. Some who won't be named out there keep telling us how it's not working...

And then of course there's the "helmet that failed". Oh wait, that's it (attached) there on BF-2 and BF-4 during the USS Wasp trials. Goodness me, seems the Internet "experts" weren't so correct afterall...

Like the vid too, but it doesn't negate the truth that procurement and the way we do projects needs to be fixed. More like it is an unpleasant reminder.

My opinion (not observation) is that the plane will do well (just like the v-22) but man, it is the most painful labor to watch, especially if you are paying for it's gestation.

re: the f-35b: One operation that falls short of hitting it out of the park (the needed home run, to put the wolves at bay), but offered a glimmering of what the platform can do and it comes up with cracks? It is not good enough. We have to do better.

cheers

w

Gubler, A.

18-11-11, 10:21 PM

and it comes up with cracks? It is not good enough. We have to do better.

Come on W don't go all Winslow on us. These cracks are on a part that has already been superseeded. BF-5 and onwards have a new non cracking actuator beam.

JimWH

19-11-11, 01:16 AM

buglerbilly

19-11-11, 02:29 AM

Marine Commandant: Free the F-35B

By Richard Whittle

Published: November 18, 2011

WASHINGTON: When then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Gen. James Amos that he was going to put the F-35B vertical landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter on "probation" because of testing, structure and propulsion problems, the Marine Corps commandant didn't argue; he just explained.

"I looked at him and said, 'Sir, we need this airplane,'" Amos told me in his Pentagon office, recalling a conversation that took place two months before Gates publicly announced his decision last Jan. 6. Gates said that if the B variant couldn't be put "back on track" within two years, "then I believe it should be canceled."

After ten months of weekly meetings on the subject with senior Defense Department and Navy officials, as well as executives of the plane's maker, Lockheed Martin
, Amos says the company and the program office under Vice Adm. David Venlet, have resolved two of Gates' larger concerns entirely and found fixes for five engineering problems cited that are ready for testing in December and January. Amos -- a fighter pilot and the first aviator ever to serve as Marine Corps commandant -- is confident those fixes will work.

For that reason, the commandant hopes Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will soon declare the F-35B off "probation" -- whatever that undefined, non-regulation term actually means -- so the Marine variant of the JSF can shed the taint it acquired when Gates applied his unorthodox label.

"I just think it's getting a bum rap," Amos said, sounding a bit like a worried parent. "The airplane's performing really well now -- I mean really well."

Two of Gates' criticisms were that flight tests of the short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B were behind schedule and that it had yet to land on and take off from an amphibious assault ship, the type of vessel that will serve as the STOVL's home away from home in the Marine Corps. Today the facts are much different.

As of Nov. 1, the F-35B had completed 291 of 293 test flights planned for calendar 2011, putting it 13% ahead of its new schedule. By the same date, two B variants had completed more than two weeks of sea trials on the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp, during which they completed 72 short takeoffs and vertical landings, all but flawlessly. One pilot said his biggest problem was putting the nose wheel down in a one-foot square target on the ship's pitching deck.

The decision on probation is all Panetta's to make, Amos said, noting that no criteria for making it are to be found in the Federal Acquisition Regulations because "probation" isn't an official status. In any event, the commandant hopes the F-35B gets a clean bill of health "sooner rather than later." Image isn't everything, but Amos figures it's increasingly important given current crisis negotiations over how much to cut the defense budget.

The F-35, officially the "Lightning II," is being built in three variants -- conventional, vertical and aircraft carrier landing models -- for the Air Force, Marines, Navy and eight allied nations that are partners in the program. Like the Marines, Italy plans to buy the STOVL variant, and Spain is a likely customer once its finances improve.

At $379 billion or more to produce 2,443 F-35s for the U.S. services, according to the most recent Defense Department estimate, the project makes a juicy target for those looking for ways to ease the nation's economic and budget crises by cutting defense spending.

The B variant is particularly vulnerable, for when the option of reducing the size of the massive F-35 program comes up, Amos observed, the fact that Gates put the STOVL model on "probation" is almost always mentioned. To Amos, this seems to imply that the conventional takeoff Air Force version and carrier-capable Navy variant are doing better. "It's an inaccurate picture," he said.

The F-35B uses an innovative "lift fan" installed a couple of feet behind the cockpit to provide about half the roughly 40,000 lbs. of thrust it needs to hover or land vertically. Three of the five engineering problems that led Gates to put the plane on probation had to do with the lift fan, a new technology. A fourth concerned overheating in related "roll posts" that bleed hot engine air through ducts and downward from nozzles in each wing to control the aircraft's roll axis in vertical flight.

Amos offered this rundown of the engineering fixes Lockheed and engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney are making, with the costs covered by funds already appropriated for development:

-- An interior bulkhead that fits around the jet's Pratt & Whitney F135 engine and extends into the wings has been redesigned because of cracks in it discovered after 1,500 hours of durability testing. The bulkhead in question is titanium in the conventional and carrier versions of the aircraft but aluminum in the B variant to save weight. The redesigned bulkhead has been installed in the 24th F-35B built and corrections will be retrofitted into the first 23 B variants, five of which are being used in tests and the rest of which are in various stages of production.

-- Devices that operate the roll post nozzles were overheating when the F-35B hovered or flew forward at less than 60 knots, or about 75 mph, in vertical flight mode. These "actuators" are being insulated and the fix has been successful in flight test. Pratt & Whitney may change an adhesive used in the actuators to solve the excessive heating problem and obviate the need for the insulation in the future.

-- The drive mechanism that opens two Auxiliary Air Intake doors behind the clamshell lift fan door on top of the fuselage and holds them steady as the F-35B hovers or flies in vertical mode has been redesigned to be more robust and is being replaced. The change was made because turbulence created by the lift fan door causes the AAI doors to oscillate excessively with the current drive mechanism, making them likely to wear out too soon.

-- The driveshaft that runs from the engine to the lift fan to turn its blades has proven to fit imperfectly into its designed space by an "infinitesimally small" amount, as Amos described it. This means mechanics may have to pre-stress the part to install it. That creates problems when the shaft expands and contracts due to changes in its temperature as the aircraft warms up in flight. A thin steel "spacer," shaped something like a washer and about the diameter of a volleyball, has been incorporated to make the driveshaft fit better in the fifth F-35B variant as an interim fix. A redesigned driveshaft will become a standard production part beginning in early 2014.

-- Improved cooling and temperature monitors have been added to ensure safe operation when lift fan clutch plates that sometimes drag against one another during normal flight produce excessive heat. Adjusting the distance between the clutch plates is expected to solve take care of the problem.

Amos wants Panetta's decision on taking the F-35B variant off probation to be "event-driven," not made out of a sense or urgency, he said, adding that he wants to "make sure that everybody is comfortable with this."

The commandant already is.

Weasel

19-11-11, 03:18 PM

Weasel, I know your long standing gripe with procurement systems, but WRT to the F-35 I'm not convinced that there are any major issues with the aircraft per sae so much as a far higher visibility of the program than those before it. Like Abe says, the part cracking is a non-issue: the problem is in a prototype aircraft and the issue has already been identified to be fixed. It's merely media commentary for it's own sake.

I replied to all this with an essay and it didn't take, for whatever reason. long and the short is that:

Yes, the F-35 program is an example of what is wrong with the defense industry as a whole
No, it is not the worse program
Yes, I think the aircraft will do well
LM knows all this (it is not news) and there are some that are searching for ways to change their culture
cracks or no cracks the f-35b recent performance wasn't good enough to alleviate the poor performance to date...It is fair comment to say "... Too little, too late...". Hence Amos' frustration level.
Why? because it is down to popular opinion now. Miracles need to happen to start reversing the negative perception that is snow balling in Congress.
I (for my part) and trying to reverse that trend. Item (1 through 4) points to this. There does (however) have to be a little bit of honesty and acceptance transfused into the program before things can change.

Good reading on this subject (cost blow outs in the defense industry): Design and Development of Fighting Vehicles by R.M. Ogorkiewicz; published 1968. Given the date of publication the content is somewhat prophetic.

cheers

W

buglerbilly

21-11-11, 02:07 PM

U.S., Canadian Defense Leaders Call F-35 Crucial

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued November 18, 2011)

HALIFAX, Nova Scotia --- Calling it crucial to the defense of North America, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Canadian Defense Minister Peter G. MacKay today emphasized that both nations are committed to developing the F-35 joint strike fighter.

At a news conference here in conjunction with the Halifax International Security Forum, the defense leaders said budget pressures should not stand in the way of fielding the next-generation fighter jet.

Panetta said he’s seen media reports that the United States is not committed to the joint strike fighter.

“Let me make very clear that the United States is committed to the development of the F-35, and to a cooperative relationship with the F-35 with our Canadian friends,” he said. “The F-35 is going to be an essential fighter that will help in [the North American Aerospace Defense Command] and will be the future in helping us with security challenges that we face.”

Despite looming budget cuts, Panetta said, the F-35’s capabilities are essential.

“I feel very confident that we’ll get funding for the F-35 program,” he said. “This is the fighter plane for the future, and in some ways, we really have no alternative. This is the plane that is going to be able to provide the technology [and] the capabilities for the future.

“We need to have this [aircraft],” Panetta continued. “It’s true for us. It’s true for our partners -- not only Canadians, but others -- who are going to work with us and participate with us in the development of the F-35.”

Making budget decisions involves looking for savings, the secretary said, citing areas such as procurement reform.

“But we also have to look at areas where we continue to invest in the future, and the F-35 is one of those areas,” he added.

MacKay said the “eye-watering technology aboard the F-35” is why Canada has chosen to participate in the program.

“It’s the ability to dominate and own the airspace over continental North America,” he said. “There is no fifth-generation aircraft other than the F-35 available to Canada and the United States, so all of the hypothetical discussions -- and quite negative discussions, quite frankly -- about this program are really just clatter and noise.

“This program is going ahead,” he continued. “Clearly, budgetary pressures are going to lead to speculation. We are dealing with our budgets, as all countries are dealing with this budget, but we are not wavering on our commitment to this program.”

Every defense department has certain pillars, MacKay said.

“This is one of those pillars: having the ability to protect your sovereignty. And there is a direct link -- a direct link -- between our national sovereignty and our ability to protect our airspace,” he said.

-ends-

buglerbilly

22-11-11, 02:57 PM

PICTURE: Lockheed rolls out UK's first Joint Strike Fighter

By: Craig Hoyle London

02:45 21 Nov 2011

Source:

Lockheed Martin has rolled out the UK's first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), with the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft to be delivered in 2012.

As the first F-35 to have been manufactured for an international partner, aircraft BK-1 will now enter a period of functional fuel system checks at Lockheed's Fort Worth site in Texas. It will then undergo "ground and flight tests in the coming months", the US-based airframer said.

© Randy Crites/Lockheed Martin

The UK ordered three STOVL F-35Bs to participate in the US-led programme's initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) phase, but subsequently switched its interest to acquiring the larger F-35C carrier variant to meet its Joint Combat Aircraft requirement. Its third IOT&E aircraft is likely to be in the preferred production configuration, with this change to be enabled under an agreement with the US Navy.

Once delivered, the UK's aircraft will participate in joint test activities to be performed in the USA.

"This is a major milestone in the JSF programme for the UK, and we look forward to starting to operate the first British F-35s next year," said Grp Capt Harv Smyth, the UK's Joint Strike Fighter national deputy.

buglerbilly

01-12-11, 12:44 AM

Amendment Would Allow U.S.-U.K. F-35 Transfer

By KATE BRANNEN

Published: 30 Nov 2011 15:18

The U.S. Senate approved an amendment to the 2012 defense authorization bill that would allow the United States to exchange certain F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft with the United Kingdom.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sponsored the amendment, which was approved by unanimous consent Nov. 30.

The Senate has also voted to limit debate on the authorization bill to another 30 hours, giving the legislation a chance to make it out of the Senate. If passed, the Senate authorization bill will have to be resolved with the House version passed earlier this year before making its way to the president for his signature.

The Pentagon requested the JSF amendment in a June 14 letter from Elizabeth King, assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs, to Vice President Joseph Biden, in his role as president of the Senate.

The JSF trade, which the Pentagon describes as "mutually beneficial" and "cost neutral," requires such a legislative amendment to be implemented.

According to King's letter, the United States would give the United Kingdom one of its carrier variants (F-35C) in exchange for a short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) version (F-35B).

The United Kingdom decided last year, as part of its Strategic Defense and Security Review, to stop buying the F-35B. Instead, the Royal Navy will only buy the F-35C, which is being designed for conventional takeoffs and landings on aircraft carriers.

The cost-savings measure resulted in the U.K. having an extra F-35B on its hands.

The United States, which is buying the F-35B for the Marine Corps and the F-35C for the Navy, was not scheduled to receive its F-35Bs until later. A third variant, the F-35A, is being developed for the Air Force.

Under the exchange, the United Kingdom would have to cover any costs required to upgrade its F-35B aircraft so that it would be identical to the version the U.S. had planned to buy, according to the letter. The United Kingdom would also be responsible for any unique requirements it has for the F-35C.

Under the plan, United States would get an F-35B two years earlier. This means $10 million in additional operations and maintenance costs for the Marine Corps in 2013 and 2014 due to increased flight hours, fuel, training costs, etc.

In January, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates put the F-35B portion of the JSF program on probation for two years, saying he had serious concerns about the aircraft's performance in tests.

"If we cannot fix this variant during this time frame and get it back on track in terms of performance, cost and schedule, then I believe it should be canceled," Gates said.

A separate amendment, also approved Nov. 30, requires Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to submit a report to Congress on the F-35B's probationary period.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., sponsored this amendment, which was also approved by unanimous consent.

buglerbilly

01-12-11, 12:46 AM

USMC F-35B Training Likely To Begin in Aug. 2012

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 30 Nov 2011 17:51

The U.S. Marine Corps could start training new students to fly its F-35B short take-off vertical (STOVL) landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in August 2012, a senior Defense Department official said.

The DoD has opted to use an approach based on reducing risks prior to starting training operations at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Fla., current and former officials said. As such the Pentagon has not set a specific date to issue a military flight release. Instead, the start of training will be "event driven."

Currently "[The U.S. Air Force and Department of the Navy] are waiting for aircraft flight clearance for test pilot maturation flights," a senior DoD official said. Further, "both services are still trying to determine how many maturation hours are needed by test pilots before instructor pilots and then students can be trained."

But if everything goes as currently planned, the Marine Corps students will probably start flying their version of the Lightning II around August 2012.

"Looks like training for STOVL students may go around August of this coming year," the official said. "Once student training starts, it will include all modes including STOVL."

Originally, the STOVL training was projected to start around April 2012. Air Force pilots will likely start training in the F-35A conventional-takeoff version months before the Marines, as previously planned.

But before Marines or any other students take to the air, the F-35 will have to undertake initial maturation flights, using the jet's conventional takeoff and landing mode in the case of the STOVL aircraft. Once clearance is received, the F-35B will fly using all of its modes.

"Nobody wants to go too fast, but on the other hand nobody wants to go too slow," said former Marine Corps deputy commandant for aviation, retired Lt. Gen. George Trautman. "At the end of the day it's going to be informed subjectivity where the leadership decides what sorties need to be flown in the maturation phase. I trust their collective judgment."

Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Emerson Gardner, a former aviator and deputy director of the Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office, agreed.

"This is a validation of the Marine Corps' event-driven process to achieving initial operating capability," he said. "Instead of identifying specific dates for levels of capability, they have identified which capabilities/levels of proficiency need to be demonstrated before moving to the next level and developed a stair step process to achieving it."

Trautman said that there is an ongoing debate about how many maturation hours the F-35 needs before operational pilots should start flying it.

"I'm actually hoping it doesn't take till August," he said. "There has been a dialogue going on about how many maturation hours are required."

The debate, which is taking place between engineers and other official at Naval Air Systems Command and the Air Force's Aeronautical System Center, stems from the fact the aircraft at Eglin are operational planes flown by fleet pilots, not instrumented like test aircraft at Edwards AFB, Calif., or Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River, Md., Trautman said.

But when it happens, the start of training operations will be an important milestone for the F-35 program.

"Whenever it occurs, absolutely it's a huge deal," Trautman said. "We want to start flying the airplane, we want to start getting the training cadre, the instructor cadre, up to speed so we can start getting students through there."

The sooner the maturation requirements can be met, the sooner the Marines can get pilots through the training pipeline, he said. Getting a base of trained pilots would then allow the Marines to move on to spooling up the first operational F-35B squadron at the Marines' base in Yuma, Az.

"It's been slower in the past year than we would have hoped, but there is lots of indication that the pace is going to pick-up. As it picks up, and things continue to go well for the program, that's the path that they're on, to stand-up that first squadron in Yuma," Trautman said. "It's just the normal evolution of things and it's good to know we're moving in that direction."

Gardner agreed.

"The Corps has begun the transition of all of its aviation inventory over the past decade, from MV-22s to UH-1Ys to AH-1Zs and now to the F-35B. Based on that history, they have learned to be event-driven and not calendar driven," he said. "The fact that they are continuing to move down this path confirms their confidence in the capability and should hearten supporters of the program."

buglerbilly

02-12-11, 03:02 AM

JSF's Build And Test Was 'Miscalculation,' Adm. Venlet Says; Production Must Slow

By Richard Whittle

Published: December 1, 2011

WASHINGTON: Fatigue testing and analysis are turning up so many potential cracks and "hot spots" in the Joint Strike Fighter's airframe that the production rate of the F-35 should be slowed further over the next few years, the program's head declared in an interview.

"The analyzed hot spots that have arisen in the last 12 months or so in the program have surprised us at the amount of change and at the cost," Vice Adm. David Venlet said in an interview at his office near the Pentagon. "Most of them are little ones, but when you bundle them all up and package them and look at where they are in the airplane and how hard they are to get at after you buy the jet, the cost burden of that is what sucks the wind out of your lungs. I believe it's wise to sort of temper production for a while here until we get some of these heavy years of learning under our belt and get that managed right. And then when we've got most of that known and we've got the management of the change activity better in hand, then we will be in a better position to ramp up production."

Venlet also took aim at a fundamental assumption of the JSF business model: concurrency. The JSF program was originally structured with a high rate of concurrency -- building production model aircraft while finishing ground and flight testing -- that assumed less change than is proving necessary.

"Fundamentally, that was a miscalculation," Venlet said. "You'd like to take the keys to your shiny new jet and give it to the fleet with all the capability and all the service life they want. What we're doing is, we're taking the keys to the shiny new jet, giving it to the fleet and saying, 'Give me that jet back in the first year. I've got to go take it up to this depot for a couple of months and tear into it and put in some structural mods, because if I don't, we're not going to be able to fly it more than a couple, three, four, five years.' That's what concurrency is doing to us." But he added: "I have the duty to navigate this program through concurrency. I don't have the luxury to stand on the pulpit and criticize and say how much I dislike it and wish we didn't have it. My duty is to help us navigate through it."

Lockheed Martin, prime contractor on the Pentagon's biggest program, has been pushing hard to increase the production rate, arguing its production line is ready and it has reduced problems on the line to speed things up. Speeding up production, of course, would boost economies of scale and help lower the politically sensitive price per plane.

But slowing production would help reduce the cost of replacing parts in jets that are being built before testing is complete, Venlet said. Although fatigue testing has barely begun -- along with "refined analysis" -- it's already turned up enough parts that need to be redesigned and replaced in jets already built that the changes may add $3 million to $5 million to each plane's cost.

The price of the F-35, being built by Lockheed Martin Corp. in three variants, has averaged roughly $111 million under the most recent Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 4 contract.

The required changes to the aircraft aren't a matter of safety or of the F-35's ability to perform its missions, Venlet said. They're necessary, though, to make sure the plane's structural parts last the 8,000 hours of service life required. Nor are the weaknesses surprising in the world of fighter jets, he added. The discoveries are "not a quote 'problem with the airplane,'" Venlet said. "It's a fighter made out of metal and composites. You always find some hot spots and cracks and you have to go make fixes. That's normal. This airplane was maybe thought to be a little bit better, wouldn't have so much discovery. Well, no. It's more like standard fighters."

Venlet declined to say how much he thinks production should be slowed. Earlier plans called for the Pentagon to order 42 F-35s in fiscal 2011, but that was cut to 35 and more recently it was dropped to 30. Previous plans, which Venlet's comments and the unprecedented pressure to cut the defense budget make clear will change, had been to ramp up orders to 32 in fiscal 2012, 42 in fiscal 2013, 62 in fiscal 2014, 81 in fiscal 2015 and 108 in fiscal 2016 before jumping to more than 200 a year after fundamental fatigue and flight testing is done.

Officially the "Lightning II," the F-35 is a stealthy attack jet Lockheed is building with major subcontractors Northrop Grumman Corp. and BAE Systems for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and 11 allied nations. There is a conventional take off and landing (CTOL) version, an aircraft carrier-suitable (CV) model and a short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) jump jet that hovers and lands much like a helicopter. The U.S. services alone are scheduled to buy 2,443 to replace a variety of older fighters, making the $379 billion program the Pentagon's largest.

Venlet's comments address a key issue in negotiations between the government and Lockheed for the next contract, LRIP 5. The government paid for design changes and retrofits through the first four lots, but Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall issued a memo in August requiring Lockheed to bear a "reasonable" share of such costs in LRIP 5. Lockheed complained last month that the government was refusing to reimburse it for parts the company was buying in advance for LRIP 5 aircraft as the price and terms of that next production contract are negotiated.

"We negotiated the LRIP 4 contract with a certain amount of resources considered to pay for concurrent changes," Venlet said. "We were probably off on the low side by a factor of four. Maybe five. And we've discovered that in this calendar year, '11, and it's basically sucked the wind out of our lungs with the burden, the financial burden." On top of that, he added, the cost of concurrency changes figures to grow as more testing is done -- one reason it's important to slow production rather than testing.

"Slowing down the test program would be probably the most damaging thing anybody could do to the program," Venlet said. "The test program must proceed as fast as possible."

Flight testing of the F-35, though going extremely well lately, is only 18 percent complete, Venlet said. As of Nov. 29, 1,364 test flights had been flown -- 896 of them in the past 10 months, despite two stoppages of a couple of weeks each to fix problems found by flying. Under a new program baseline created after the JSF project breached cost limits under the Nunn-McCurdy law, about 7,700 hours of flight tests are planned. "That's a lot," Venlet said, adding that number will grow if more problems are found.

Fatigue testing has barely begun, Venlet said. The CTOL variant's fatigue testing is about 20 percent complete; the CV variant has not started yet. For the STOVL variant, fatigue testing was halted at 6 percent last year and has not resumed after a crack in a large bulkhead in the wing was found, requiring a major redesign of that part.

That bulkhead crack was one of five discoveries in the F-35B that required engineering changes, one reason former Defense Secretary Robert Gates placed it on "probation" last January and said the Marine's plane should be canceled if the problems weren't solved within two years. Venlet repeated earlier statements that he was sure the changes needed to take care of the problems are now in place, though he wants to await final testing of them this winter before saying it's time for the jump jet to come off of probation.

After discovering the bulkhead crack in the B variant last year, Venlet explained, "We said, 'Well, where else do we need to look?' The fallout of that additional analysis has revealed additional spots that (may fail in) less than 8,000 hours of service life. We call them 'analyzed low-life hot spots.'" In other words, he said, engineering analysis indicates those spots "are going to crack" well before the parts in question have flown 8,000 hours.

"The question for me is not: 'F-35 or not?'" Venlet said. "The question is, how many and how fast? I'm not questioning the ultimate inventory numbers, I'm questioning the pace that we ramp up production for us and the partners, and can we afford it?"

Weasel

02-12-11, 03:51 AM

Fuck!...Fuck! Fuckity, Fuck!

nuff said

cheers

w

buglerbilly

02-12-11, 11:42 PM

GE, Rolls drop push to build F-35 engines

The F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), planes arrive at Edwards Air Force Base in California in this May 2010 file photo.
Credit: Reuters/Tom Reynolds/Lockheed Martin Corp/Handout

By Jim Wolf

Fri Dec 2, 2011 5:19pm EST

(Reuters) - General Electric Co and Rolls Royce dropped their drive to build an alternate engine for Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 joint strike fighter, giving up on what they had said could be a $100 billion market.

The decision to end their in-house bankrolling of the project beyond 2011, announced on Friday, is a boost for United Technologies Corp's Pratt & Whitney unit, maker of the engine used in the F-35's early production models.

The Defense Department earlier this year canceled funding for the GE-Rolls engine, capping repeated efforts to persuade Congress to kill it as a belt-tightening measure.

That led the partners to say they would foot the bill themselves for the rest of this year and fiscal 2012 in the hope that lawmakers would step back in with federal funding as they had done for years in rebuffing the Pentagon.

"The decision, reached jointly by GE and Rolls-Royce leadership, recognizes the continued uncertainty in the development and production schedules for the JSF program," the companies said.

The Joint Strike Fighter project is the Pentagon's costliest purchase ever at a projected $382.5 billion for more than 2,400 aircraft in three models over the next two decades.

Navy Vice Admiral David Venlet, who runs the program for the Pentagon, called in an interview published Thursday for slowing the plane's production because of what he described as a surprising number of potential airframe faults turned up in testing.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard McKeon, a key second engine backer, voiced disappointment that "the uncertainty regarding the future of our military budget, and the Joint Strike Fighter program in particular," had ended what he considered a model for government-industry partnership to contain costs.

"But decisions that could cripple our national security and our economy are being made today that will be difficult, if not impossible, to undo tomorrow," the California Republican added in a statement.

He was referring to deep spending cuts mandated by a congressional "super committee" failure to strike a $1.2 trillion deficit reduction deal last month.

Pratt in a statement on Friday said it remains focused on lowering engine costs and making sure the flight-test program is successful. "We are grateful for the continued confidence and support of our DoD customer" for the F-35 engine, the company said.

GE and Rolls had argued that a choice of engines would save money over time, putting the potential market at $100 billion or more. GE said the companies had spent tens of millions of dollars of their own on the project in 2011. Since 1997, the government has spent about $3 billion on it, GE said.

The company said it was working very closely with the Defense Department to speed the development of jet propulsion for U.S. warplanes' next generation beyond the F-35.

Even without the alternate engine program, GE's research and development investments for military and commercial aviation are at "historic levels," said Richard Kennedy, a company spokesman.

George Little, the Pentagon press secretary, said GE and Rolls-Royce were very important industrial partners "and we look forward to continuing to work with them."

(Additional reporting by Phillip Stewart in Washington and Karen Jacobs in Atlanta, editing by Dave Zimmerman, Gary Hill)

buglerbilly

02-12-11, 11:54 PM

GE, Rolls Give Up on F136 JSF Alternate Engine

Dec 2, 2011

By Guy Norris guy_norris@aviationweek.com

General Electric and Rolls-Royce are ending the F136 program after deciding to discontinue self-funding the alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

The move comes after an Oct. 31 meeting between GE Aviation leadership and Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter in which “it became clear that the [Defense Department] would not support the FET self-funding effort,” says GE. Although not surprising, given the department’s termination of the F136 development effort in April, the decision ends a 15-year effort to mount a competitive challenge to Pratt & Whitney’s incumbent F135 engine for the Lockheed Martin F-35.

Industry representatives have long surmised that the JSF’s total engine work was worth around $100 billion, although proponents of the competition also have argued that the jockeying could cut 15-20% over the life of the program. In the end, then, both teams appeared to be eyeing $40-50 billion of work.

The end of the F136 also could have potential implications for the future strategic balance of power between the two former fighter engine partners and the United Technologies Pratt & Whitney company as they position themselves for development of so-called sixth-generation combat engines. In light of the recent realignment between Pratt and Rolls over commercial engines, and the establishment of a new joint venture between them for development of future civil turbofans, the once inconceivable notion of the two joining forces on next-generation military engines may not be too far-fetched.

With almost 80% of the development complete at the time of the Pentagon’s termination announcement, and with about $3 billion in federal funding already spent on the effort, GE and Rolls had both vowed to continue the fight by self-funding the F136 through fiscal 2012. However, GE says Carter’s position “made future progress on the F136 development program difficult. In addition, the status of the federal budget has created greater uncertainty for the overall JSF program.”

Before the Pentagon terminated the program, six F136 development engines had accumulated more than 1,200 hr. of testing since early 2009. GE says that throughout its development time “the FET consistently delivered on cost and on schedule, and was rewarded with high marks by the Department of Defense in a successful joint venture between GE and Rolls-Royce.” No current jobs will be lost as a result of the decision. All F136 staff related to the development program will be reassigned to other projects.

The F136, while technically advanced, will now be sidelined and GE and Rolls will pursue separate competitive paths to future sixth-generation combat engines through the Air Force Research Laboratories’ Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (Advent) program and other research efforts. As both GE and Rolls hold patented technology within the F136, the engine cannot now be further developed or derived for alternate uses such as Long-Range Strike concepts.

GE and Rolls together have announced that the termination decision is final and even if a self-funded development proposal for fiscal 2012 is supported in a joint House-Senate defense authorization bill, the companies nonetheless would no longer pursue it.

Engine proponents in Congress, particularly in the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), had been working to keep the Pentagon and White House from permanently dismantling the F136 effort, potentially by shifting most or all of the remaining development costs to the industry team. But the White House has opposed the engine since the George W. Bush administration, and efforts to keep the program alive have been overshadowed by greater spending and efficiency concerns.

The companies say they “are deeply gratified by earlier HASC support.” The former team members add that “circumstances have changed and there is not a business case for self-funding the F136 development.”

The unprecedented military engine relationship between GE and Rolls stretches back to March 1996 when Rolls-Royce (then the new parent company of Allison) joined the GE/Allison team to develop and produce the YF120 cruise engine as an alternate engine for the various JSF aircraft then under consideration. It also became a partner in the GEA-FXL engine, the lift engine being proposed for the lift-plus-lift cruise variant of the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing version of the JSF then under study.

The full partnership was ratified later that year when the government’s program office selected the YF120 engine for the JSF Alternate Engine Program. Under the original plan, Allison was to provide components and technology for the core and low-pressure turbine while Rolls was assigned to design and manufacture the fan module.

In 1997, at the behest of Congress, the Pentagon structured the GE-Rolls program to enter production four years after the P&W engine and, in 2002, GE and Rolls formed the Fighter Engine Team to develop the engine, by now renamed the F136.

Timeline of GE-Rolls F136 Program:

1995: For reasons of commonality with the P&W engine for the F-22, the Pentagon directs the P&W engine concept to be used during the JSF aircraft downselect process. P&W becomes the uncontested primary JSF engine.

1996: Congress provides initial seed money to GE to study a competing engine. Rolls joins GE on the engine program.

1997: Congress further funds GE-Rolls and directs the Pentagon to ensure a full-development program is launched. The Pentagon structures the GE-Rolls program to enter production four years after the P&W engine.

1999: The Pentagon introduces “plug-and-play” engine interchangeability, whereby the competing engines are designed to the same external dimensions for easy changeout of engines.

2001: P&W awarded $4.8 billion full-scale development contract (system development and demonstration, or SDD) for the F135 engine.

2002: GE-Rolls create a joint company, the GE-Rolls Fighter Engine Team, to develop and produce the F136.

2000-2005: Development work continues on F136. Successful “core” engine test and fan rig tests in 2000; first full-engine runs begin in 2004.

2005: GE-Rolls is awarded $2.4 billion full-scale SDD, with completion set for 2013.

2006-2009: Each year in its budget request, the Pentagon seeks to cancel the F136, citing budget constraints. Engine funding restored each year by House and Senate support.

2009: First “production-configuration” F136 engine goes to test.

2010: A so-called Nunn-McCurdy cost-and-schedule breach of the overall JSF program results from costs growing beyond 50% of plan. P&W’s development costs forecasted to grow to $7.3 billion. For the fifth year, the Defense Department cancels the GE-Rolls program. In May, the House “authorized” to restore funding for the fiscal 2011 budget. However, the 2011 budget process was not completed during 2010, and moved into the next year. Six F136 development engines run, preparing for flight tests in 2011.

2011: In a dramatic turnaround by lawmakers, coming after the November 2010 elections, the House votes in favor of a proposal that removes F136 funding from the 2011 continuing resolution funding the government, and the F136 is terminated by the Pentagon. A self-funded F136 development effort plan is pushed forward by the House Armed Services Committee. But continued uncertainty in the development and production schedules for the overarching JSF program lead GE and Rolls to discontinue the self-funded effort.

GE-Rolls file photo of F136

buglerbilly

03-12-11, 12:42 AM

Pentagon Budget Cuts Almost Certain to Affect F-35

December 02, 2011

Fort Worth Star-Telegram|by Bob Cox

The stealth design of the F-35 joint strike fighter is supposed to make it nearly invisible to enemy radar, but the super high-tech combat aircraft may not be able to avoid the bull's-eye of Pentagon budget-cutters.

Congress' failure last month to agree on $1.2 billion in additional deficit reduction measures means the Defense Department is facing enormous funding cuts mandated by law.

Without new congressional action to restore funding, experts say, the Pentagon will be forced to make big cuts in spending on new weapons.

And the F-35 is easily the biggest target for cuts because it has a large and growing price tag, rising from a planned $7 billion in new orders in 2012 to $14 billion-plus in 2016.

Read more on how budget cuts may affect the F-35's fate at DoD Buzz

"When you look at cutting back on programs to save money, you're going to start with the biggest programs," said Todd Harrison, defense budget analyst with the influential Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank.

Lockheed Martin officials conceded as much Thursday. Speaking at an investment conference in New York, Bruce Tanner, Lockheed's chief financial officer, said it is unlikely the F-35 can evade the coming budget cuts.

When the biggest funding cuts take effect in 2013, "I have to believe F-35 would build at a lower rate," Tanner said in response to questions at the Credit Suisse conference.

That could be bad for employment at Lockheed's plant in west Fort Worth, where the F-35 is being built.

Lockheed now has 6,100 people working directly on the F-35 program there, spokesman Joe Stout said, about 3,000 of them production workers and the rest in development or other support activities.

Without stepped-up production, employment at the Fort Worth plant won't grow and may decrease. As F-35 development and engineering work begins to wind down, Lockheed may cut workers in those fields without the once-expected, offsetting increases in production jobs.

There is virtually no scenario under which the Pentagon and Congress would kill the F-35 program, analysts say. But under the Budget Control Act of 2011 enacted in August, the defense budget will be cut about $12 billion in 2012, $60 billion more in 2013 and then be nearly frozen through 2021.

National security spending, most of which is included in the Pentagon budget, must take 50 percent of the required cuts, Congress decreed. President Barack Obama will have the option of exempting spending on military personnel from cuts, which would force even deeper reductions from weapons, operations and maintenance.

"The problem ... is not so much the depth of the cuts but the abruptness with which they occur," Harrison said.

It's next to impossible for the military to quickly slash troop levels, close bases or mothball aircraft carriers.

"When you're forced to make the cuts very quickly," Harrison said, "you have to go where there's easy money," and that's weapons.

"It is impossible for the JSF to emerge unscathed during the first tranche of budget cuts. Lockheed knows it's impossible," said Travis Sharp, a defense budget analyst with the Center for a New American Security.

What is likely to happen, analysts say, is there will be little or no increase in production rates at Lockheed Martin and its suppliers and few new jobs created. The Pentagon, in its 2012 budget submission, had hoped to increase orders steadily from 30 planes in 2011 to 108 in 2016.

Lockheed is already in the process of cutting 670 workers in Fort Worth by the end of the year as part of an effort to reduce overhead and operating costs that are passed on to taxpayers in the price of airplanes built for the military.

Few if any of those jobs are directly tied to the F-35 program, Stout said. Lockheed has about 14,000 employees in Fort Worth.

Lockheed's F-35 workforce and that of its suppliers both locally and around the globe have been growing in line with the Pentagon's planned production increases.

One factor in the F-35's favor that will complicate the government's decision-making is that in order for the high cost of each plane -- well over $200 million currently -- to come down, production rates need to go up. And if the costs don't come down, the Pentagon and most of the foreign nations expected to buy F-35s may not place orders.

"There's a significant danger that if there are further cuts to the program it would unravel the business plan," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute and a consultant to Lockheed.

© Copyright 2011 Fort Worth Star-Telegram. All rights reserved.

ADMk2

03-12-11, 12:54 AM

About time that 2nd engine was cancelled, biggest waste of money ever...

Chunder

03-12-11, 09:54 AM

About time that 2nd engine was cancelled, biggest waste of money ever...

I wouldn't put bets on it being cancelled permanently.

Reading between the lines it seems to me that RR/GE thing the ROI initially will be shithouse.

ADMk2

03-12-11, 03:15 PM

Not so sure, DoD has been trying to kill it for years and as airframes continued to be cut to fund development the extra engine became more and a more a massive liability. That engine even today needed something like an extra $3b just to finish it's development, let alone actually be acquired in any numbers... Good money that can be better spent on more useful things in a tight fiscal environment.

The issues the naysayers are all rubbing their hands with glee over at present (Venlet's comments etc) are all to do with reducing short term financial pain, hoping that the program can find a way through the funding issues and come out the other side as a developed, effciently running program able to exploit the (hopefully) better funding environment expected if the current economic woes can be addressed.

The aircraft are in dire need of rapidly progressing through their development whilst addressing the known problems, cutting back on extraneous capability that isn't crucial in the short term is one of the obvious ways they'll try to do this.

We've seen it already with the helmet and the F136 engine, I'm almost positive we'll see it with other elements (probably the variety of weapons integrated).

Will GE/RR be able to catch up many years down the track? Seems unlikely to me as well as unnecessary. Apparently the F-22A, Hornet, Super Hornet, AV-8B Harrier II, B-52, B-2A,C-27J, C-130J, C-17A, T-45, AT-6B Texan II, P-3C Orion, E-3C and so on have all managed just fine with one main type of engine per aircraft.

Apparently engine competition hasn't been such an issue for these types...

Chunder

03-12-11, 04:29 PM

I hear what your saying, - and for much the same reasons it seems to be worth their while to cease development at the moment. It's not just DoD, it's their(GE/Rolls) bottom line - in a volatile industry.
We know that GE can probably afford not to be in the fighter engine market - but as far as development is concerned, we are going to be looking at the ONLY engine in an airframe with a production life span of 30-40 years.

I would be very surprised if BAe had a future hand in a Typhoon replacement - including Gripen Replacement - and then there's Dassaults woes.
Unless they can or have a development (or can find a willing customer to fund tech for an airframe i.e India) - then the F-35 is the only game in town.

So, should rolls hang up the coathanger?

ADMk2

05-12-11, 03:51 AM

Rolls still has plenty of fighter engine work with it's involvement in the EJ200 (Typhoon) and Adour engines (Hawk series) and GE has heaps with it's F110 and F404/F414 engine series, so I'm not sure either are entirely "out of the fighter engine game" for not getting the F136 program to continue. Plus both have extensive civilian jet programs to allow them to continue in the engine building business.

OTOH, P&W has far less work ahead of it and really needed the F135 to survive as a viable concern...

Chunder

05-12-11, 09:07 AM

Yeah - thats what I'm saying, Rolls and GE are doing quite well in the commercial sector.

Milking as much money from the Govt is very important in next generation (shudder) engine development for these concerns. One only needs to look at how woeful the Russian & Chinese attempts are to understand the importance of materials development for these companies.

I'm quite happy for Rolls & GE to come up with an alternative in time - but putting it on the back burner may be a wise thing to do in that respect. The Engine in the F-35 is essentially a souped up F-22 engine yes?

I know your not a fan of wastage from the government sector - I am reasonably happy with that position as well - but there may be other avenues of development for GE & Rolls. I am not sure about the way DARPA is setup (that might be something for Weasel to comment on) but our own CSIRO seeks private funding on a regular basis to good effect. Government funding isn't in itself a bad thing in every regard as CSIRO exhibits - eventually.

Material Properties represents a very large (effin boring) part of curricula, it is the understanding & research of those properties and their exclusive properties at particular extremes which makes tech breakthroughs. It is an enormously expensive field applying those techniques to 130 000 RPM etc.

I know I've just contradicted myself there, and am prepared to take a beating for it but throwing it out there FWIW.

Regards

ADMk2

05-12-11, 12:53 PM

I'm not a fan of wastage no, but more than happy for Government to spend money on what needs to be spent on. Materials science is of course important but that is something completely different from paying $Billions to develop a completely different engine to power a fighter that already has an excellent engine, designed to the same specs and is doing the job required with plenty of margain for growth (P&W has already run F135 to 120% of the required 43,000lbs of thrust in reheat for instance).

The F135 is a modified version of the F119 that powers the F-22A true. The F136 however is an attempt at reinventing the wheel for the benefit of pork-barrel politics. It was being designed to the same thrust levels, TFSC, weight and cost as F135, absolutely no advantage to the program whatsoever. Somewhere around $10b was to be spent to build an engine that was in effect a duplicate of the F135, but built and developed by another company, completely separately, but offering no advancement whatsoever over an engine that had already been developed and was proving itself with the 30 odd F-35's that are already flying and clearing the envelope of all 3 variants.

If it was purely a matter of competition over price then GE/RR could be contracted to build the F135 just as P&W were contracted to build GE F404 engines in the 80's, but it wasn't about that. It was about ensuring certain US politicians got work from the program in their particular electorates.

That is what I hate about the F136 program. The utter, mindless stupidity of it.

buglerbilly

10-12-11, 12:38 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

10 Years and $38 Billion into the F-35

Posted by Amy Butler at 12/9/2011 1:00 PM CST

While reporting with my colleagues Graham Warwick and Guy Norris for next week’s edition on 10 years of F-35 development work, it was evident that while the program has suffered major – and not unnoticed setbacks – there is progress being made.

The question for the U.S. and its partners ahead is whether the progress is enough to justify further investment in the program and, if so (which is a likely outcome), how much and when.

Vice Adm. David Venlet, brought by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates to rebaseline the program after development and early production problems, said earlier this year he wanted to improve the pace of flight testing, get the F-35B off of “probation” and smooth out the production and assembly process.

Lockheed Martin photo

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin has made progress in each area, though not all of these goals were fully achieved. A program official said in 2009 that 12 test aircraft would make 12 flights per month to support testing by September 2010. That obviously has not happened. But, program officials report that the pace of testing has improved substantially, allowing for data collection at a rate that is more useful for analysts. Still, however, only 18% of flight-testing is complete 10 years and $38 billion into development.

Substantial progress has also been made in the F-35B, which, last year, was effectively grounded owing to reliability issues with BF-1, the only aircraft then outfitted to expand the vertical landing envelope. Now, however, the fleet is up and running and the program was praised by Venlet for making good on a goal to get to the USS Wasp amphibious ship for its first at-sea trails on schedule. Venlet said he was pleased with the progress on the B, so much so that he declared the following during an interview with Aviation Week:

“We are on a threshold now [such] that I don’t believe that there is anything more unique to Stovl than the other variants that should cause it to have special attention.”

Gen. James Dunford, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, the first F-35B customer, says that “We have a presumption of success with the F-35B [and] it is no longer in the crosshairs.” The path isn’t fully clear, however. Check out Graham’s interactive web model of the historical and current issues plaguing the Stovl model. He also has posted descriptive summaries of each technical challenge on his Leading Edge blog, starting with the first entry here.

The all-clear is expected to come this spring, nearly a year earlier than the January 2013 timeline established earlier this year by Gates when he declared the program on probation.

Work on the F-135 engine and the pace of F-35A testing has progressed. And, work has also progressed on the carrier version, the F-35C, and its suitability for land-based catapult takeoff. A poor tailhook design has forced Lockheed to rework the tailhook and conduct arrested landing trials next year; no arrested landings were attempted as planned this year owing to the tailhook problem.

Despite the success, though, 10 years into development the major problem facing the program is cost: cost to finish development (now estimated to still have $12.5 billion to go), cost to produce each lot, the cost to own and operate and, finally, the cost of “concurrency” modifications, or those retrofits required as a result of deficiencies found in testing.

Venlet says a new “sustainment,” or ownership cost figure is slated for release after the Fiscal 2013 federal budget goes to Capitol Hill in February. Based on deep dive studies, the program office established a new technical baseline for sustainment, including some new assumptions, such as how many bases will be needed for U.S. operations. Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 integration, says the $1 trillion ownership price cited in the most recent selected acquisition report (SAR) in April is likely to be reduced by as much as 20%.

Though getting a better handle on the ownership cost issue appeared to be the big issue of 2011 only seven months ago owing to the sticker shock suffered by the nine nations swallowing hard at that $1 trillion figure.

This new figure is going to the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) in January, along with a request to reinstate the approval to continue Milestone B, or development work. That approval was rescinded last year owing to the Nunn McCurdy cost overrun and subsequent $4.6 billion restructuring.

The Joint Executive Steering Board (JESB), which consists of senior officials from each F-35 member nation, will also meet after the budget release. The December meeting, which was slipped this year because procurement issues are in flux in the United States.

Furthermore, amid so many questions (including whether 3 variants will pass muster in this tight fiscal environment), Jen DiMascio, our congressional editor, has done an interesting piece to look into why some of the lawmakers who have been so blatantly vocal in support of Lockheed Martin programs in the past may be piping down a bit on the F-35.

All of this and more is covered in the Dec. 12 edition of Aviation Week. We hope the update generates some good discussion on the way ahead for the F-35.

buglerbilly

10-12-11, 12:43 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

F-35A Pushes to Mach 1.6

Posted by Guy Norris at 12/9/2011 2:45 PM CST

This post is one in a series on the development of the F-35. Click here for a Flash graphic of the F-35B with systems cutaways.

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/awst_images/large/cutaway.html

For more details and updates on the program check out next week’s special coverage in the Dec 12 edition of AW&ST.

Some 15 months ago I blogged that the boss of JSF testing at Edwards AFB, U.S. Air Force test pilot Lt. Col. Hank "Hog" Griffiths, had flown faster in an F-35 than anyone else.

At that time, Griffith had taken one of the initial F-35A test aircraft to 583 KCAS (exceeding Mach 1.2). Now, as the pace of testing continues to accelerate despite earlier delays caused by an inflight dual generator failure, and problems with the integrated power package (IPP), the jet has been flown to Mach 1.61.

Griffiths, who is 461st Flight Test Squadron Commander and F-35 Integrated Test Force (ITF) director at Edwards AFB, was the pilot of one of the two F-35As flown to the desert base in May 2010 for the start of developmental test and evaluation (DT&E). However, unlike 2010, when the slower pace of testing meant Griffiths’ record stood for a while, his latest moment of supersonic glory was eclipsed barely a day later when another test pilot took an F-35A to 666 KCAS.

From now on, with the exception of going for higher speed test points in the 660-700 KCAS range, the bulk of envelope expansion is focused on the “the lower right, higher dynamic pressure, corner” says Griffiths. “At least we’ve shown we can go to design limits.”

Six F-35As are currently in test at Edwards AFB. (Lockheed Martin)

Testing at Edwards continues to remain ahead of plan and for the year to-date, Griffiths says “we’ve achieved 430 flights out of 390 planned, so clearly we’re ahead and we’ll make our year’s goal for CTOL.” By the start of December, the CTOL fleet (not including the pre-production test aircraft) has amassed more than 625 flights and around 1,190 flight hours. The test rate is 10% above the planned rate despite a “lot of significant modifications and a lot of smaller road blocks,” says Griffiths.

The aircraft has also been flown to 9.9g – which is 0.9g beyond the operational limits. Testing has also been focused on reducing the onset of uncommanded roll encountered during a turn. Dubbed the transonic wing roll-off, the phenomenon is common in fighters, and has been countered on the F-35A by using roll-rate feedback to tailor the scheduling of leading- and trailing-edge flaps.

The non-linear aerodynamic response “was expected,” says Griffiths. “We’ve had to try and predict vortex shedding off the wings, and the loss of lift it causes.” The goal was to use existing flight surfaces to cure the problem. “I’m still within the design space and didn’t have to add hardware like fences or anything that would impact the low observable characteristics,” he adds. The cure was fast tracked using a flight controls system parameter change device that enabled multiple control law solutions to be evaluated in a single flight.

The Edwards test fleet includes three flight sciences aircraft and three missions systems aircraft. Two of the six are the first LRIP 1 standard airframes, diverted to bolster the program earlier this year. (Lockheed Martin)

Griffiths has also been in the driving seat, literally, for the start of full-up mission system testing in the F-35A. Initial sensor fusion between the EW systems and radar “went pretty well,” says Griffiths. “We have had the DAS (distributed aperture system) running on the aircraft for the first time, providing 360 deg. coverage. You can see right through the aircraft which is wild,” he comments. The DAS is an internally mounted, multi-functional sensor for air-to-air and air-to-surface targeting capability. “It’s pretty cool and sort of feels like Wonder Woman’s invisible jet. The DAS is working well and enables you to pick up things you wouldn’t normally be able to see because the system’s apertures work at different wavelengths to the human eyeball. It can see details that with your eyes you cannot see, for example on overwater flights looking along the coastline you can pick out details of buildings much more clearly,” he adds.

DAS feels like flying Wonder Woman's invisible jet says Griffiths. (engadget.com)

Tests of another key sensor, the nose-mounted Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), are also getting underway with the first firing of the laser range finder in November from AF-3 equipped with Block 1B software. “We have also have conducted CNI (communications, navigation and integration) sweeps and tested the anti-jam and secure voice systems. We’ve also completed signature testing using AF-3, 6 and 7,” adds Griffiths. The aircraft “is meeting or exceeding the low observable requirements, so we know we have a stealthy aircraft which is fantastic.”

From a flying qualities perspective, Griffiths remarks the F-35 is a real pilot’s aircraft and a “dream to fly.” As a single-seater, this meets the goal of making the aircraft as easy as possible to fly – thereby giving the pilot time to focus on the complex mission tasks. “Flying ought to be the easiest part. I want to be able to put it somewhere so that it won’t move. It trims perfectly to the angle of attack you need,” he adds. The F-35A is also “the easiest I’ve ever landed. It flies like a big aircraft when landing because of the relatively large wings and flaps. When I first landed I didn’t even know I’d touched down.”

(U.S. Air Force)

buglerbilly

10-12-11, 12:52 AM

Pentagon Orders 30 More F-35s from Lockheed

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

Published: 9 Dec 2011 17:33

Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $4 billion contract to produce 30 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, the Pentagon announced Dec. 9.

The Pentagon awarded Lockheed Martin a $4 billion contract to produce 30 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. (Lockheed Martin)

The fixed-price-incentive (firm target) contract provides for 21 F-35A conventional take off and landing (CTOL) Lightning IIs for the Air Force, three F-35B short-take off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft for the Marines, and six F-35C carrier variants for the Navy.

All the aircraft are being procured under low-rate initial production Lot V.

Broken down by service, two-thirds of the value of the contract - $2.65 billion - is for the Air Force; $937 million, or 23 percent, for the Navy; and $426 million, or nearly 11 percent, for the Marine Corps.

The contract also provides for "associated ancillary mission equipment and flight test instrumentation" for the planes, and flight test instrumentation for the United Kingdom.

The contract was awarded through the Naval Air Systems Command.

buglerbilly

10-12-11, 01:25 AM

EU Crisis Will 'Clearly' Hit JSF, Dempsey Says

By Carlo Munoz

Published: December 9, 2011

The crisis MAY.........its only "may" as F-35 is running so late most of this current financial crisis should be finished before payment for various F-35 programmes becomes necessary...........undoubtedly though, some European governments will take this opportunity to reduce, or try to reduce, numbers.

WASHINGTON: The unfolding economic crisis threatening the European Union could ripple through the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's crucial international program, the Pentagon's top military officer said today.

Partner nation participation in the JSF program "will clearly [be] put at risk if all the predictions about an [European] economic collapse would occur," Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said today. Four of the eight international JSF partners -- the United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands and Denmark -- are EU members. Spain is also reportedly looking at joining the JSF international coalition. But those plans could fall by the wayside if the EU cannot keep its members from financially collapsing.

Spain and Italy are rumored to be the next recipients of EU-financed bailout. Over the past several months European Union members have already bailed out the governments of Greece and Ireland. The United Kingdom is already implementing draconian defense spending cuts casting a pall over the fighter program's biggest international partner. Things took a turn for the worse today when the United Kingdom blocked a new fiscal austerity plan pitched by France and Germany during an emergency EU summit in Brussels today.

Dempsey would not say if these recent developments would force JSF partner nations to leave the program or dramatically cut their planned purchases of the F-35. But he did note the EU economic crisis was cause for concern inside the Pentagon. "They would have to make some decisions . . . on the reallocation of resources that could potentially affect the JSF," Dempsey said. The UK says they need 150 jets to support their aircraft carrier fleet but may end up buying less than that. Things are getting difficult for the program on the home front as well, the four-star general admitted.

The Pentagon is already facing a $450 billion budget cut over the next decade. That number could grow to roughly $1 trillion with the recent failure of the congressional Super Committee. Those cuts will result in "fact of life" changes to the program. Changes that could force the department to stretch out the JSF's production schedule, Dempsey said. While the production rate may change, the Pentagon's dedication to seeing the program through has not. Dempsey said the department is "clearly" committed to purchasing the F-35. However the four-star general openly questioned whether the Pentagon could afford all three versions of the fighter in October. At the time, Dempsey told members of the House Armed Services Committee that buying all three variants would greatly increase pressure on an already stressed budget.

As political and economic pressure on the JSF program increases we will have to see which Dempsey shows up to that debate. Will it be the four-star general who said today he is clearly on board with the program. Or will it be the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who would not even mention the JSF by name to lawmakers in October.

buglerbilly

10-12-11, 09:59 AM

Marine Corps F-35B expected at Eglin next week

December 09, 2011 10:05 AM

Wendy Victora

Daily News

EGLIN AFB — The first Marine Corps version of the F-35 fighter jet is due to arrive next week, although base officials say they do not know the exact time or date.

Military pilots will fly the jet from Lockheed-Martin’s headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas, to Eglin Air Force Base.

The Joint Strike Fighter jet is one of 59 expected to be based at the new training center at Eglin.

The F-35B, which is a short-takeoff, vertical-landing variant of the F-35, was put on probation because of technical problems in January by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford was quoted in late November saying he was “bullish” on the jet and that it was “no longer in the crosshairs.”

He said progress had been made in resolving the technical problems and that the fighter jet had met 98 percent of its test points in 2011.

The F-35B made its first vertical sea landing in early October on the deck of the USS Wasp.

Supporters of the Marine variant say the F-35B can go where Air Force jets can’t because of its short takeoff ability and ability to land vertically.

The first production model of the Air Force variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter arrived at Eglin on July 14. Five others have arrived since then.

Eglin spokeswoman Lois Walsh said that a Navy version of the F-35 will also be brought to Eglin in the future.

Read more: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/eglin-45862-force-air.html#ixzz1g7mBB6Q4

buglerbilly

12-12-11, 01:06 AM

Lockheed: Pentagon Order for F-35s Undefinitized

By DAVE MAJUMDAR and CHRIS CAVAS

Published: 9 Dec 2011 17:33

Lockheed Martin has signed an undefinitized contract that establishes a price ceiling for the fifth low rate production lot for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, company officials clarified late on Dec. 10.

The Pentagon awarded Lockheed Martin an undefinitized contract to produce 30 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. (Lockheed Martin)

The Pentagon announced earlier on Dec. 10 that it had awarded Lockheed Martin a $4 billion contract to build 30 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft for the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.

"Lockheed Martin has signed an undefinitized contract that establishes the funding for Lot 5 up to the level announced by the DoD today," said Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Laurie Quincy in an email. "The final Lot 5 contract amount will not be known until we have a definitized contract sometime in 2012."

She said in a statement that the award is welcome news for the company and its F-35 suppliers.

"This … will help ensure we continue to meet production schedules outlined by the program," Quincy wrote. "This is an important first step in paving the way for full LRIP 5 production contract negotiations with our government customer."

The fixed-price-incentive contract calls for 21 F-35A conventional take off and landing (CTOL) for the Air Force, three F-35B short-take off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft for the Marines, and six F-35C carrier variants for the Navy.

Broken down by service, two-thirds of the value of the contract - $2.65 billion - is for the Air Force; $937 million, or 23 percent, for the Navy; and $426 million, or nearly 11 percent, for the Marine Corps.

The contract also provides for "associated ancillary mission equipment and flight test instrumentation" for the planes, and flight test instrumentation for the United Kingdom.

The contract was awarded through the Naval Air Systems Command.

“Undefinitized contract action” means any contract action for which the contract terms, specifications, or price are not agreed upon before performance is begun under the action. Examples are letter contracts, orders under basic ordering agreements, and provisioned item orders, for which the price has not been agreed upon before performance has begun.

buglerbilly

12-12-11, 03:42 PM

Australian Companies Secure Global Joint Strike Fighter Contracts

(Source: BAE Australia; issued December 12, 2011)

ADELAIDE, S. Australia --- Six Australian small to medium enterprises (SMEs) have been awarded initial contracts to produce specialised components for the global F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program.

The contracts underline the recent agreement between BAE Systems Australia and the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) which aims to help more Australian SMEs secure opportunities in the company’s global supply chain.

The qualification contracts were a collaborative proposal between the SMEs, BAE Systems Australia and BAE Systems Nashua (US) operations, with the support of the Australian Government’s New Air Combat Capability (NACC) Program.

The contracts, awarded to Micreo (based in Brisbane), AW Bell (based in Melbourne), Ferra Engineering (based in Brisbane), Levett Engineering (based in Adelaide), TAE (based in Brisbane) and SEC Plating (based in Sydney), are for the production of various mechanical assemblies that will contribute to the JSF’s on board Electronic Warfare system.

The SMEs will be required to variously demonstrate a range of advanced manufacturing techniques including close tolerance machining, casting, plating, vacuum brazing and laser welding.

Successful delivery will “qualify” each SME for ongoing participation in this element of the global manufacturing program.

The orders placed by BAE Systems Nashua with BAE Systems Australia are the first stage of what could potentially result in up to AUD $300 million worth of work over the 20 year manufacturing life of the global JSF program.

“We would not have been able to bid for this work package on our own – this collaborative proposal has enabled us to exercise our own particular skills. The company will be making the best possible use of its existing capabilities” said Micreo’s Managing Director, Tim Shaw.

“AW Bell are delighted and proud to be chosen by BAE Systems Australia to be a member of the team to supply components of the F35 Lightning, Joint Strike Fighter, Electronic Warfare system. AW Bell’s commitment to the development of new aluminium casting technologies, enables us to support these most advanced of all defence systems” said AW Bell Chairman Geoff Bell.

Program Manager New Air Combat Capability - AVM Kym Osley said "The Department of Defence and the NACC Program are delighted to see Australian industry collaborating to win business in the international arena by providing best value. I am sure it will be the catalyst for future industry participation on JSF.”

Chief Executive, BAE Systems Australia – David Allott said "This is a great outcome for Australia’s defence SMEs. This collaboration has enabled an integrated local industry solution that has captured global JSF manufacturing work right here in Australia.”

-ends-

buglerbilly

13-12-11, 05:51 AM

The Canadian Press - ONLINE EDITION

Canada to purchase F-35s, but final number not carved in stone: Fantino

By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press

Posted: 12/12/2011 10:52 AM | Last Modified: 12/12/2011 11:01 PM

A Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is shown in this undated handout photo. THE CANADIAN PRESS/HO- Lockheed Martin

OTTAWA - The ability to defend the skies and operate overseas at the same time would be in peril if the Harper government buys fewer stealth fighters than planned, the head of the Royal Canadian Air Force said Monday.

Lt.-Gen. Andre Deschamps said the air force would have to review how much "concurrent activity" it could handle if the number of radar-evading F-35s drop below the 65 aircraft the government has promised.

"The air force will live with whatever the government procures for us," said Deschamps in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"In the end, it's all about managing risk in delivering the defence mission. The number 65 gives us the capacity to cover all our missions with confidence."

The minister in charge of buying equipment for the military, Julian Fantino, said in an interview with Montreal-based L'actualite that the number of stealth fighters Canada intends to purchase is not carved in stone.

"We still talk about it; it is (being) analyzed. There is still time, until 2013, to decide the final number," said Fantino, the associate defence minister. "Could be under 65? Maybe. At some point, we make a decision."

Deschamps acknowledged that the number of F-35s is "subject to review," but warned that the air force would be challenged to carry out missions "if the number of aircraft changes dramatically."

The Harper government committed itself in July 2010 to the current number of multi-role fighters, but does not expect to begin taking delivery until 2016.

It is the smallest fleet the air force is able to live with given its current commitments to North American air defence, which requires at least 36 fighters to be set aside for NORAD missions. The initial joint-strike fighter proposal said Canada was prepared to buy 80 aircraft, replacing the current fleet of CF-18s almost one-for-one.

Deschamps said the decision to move to 65 jets was based on a mixture of "affordability" and what numbers the air force believes "it needs to deliver on our numerous defence missions."

Both Fantino and Defence Minister Peter MacKay have insisted the $9 billion set aside for the initial purchase is a hard figure and will not be exceeded.

The price tag Canada and other nations will pay per aircraft is unclear despite intense speculation, and Fantino did not elaborate whether the Harper government could buy fewer F-35s.

The government has insisted it will pay roughly $75 million per aircraft when it begins placing orders for delivery in 2016.

But in figures released over the weekend for initial production batches, the U.S. and Britain are expected to fork out between $140.9 million and $144.9 million per aircraft.

The price tag fluctuates year-to-year, depending on the number of aircraft ordered. If the current figure holds, the government would be forced to either take fewer planes — or increase its capital budget.

Matthew Kellway, an Ontario New Democrat MP, said he sees Fantino's comments as the government's back-door admission that it can't meet its target and that critics were right in focusing on the enormous cost.

"It's an acknowledgment they can't get the plane for the number they said they could," he said. "I think just about everybody else in the world has acknowledged that is the case."

The Norwegians have been more pragmatic by laying out a range for the F-35 price, Kellway said.

There has been speculation in the defence community that a potential shortfall in manned stealth fighters could be made up with the planned Harper government purchase of unmanned aircraft, such as the U.S.-made MQ-1 Predator.

But Deschamps says drone technology, while rapidly evolving, does not allow it an air-to-air combat role, which is the primary requirement of the stealth fighter.

He also questioned the ability of remotely-operated aircraft to conduct air-to-ground attacks against heavily defended targets.

Currently, drones do an excellent job in surveillance and strikes against targets that don't shoot back, said the air chief.

buglerbilly

13-12-11, 01:26 PM

Special DoD review recommends curtailing early F-35 production

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

14 minutes ago

Source:

A special review by the US Department of Defense has identified 13 ongoing or likely future design problems with the Lockheed Martin F-35 and recommended further cuts during early production.

The "concurrency quick look review", dated 29 November, is timed to influence the DoD's final reviews for the contracting fiscal year 2013 budget, with the F-35 programme facing a production freeze after peaking so far at 34 aircraft in 2010.

The review discovered no "fundamental design risks" large enough to recommend halting new F-35 production altogether, according to the 20-page report, which is stamped "[for official use only] - US only" and signed by five DoD officials, led by deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategic and tactical systems David Ahern.

But the report identifies and provides new details of eight design problems described as "major" risks and five design problems classified as minor risks.

© Lockheed Martin

Moreover, Lockheed still has 577 change order requests pending from previous design changes, representing an 18- to 24-month backlog that must be cleared before dealing with fixes for the new design problems, the report said.

The backlog of change orders and the ongoing design problems prompted the review team to challenge the F-35's "concurrent" acquisition strategy, which calls for building hundreds of jets during the decade between first flight in 2006 and the end of development after 2016.

The most challenging phase of the flight test schedule, which includes high angle-of-attack flight, mission systems and weapons release, lies ahead.

As a result, the review team "recommends that further decisions about F-35 production be event driven, based on the achievement of sufficient test data to support increased confidence in design maturity and of a well-controlled process for executing and minimizing design changes across concurrent production", the report said.

Among the eight major design problems, one is classified and not described in the leaked version of the review team's report.

The helmet-mounted display, fuel dump subsystem, integrated power package and arresting hook for the carrier-based F-35C variant remain "major" problems with no root cause or permanent fix identified so far.

The review also found three areas where major problems are "likely", but have not yet been fully studied in ground or flight tests. These include sharp buffeting at high angles of attack, the discovery of more life-limited parts and the minimal tests completed.

Finally, the review also identified five areas with "moderate" risk of increasing production costs as new areas are discovered in development. Software, weight management, thermal concerns, the autonomic logistics information system and lightning protection are on the list.

The review's findings appear to show the five major problems identified last year with the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant have been resolved or entered the backlog of change requests.

buglerbilly

14-12-11, 03:14 AM

F-35 Sound, but Slow Down Production: Report

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 13 Dec 2011 18:52

A "quick look" report on the U.S. Defense Department's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) delivered to the Pentagon's acting procurement chief a few weeks ago was leaked to the public Dec. 13 by the Project on Government Oversight and says aircraft production should be slowed down.

A report leaked Dec. 13 says the F-35 program is sound but production should be slowed down. Above, an F-35A Joint Strike Fighter in flight earlier this year. (U.S. Air Force)

The report was delivered to the office of Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's acting procurement chief, and calls for the slowdown while 13 test issues are resolved. But the report also declares the F-35's design fundamentally sound.

"No fundamental design risks sufficient to preclude further production were indentified," the report reads.

When asked about the 13 problems highlighted in the report on Dec. 8, Pentagon press secretary George Little said "the secretary is aware of the report."

The Joint Strike Fighter program office (JPO) declined to comment on the report because it is an internal document. But an official with the program said the information within the report is accurate and that the F-35 JPO helped to create the document.

"There may be issues regarding the F-35 program," Little said. "Any large weapon program generally has issues from time to time. And we are aware of certain issues with the F-35 program. But we believe it's important to continue to invest in the program."

Most of the 13 problems highlighted in the report are well known and have been previously addressed by both Lockheed Martin and the JPO. The biggest issues include the helmet-mounted display - which Lockheed Martin F-35 program manager Tom Burbage has previous said is well on its was to being fixed - fuel dump system, integrated power package and arresting gear on the carrier version of the jet.

Corrections are already being developed for the carrier variant's tailhook.

"A joint JPO, Lockheed Martin, NAVAIR [Naval Air Systems Command] engineering team is developing necessary corrections," JPO spokesman Joe Dellavedova said. "Initial focus is on hook point modifications and tailhook hold down damper adjustments. The system will be retested when corrections are incorporated."

Three less-problematic issues are aerodynamic buffeting, airframe fatigue life and executing testing, according to the report. Five other issues noted were: lightning strike protection, software, weight management, thermal management and logistical system.

Taken together, the problems are substantial enough that the report argues production should be slowed down. From the operation assessment perspective, most of the deficiencies stem from the helmet's performance. There were also some classified concerns cited that were not in the report.

buglerbilly

20-12-11, 01:15 PM

Jokes About Numbers

(Source: Norwegian Ministry of Defence; issued Dec. 19, 2011)

(State Secretary Roger Ingebrigtsen Responds to Report in Stavanger Aftenblad)

Stavanger Aftenblad are right that the purchase of F-35 is Defence's most expensive single project ever. Not only that – this fighter jet purchase is mainland Norway's biggest investment. That's why it's important to be precise.

Let me make some clarifications:

The discussion we have now is about life-cycle costs. We try to calculate how much combat aircraft will cost over their lifetime, i.e. approx. 30 years, from 2020 to 2050.

In 2008, we compared the costs of the JAS Gripen and of the F-35. When you work with multiple options, it is common to use a so-called present value. For the F-35, we calculated the lifetime cost in 2008 to be the present value of 145 billion kroner.

When the government should go to Parliament and ask for money to complete the project, such costs must be converted to real crowns. Then the number is higher. This is the same conversion that we had to do in connection with the purchase of four training aircraft.

We are now making the latest updates of the estimates of lifetime costs, and the government will present them to Parliament in the spring.

It was claimed that the number that was presented in Canada, the figure was from 2008 (145 billion) adjusted for, among other things, a translation from the present value of real crowns. It was, in other words, a new number.

Stavanger Aftenblad is confusing the costs for procurement of the aircraft and the cost of operating them for their entire lifetime.

The estimated cost for procurement of 56 aircraft is 52 billion kroner (at present value, 2011 Norwegian kroner.)

This is a billion more expensive than the calculation made in 2008.

When making the purchase, it is usual to convert to real crowns. Then the expected cost for the entire purchase will increase to 61 billion.

The F-35 will give confidence to future generations of Norwegians. It's a big investment, but it is a very important investment for our security.

-ends-

buglerbilly

20-12-11, 01:22 PM

Canada Welcomes Japan’s Decision to Purchase F-35 Jet Fighter

(Source: Canadian Department of National Defense; issued Dec. 19, 2011)

OTTAWA --– Today, the Hon. Julian Fantino, Associate Minister of National Defence, made the following statement following Japan’s decision to purchase the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Like Canada, countries are choosing this state-of-the-art aircraft over other fighters including the F-18 Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

“Our government’s priority is delivering our Canadian Forces the aircraft they agree gives them the best possible chance of mission success well into the 21st century,” said Minister Fantino. “Today’s announcement by Japan once again demonstrates that the F-35 is the best aircraft available to replace our aging fleets and address future threats to our sovereignty.”

Canada’s involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter program began in 1997. In 2001, the Government of Canada was involved in an open competition won by the Lockheed Martin F-35. Over 65 Canadian companies are already benefiting from over $370 million in contracts resulting from Canada’s commitment the Joint Strike Fighter Program – which includes eight of Canada’s closest military allies.

“All reasonable people agree that our brave men and women need aircraft to protect our sovereignty,” said Minister Fantino. “We remain fully committed to delivering our Canadian Forces the best aircraft with the best benefits for Canadian workers at the best price for Canadian taxpayers.” (ends)

Japan Buys F-35 Fighter

(Source: Norwegian Ministry of Defence; issued Dec. 20, 2011)

(Issued in Norwegian only; unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)

Japanese authorities have announced that they will buy F-35 fighter aircraft to replace its F-4 Phantom. In the first instance they are talking about approx. 40 aircraft, but this number may increase.

The Japanese decision on the purchase of this aircraft is beneficial also for Norway, as the number of produced aircraft has a direct impact on price. This applies to both purchase price and cost of living. In addition, increased production provides even greater opportunities for Norwegian industry.

“I am pleased that Japan has chosen the F-35. It strengthens the program and it helps to increase demand,” says State Secretary Roger Ingebrigtsen in the Ministry of Defence.

“It is in itself an important signal when a large, technology-focused country such as Japan chooses this plane. In addition, it may help to boost demand. This is also good news for the Norwegian industrial companies involved in production. I think the Japanese decision will contribute to several other countries choosing the F-35,” concludes Ingebrigtsen.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Given that Japanese companies MHI and IHI have been promised a role in the program, and that the number of available subcontracts is not elastic, it is far from clear that Norwegian, nor indeed Australian, Canadian and other member countries’ industries will in fact benefit from Japan’s joining the program.)

-ends-

buglerbilly

21-12-11, 02:23 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Japan Selects F-35

Posted by Amy Butler at 12/19/2011 9:54 PM CST

The Japan Air Self-Defense Force has selected the F-35A as the winner of its F-X contest for 40-50 aircraft to replace F-4 Phantoms. The single-engine, stealthy Lockheed Martin jet wins over Boeing’s F/A-18E/F and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Lockheed Martin Concept

Eleven nations are now expected to buy the jet, including those in the nine-member partnership established at the beginning of the program and two foreign military sales customers -- Japan and Israel.

Japan’s deal includes a work package for a domestic final-assembly-and-checkout facility much like Italy’s, as well as component and subcomponent build work in country. A value for the work package has not been provided.

Like Israel, the first nation not in the F-35 partnership to sign up for a buy, Tokyo wants its first aircraft in 2016; the contract for these first four F-35As is expected in Japan’s fiscal year 2012, beginning in April.

Japan’s decision is likely the first of more to come in favor of the F-35 in Asia. Singapore is linked with Israel and likely to follow its buy. And, South Korea is a strong possibility as it often seeks to equal Japan in purchasing high-technology defense equipment. Seoul is expected to hold a competition for 60 aircraft next year.

The aircraft for delivery in 2016 will be included in the low-rate initial production lot 8, and they will include the Block 3 software that the U.S. Air Force will require to declare initial operational capability of its new fleet.

The growing number of customers for F-35, backed by Japan’s decision, “reinforces the F-35 value proposition,” says Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 business development VP. This proposition postulates that the more customers that sign on and add to production orders, the lower the F-35 per-unit cost. This remains, however, to be proven by actual contract prices. The Pentagon is now in negotiations with Lockheed Martin over LRIP 5 pricing after the two parties agreed to equally share the “concurrency cost,” or price to retrofit LRIP 5 jets based on findings in the testing program.

O’Bryan says that the company can accommodate additional sales in LRIP 8 to South Korea should the country follow Tokyo’s lead. “There is capacity available,” he told reporters on a late-night teleconference in the United States. “We have tooling available” for more jets in that lot.

With Israel and Japan signing on for deliveries in 2016, it is possible the Pentagon could further slow its early LRIP buys to reduce the concurrency facing Washington’s piece of the program between development and procurement ramp up without disrupting the overall total delivery number in that year.

O’Bryan suggests that Japan selected the F-35 in part because the work package offers workers access to advanced technologies and manufacturing techniques. “If they wanted to purchase more fourth-generation technology of aluminum and other older technologies, they already had that in the F-15 line,” said Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 business development vice president. “With the F-35 they get advanced composite work, automated milling and machining [and] they also get advanced avionics.”

Both losing contestants remain in other competitions around the globe. Boeing has orders to continue its F/A-18E/F work in St. Louis until 2015, including sales to the United States Navy of the Super Hornet and EA-18G jammer model and Australia. The Super Hornet is also vying against the Dassault Rafale and Saab Gripen for a win of Brazil’s pending tender for 36 fighters.

Paul Lewis, a Boeing spokesman, notes that the Super Hornet is also a potential for forthcoming competitions in Malaysia, Denmark the United Arab Emirates and “other Middle Eastern nations.”

Typhoon, widely considered as least likely to win in Japan, remains alive in New Dehli’s competition to build 126 multirole fighters. BAE announced this fall it was cutting the production rate of Typhoons from 53 to 43; the company has a backlog of more than 260 aircraft, with more than 280 delivered.

buglerbilly

23-12-11, 02:08 AM

F-35 Will 'Revolutionize' Combat Power In The Pacific

By Robbin Laird

Published: December 22, 2011

Robbin Laird, a member of the AOL Board of Contributors and vocal F-35 proponent, outlines why Japan's decision to purchase the Joint Strike Fighter will redefine the U.S. and its allies fly and fight in the Pacific

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be a cornerstone of Japanese defense. The Japanese know something about technology. And as a leader in technology worldwide, the Japanese decision validates the cutting edge role of the F-35.

The F-35 is the first aircraft in history with a 360 degree field of vision out to 800 miles, managed by an integrated combat system. Make no mistake -- the F-35 is a full combat system, not just a platform. The beauty of a combat system is the maintenance, upgrades, deployment readiness, development synergies provided by common software for upgrades and development.

The F-35 will revolutionize air combat operations, especially in the Pacific. Fifth generation aircraft like the F-35 are at the heart of a potential new air combat system enterprise. The F-22s may have been the harbinger, but it lacks the essential air combat systems present on the F-35. Deployed as a force, the JSF enables distributed air operations that are crucial to the survival of our pilots in the period ahead. Distributed operations are the cultural shift that fifth generation aircraft, along with investments in new weapons, remotely piloted aircraft and the crafting of simultaneous rather than sequential operations, bring to the fight.

The Japanese understand the opportunities to leverage the F-35 combat system enterprise and that is why they chose the aircraft.

Before the JSF, military leaders would have to tack on additional systems to legacy aircraft to provide new capabilities. The pilot would be forced to manage each new system. The F-35's five major combat systems are already integrated and interact with each other to provide capabilities. The functional capabilities that emerge from that interaction are done by the machine and are not simply correlated with a single system. For example, jamming can be done by several systems aboard the JSF but the machine decides which one to use. And the entire system rests on a common architecture with broadband capabilities. The F-35 is also perfectly equipped to integrate with other weapon platforms, like the Navy's Aegis ballistic missile system.

The Japanese understand the significant opportunity which integrating Aegis with F-35 provides. The Japanese are a key Aegis partner and are in a position to work on the integration of Aegis with F-35.

Upcoming Aegis tests will support a launch and engage-on-remote concept linking the Aegis ship to remote sensor data, increasing the coverage area and responsiveness. Once this capability is fully developed, the SM-3 missile used on board Aegis -- no longer constrained by the range the system's radar to detect an incoming missile -- can be launched sooner and therefore fly farther to defeat the threat. Imagine this capability linked to an F-35, which can see more than 800 miles throughout a 360-degree approach. Needless to say, U.S. allies are excited about the linkage prospects and the joint evolution of these two highly upgradeable weapon systems.

Combining Aegis with F-35 also means joining their sensors for wide-area coverage. Because of the new generation of weapons onboard the F-35 and the ability to field a broad "wolfpack" of air and sea capabilities, the Joint Strike Fighter can perform as the directing point for combat action. The F-35 can leverage a sea-based missile through Aegis and its new SM-3 missiles to expand its area of strike. Together, the F-35 and Aegis significantly expand the defense of land and sea bases.

The commonality across the combat systems of the F-35's three variants also provides a notable advantage to the Japanese. Aegis is a JSF pilot's wingman, whether he or she is flying an F-35A, B, or C. Eighty percent of the F-35s in the Pacific are likely to be A models, many belonging to U.S allies. Therefore, building an F-35 and Aegis global enterprise provides coverage and capability across the Pacific, which is essential for the defense of Japan.

There is a high probability that the strategic quadrangle of South Korea, Singapore, Australia and Japan will all field the F-35 and Aegis missile system. This not only allows significant commonality among the allies, but provides a solid foundation for U.S. forces to work with regional allies and reduce the risks to American forward deployed forces.

South Korean can also benefit from the introduction of F-35As into U.S. Air Force, followed by acquisition of As and Bs by South Korea itself. As former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne has argued: South Korea is clearly the theater of highest utility for the emerging F-35. With the F-22 to be the guardian of the Pacific Expanse; and perhaps even used in a partnership with the F-35, and South Korean military. This would have the highest probability of training as a '1000 Unit Air Fleet' and the South Korean air force, equipped as they are with terrific fourth generation fighters; would yearn to be protected and supportive of this Air Battle Management System proposed and promoted for the F-35.

One can as well see in the Korean theater that U.S. Army systems connected via a command and control system may be the wingman for the F-35, in lieu of the Aegis system. Singapore is also postured to add F-35Bs to their inventory and Australia is looking to add F-35As and perhaps Bs down the line.

The commonality of a JSF-centric fleet allows hubs to be built in the Pacific to support common operations and shape convergent capabilities. The distributed character of allied forces in the region coupled with the the F-35's advanced combat systems diversifies capabilities against which a core adversary would have to cope with. Reducing concentration of forces and targets is a significance enhancer of deterrence.

And finally, the F-35 provides a key element of dealing with evolving threats as well. As Ed Timperlake has argued:

US and allied forces will have the perfect aircraft in the F-35 to play both offensive and defense when hypersonic Cruise Missiles become a combat reality. The C4ISR-D "Z-axis" in the cockpit can lead the way in developing a Pacific "honeycomb" ISR Grid to handle the hyper-sonic Cruise Missile threat and also go on the offensive since Chinese President Hu Jintao has just put the PLAN on combat alert. Everything will take time to develop and if PRC goes to war at Sea today they will lose. However, time is precious for US and Allies to get the technology for a 21st Century Air/Sea Battle right.

If the F-35 did not exist with it's revolutionary "Z-axis" 360 umbrella -it would have to be invented. Northern Edge validated that the US has developed a flying combat system that is world class and unique-a Fighter/Attack aircraft with EW/"tron" warfare capability with both AA and AG kinetic weapons in the bay.

In short, the acquisition of the F-35 by the Japanese is an important step in re-building Pacific defense capabilities. The F-35 will shape a scalable force that will participate in executing an economy of force strategy.

buglerbilly

24-12-11, 12:37 AM

ANALYSIS/ Why Japan chose F-35 fighter no mystery

December 21, 2011

Japan's selection of the U.S.-made Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter jet was hardly a surprise in light of the importance placed on the Japan-U.S. security alliance by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda.

However, a delay in the development of the F-35, a few technical glitches and the Defense Ministry's decision not to release the results of its evaluation of the three candidate jets, among others, has raised doubts about the soundness of the decision.

The government announced Dec. 20 that it has decided to purchase the F-35 as the country's next-generation fighter jet to replace its aging fleet of F-4 Phantom jets.

Japan is expected to spend some 1.6 trillion yen ($20.51 billion) on the purchase of the next-generation fighter jets, also known as the FX, for the Air Self-Defense Force.

From the outset, the F-35 was widely seen as the favorite due to its advanced stealth capabilities, on paper, at least. The two other candidates were Boeing's F/A-18 and the Eurofighter from Britain's BAE Systems and others.

The ministry said it selected the F-35 after evaluating the performance, price, percentage of the aircraft that can be built in Japan and rear-echelon support of each candidate.

Of these factors, performance was the most important consideration in the selection process, with 50 points assigned from a total of 100. The ASDF, meanwhile, insisted on buying the F-35 because of its stealth capabilities.

"Competition among neighboring countries to establish air supremacy is getting fiercer," said a source in the ASDF.

While the Chinese air force has succeeded in test flying stealth fighters, called the Jian-20, the Russian military was also trying to deploy its stealth jets, the T-50.

There have been reports that the South Korean air force may also start talks to procure the F-35 next year.

Noda was under pressure from the United States to pick a U.S. aircraft. A senior official in the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama reportedly relayed the request.

Many Japanese government officials shared the concern that Japan's choice could affect the Japan-U.S. alliance, according to a senior official at the ministry. In October, a ranking Japanese government official acknowledged that Japan would likely choose a U.S. fighter.

Although Defense Minister Yasuo Ichikawa promised to "select fairly and strictly (on merit)," Japan ranking the F-35's performance at the top has raised some questions about the selection process.

The ministry declined to release results of the evaluations of the three candidate aircraft, citing possible implications on the manufacturers' sales.

Representatives at BAE Systems said they will ask for a detailed explanation regarding the FX decision in their meetings with officials of the Japanese government and the Defense Ministry.

The F-35 is still in the development stage, untested operationally, and a series of glitches and delays in its development have already been reported.

The immediate challenge for Lockheed Martin will be if the company can meet the ministry's deadline for delivery of the first F-35 by the end of fiscal 2016.

The ministry said it has received assurance of the delivery from an official in charge of development of the F-35 at the U.S. Defense Department.

The FX deal is part of the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, a U.S. government program promoting the sales of U.S. arms, defense equipment and other defense-related matters to foreign governments.

Masahiro Matsumura, professor of national security at St. Andrew's University in Izumi, Osaka Prefecture, was critical of the decision to select the F-35.

"When we purchase a car, we test-drive the vehicle," he said. "(The Japanese government) must have conducted the selection process based only on what they've seen on paper to pick the F-35."

The costs involved in the F-35 project and the delivery deadline are given based on estimates, he added.

"The FMS program requires approval from the U.S. Congress," Matsumura said. "It is not a done deal."

A senior Defense Ministry official said, "(the ministry) has no choice but to believe that promises between the two governments will be honored."

The defense industry in Japan appears anxious about the future of the F-35 project. The ministry announced Dec. 20 that it had chosen Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. and other companies to help build and maintain the aircraft.

But it is not clear yet when production will begin. Mitsubishi Heavy's production of the F-2 fighter jets for the ASDF ended in September.

Manufacturers are hoping to minimize the lag period by moving on to build the F-35, but there is no guarantee, analysts say, that they can start in the near future.

buglerbilly

30-12-11, 03:08 AM

Marines’ F-35 Engines Costing Way More Than Other Services’

By Mark Thompson | @MarkThompson_DC | December 29, 2011

Pratt & Whitney
An F-35 engine undergoes testing

There’s been lots of grumbling over the cost of the $380 billion F-35 fighter program, and some wheels squeak louder than others. On Wednesday, the Navy awarded a $1.1 billion contract for 30 F-35 engines to Pratt & Whitney Military Engines of East Hartford, Conn.

Pentagon contracts are complicated beasts rarely clear to the taxpayer footing the bill. But the F-35 engine award gives us a peek into which service’s F-35s are likely to cost the most:

Taking just the U.S. military data in the contract announcement, and applying some crude math (your Battleland scribe thought slide rule was baseball-related, back in the day):

– The Navy is buying six engines – 20% of the total buy of 30 – and is paying $167 million. That’s 15% of the total $1.1 billion contract. Works out to $28 million per engine.

– The Air Force is buying 21 engines – 70% of the total buy of 30 – and is paying $521 million. That’s 46.3% of the total $1.1 billion purchase. That’s $25 million per powerplant.

– The Marines are buying three engines – 10% of the 30-engine deal – and are paying $387 million. That’s 34.5% of the total $1.1 billion contract. That’s $129 million per engine.

There are probably some complicating factors involved not reflected in the contract announcement. And the Marines are buying fewer engines, which makes each one more expensive. They’re also developing theirs for short takeoffs and vertical landings, which increases the price. But by more than 300%?

All this bolsters the case recently made by retired Marine colonel T.X. Hammes: “Our Corps needs to earn back its reputation for being ready with less money.”

Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/12/29/marines-f-35-engines-costing-way-more-than-other-services/#ixzz1hz2yxImg

ADMk2

31-12-11, 07:59 AM

$129m per engine? Ah, I think that maybe, just maybe, this contract includes a tad more than just 30 engines? Maybe it includes development, tooling, support etc?

Crude math? How about downright stupid math? The sort that Peter Goon uses to support his delusional fantasies?

Weasel

03-01-12, 04:01 AM

Last tour of GE, we could not believe the amount of dollars per day they literally burn in testing and qualification. Anywhere from 100 K to 500K in a day for one engine. If the testing equipment fails (which it does on a habitual basis) then you just blew 200% of the budget without man hours included.

cheers

w

buglerbilly

05-01-12, 12:05 AM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Should We Read Into Stovl ETA at Eglin?

Posted by Amy Butler at 1/4/2012 10:58 AM CST

BF-6, the first production F-35B designed for the U.S. Marine Corps, is set to finally arrive at Eglin AFB, Fla., tomorrow.

This is a milestone for the F-35B, which has been under probation for a year owing to poor technical performance and management issues for Lockheed Martin. The Marine Corps -- which has predicted its release from probation to take place this year -- is likely to greet the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing aircraft with fanfare. Initiating training at Eglin -- first for maintainers on the ground and later for pilots -- is a major step toward the service's goal of fielding the first unit ASAP.

But, I wonder if the timing of this event is indicative of a reprieve for the B? It is still technically on the chopping block since then Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared it on probation a year ago. Despite the successful first at-sea trials in October on the USS Wasp and what Marine Corps officials describe as significant progress in the propulsion system and structural bulkhead issue, it will stay on probation until a SecDef rules otherwise.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta happens to be giving his big pre-Fiscal 2013 budget release presser at the Pentagon tomorrow, possibly around the same time BF-6 touches down at Eglin. It is unlikely the Marines would schedule such a milestone if Panetta is planning to kill the B. Or is it?

Also, Panetta is slated to visit NAS Patuxent River, Md., early this year, a rescheduled event from a planned visit in December that was canceled owing to a schedule conflict. Though this visit was scheduled previous to the budget briefing being announced, it could again be a sign (even if only a coincidence) that OSD is supportive of the work going on at Pax, including testing of the B (which is farther along in its flight trials than the carrier version).

Perhaps this is a bit of far out tea-leaf reading. But, I'd like to hear thoughts from our readers...

UPDATED 1/4/12: BF-6 Arrival is apparently now slated for Friday.

buglerbilly

06-01-12, 01:17 AM

Turkey Authorizes Initial Purchase of 2 F-35s

By UMIT ENGINSOY and BURAK EGE BEKDIL

Published: 5 Jan 2012 16:21

ANKARA - Turkey's top decision-making body Jan. 5 paved the way for the country's formal participation in a U.S.-led program for the production of next-generation F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft.

"The Defense Industry Executive Committee has authorized the Undersecretariat for Defense Industries [SSM] to conduct talks for the aircraft's purchase order," the committee said in a statement after its meeting. The committee's members include Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Defense Minister İsmet Yilmaz, Chief of the General Staff Gen. Necdet Ozel and procurement chief Murad Bayar.

SSM and Lockheed Martin, the plane's main manufacturer, now are expected to sign a formal document for Turkey's purchase order for a first batch of two F-35s. This decision enables Turkey to begin the reception of the aircraft in 2015.

Turkey is a member of the F-35 consortium, but until Jan. 5 had not been committed officially to buy the aircraft. Turkey plans eventually to operate about 100 aircraft. Other members of the consortium include the United States, Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Norway and Denmark.

Other countries have interest in the aircraft but are not part of the consortium, including Israel. A recent decision by Japan to buy the F-35 has been a major boost for the program. Japan and Israel are expected to receive deliveries as of 2016.

The committee also has chosen the U.S. Bell Helicopter Textron as the main producer of the Turkish police's next light helicopter type.

The committee's decision came at a time when the Turkish police are preparing to assume a larger role in the fight against the outlawed separatist Kurdistan Workers Party. The Security Directorate will buy up to 15 light helicopters, worth up to $100 million, in a first batch to bolster the force's capabilities.

Bell was competing against Italy's AgustaWestland and Eurocopter Deutschland, the Eurocopter's German arm.

Bell later is expected to lead the manufacture for the Turkish police of more light helicopters in planned follow-up batches. The company also is expected to cooperate in the production with Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI), Turkey's state-owned aerospace company.

The Turkish Security Directorate's helicopter fleet is primarily composed of U.S.-made MD600 light helicopters, which are getting older and more difficult to operate. The new light helicopters should be more effective at police tasks such as tracking suspected criminals and intervening in incidents that could erupt during mass demonstrations, industry sources said.

The committee also decided that SSM would buy 10 Anka UAVs from TAI. After the first three tests ended with crash landings, the final three flight tests were successful. TAI would have delivered three Ankas to the military this year, but the committee's decision paves the way for serial production of 10 platforms.

buglerbilly

06-01-12, 02:12 AM

UK Concerned About F-35 Slowdown

The UK’s new defense (or should I say defence) secretary, Philip Hammond, today acknowledged that he is worried that further cuts or slowdowns to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program will hurt Britain’s ability to rebuild its aircraft carrier fighter force later this decade.

Remember, the UK decided to buy nearly 100 F-35C carrier variant JSFs for its new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. However, it recently retired its fleet of Harrier jump jets, leaving the Royal Navy without carrier strike aircraft for the first time since before World War II. (As Hammond acknowledged today, a Royal Navy with aircraft carriers but no jets to fly from them is “a caricaturists dream.”) Britain plans to by the F-35Cs by the end of the decade. The problem is, the Pentagon is slowing the F-35 program yet again and will likely delay the delivery of 120 or more jets.

Hammond, on his first official visit to Washington, said he would be signing an agreement today on how the UK will rebuild its naval strike fighter fleet in the face of budget cuts and an F-35 slowdown.

“One of things I’ll begin to understand later on today in the meetings I’m having will be what, if any, impact the announcements being made today will have on the Joint Strike Fighter program,” said Hammond. The announcements he was referring to are the Pentagon’s unveiling of its 21st Century security strategy, a document that will guide weapons buys and cuts going forward.

He then gave a clue as to what the future of European defense will look like as the U.S. withdraws more troops from the continent and refocuses on Asia. Basically, Britain and France are going to have to field aircraft carriers to ensure the continent has that kind of power-projection capability at the ready since America will be focused elsewhere.

(Keep in mind that the UK and France have signed an agreement that calls for interoperability and even some joint-manning among France’s carrier, the De Gaulle and the Royal Navy’s two new Queen Elizabeth class ships.)

“We are committed to purchasing the carrier-variant and the regeneration of our carrier strike force is at the heart of our defense strategy. We believe it will bring a big gain for NATO and potentially be a big relief to U.S. efforts in the European sphere. We’ve worked with the French to ensure that we will have a European carrier capability [that’s] always available. But of course, we are concerned that any slippage in production or any reduction in U.S. numbers will have an impact [on cost] and with budgets very tight, we’ll be watching very close any movement in the predicted unit costs.”

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2012/01/05/uk-concerned-about-f-35-slowdown/#ixzz1idkbGfrA
Defense.org

buglerbilly

07-01-12, 03:19 AM

Leaner US defence to swell jet cost - Fitzgibbon

Dylan Welch

January 7, 2012

Delayed ... the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Photo: Reuters

THE half-trillion-dollar defence cuts in the US announced by the President, Barack Obama, this week will drive the cost to Australia of the vaunted Joint Strike Fighter even higher, says the former defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon.

The increased cost of the $16 billion acquisition will be due to the third production delay to the next-generation jet in as many years and caused by the $487 billion ($473 billion) in cuts to US defence spending over 10 years.

Mr Fitzgibbon, who was minister for defence from 2007 to 2009, has been vocal about the cost of the next-generation Lockheed Martin jet, touted as the future of air warfare. ''F35 unit costs will rise due to US Defence cuts,'' he wrote on Twitter yesterday. ''Entirely predictable and one of a number of reasons I declined opposition pressure to sign.''

While minister he led a charge to recommend the government delay a final decision to sign up to the US-built plane so as to lobby for a lower price.

''I am determined not to sign on the dotted line of the JSF before I have got, as close as you can, a guarantee on cap, price and schedule,'' he said in 2008.

But yesterday the acting Minister for Defence, Warren Snowdon, said via email that a US production delay ''should not affect Australian JSF aircraft production''. ''While the US deficit reduction measures may result in a slower ramp up in JSF production over the next few years, at least some of this spare production capacity can be expected to be absorbed by new foreign customers, such as Japan,'' Mr Snowdon said.

Australia has set aside as much as $16 billion to buy 100 of the fighters but that purchase is under a cloud after the Minister for Defence, Stephen Smith, warned more cuts to the program could force Australia to re-evaluate its position.

Design faults with the JSF have meant the projected cost per aircraft has risen from $US50 million in 2002 to more than $US120 million last year. The latest news will place more pressure on the government to scale back the number of jets it buys.

The government has agreed to purchase at least 14 and as many as 100 of the next-generation fighters but remains concerned about the continuing production problems.

The first batch is due to be delivered by 2014, at a cost of $3.2 billion. Some speculate that Australia may finally buy fewer than 60 of the jets.

The US defence cuts come only weeks after the leaking of a report into the beleaguered jet by a Pentagon panel of experts calling for a production slowdown to fix a suite of design faults, which itself could see a cost blowout.

Thirteen issues were identified during the review, which was published in November and leaked to a US website four weeks later, including five described as being of ''major consequence''.

Those five include problems with the pilot's helmet display and a design flaw in the power package, which grounded the fleet for two weeks in August.

One of the five faults of concern was referred to in the report as ''classified'', and there has been speculation it may relate to the JSF's stealth skin.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/leaner-us-defence-to-swell-jet-cost--fitzgibbon-20120106-1poge.html#ixzz1ijry9uoC

ADMk2

07-01-12, 03:41 AM

I believe Joel Fitzgibbon is supporting the idea of dropping the F-35 and pursuing the J-10B isn't he?

:D

buglerbilly

08-01-12, 02:25 AM

Air Force postpones decision on F-35 training school

January 05, 2012 8:59 PM

MONA MOORE / Daily News

Workers use an excavator to demolish a fuel cell maintenance hangar at Eglin Air Force Base. The hangar was used in the 1960s for B-52s and later for F-15s after the 33rd Fighter Wing was established. It will be replaced by a fuel cell maintenance hangar for F-35s.
AIR FORCE MAJ. KAREN ROGANOV | Special to the Daily News

EGLIN AFB — The limbo in which Eglin Air Force Base’s Joint Strike Fighter training school has been operating since it opened its doors has been extended.

The Air Force plans to reassess the impact of F-35 flight training and has postponed until 2013 at the earliest any decision on where the flight training will take place and which runways will be used.

The changes will include issuing a second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and hosting another round of public hearings to review the document this fall. A Record of Decision may be issued as early as the spring of 2013.

The first SEIS was issued in 2010 and listed Duke Field, Choctaw Field and Eglin Main as possible locations for the bed-down and operation of the school.

Air Force officials said Eglin Main was their preference. There would be no runway changes at Eglin and the school would use Duke Field and Choctaw Field as auxiliary fields.

Larry Chavers, Eglin’s chief of environmental analysis, said the delay is the result of changes the school has made to operational tables

The tables explain how the aircraft will be used at the school — the numbers and types of takeoffs, landings and sorties each student must do to complete the training.

“The JSF training program has matured over the past couple of years, and as a result, better estimates of terminal area operations have been included in the new operational tables. The main change includes new F-35 flight profiles and flight operational changes,” Chavers said in an email.

The Joint Strike Fighter currently is grounded as the Department of Defense reviews several issues, including the helmet-mounted display system, arresting gear system, fuel dump subsystem, software and lightning protection.

Reuters reported this week that those issues may result in a production delay.

“The Pentagon is gearing up to restructure Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program for a third time in three years, sources said, with production of more than 120 more planes to be postponed to save money and allow more time for development,” Reuters reported.

Despite the production and SEIS delays, aircraft already delivered may fly before the next Record of Decision is issued in 2013. Once the current grounding is lifted, the school will continue to operate under a 2009 Record of Decision, which allows pilots to fly the aircraft (with some restrictions) on runway 01-19, the one nearest Valparaiso.

In the meantime, pilots and maintainers will continue to use the delivered aircraft for ground training and simulators for flight training.

“As the 33rd Fighter Wing stands ready for unmonitored flight release to begin flying operations at Eglin AFB, we are making best use of the aircraft to verify tech data and conduct training for both Lockheed Martin contractors and government maintainers,” Col. Andrew Toth, the wing’s commander, said in an email.

“Additionally, our operations and maintenance personnel are getting more experience with the system by conducting both ground engine runs at taxi operations using our initial cadre instructor pilots,”
Toth said

Construction also will continue. In cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the base recently began demolishing old hangars to make room for an F-35 fuel cell maintenance hangar with three aircraft bays, office space and a tool crib. It is expected to be completed in February 2013.

The construction is not an indication that Eglin’s preferred alternative of Eglin Main as the primary runway for the school will be what the Air Force ultimately decides. Chavers said the 2009 Record of Decision authorized the construction of the hangar.

“That decision allowed us to do all the construction and demolition you see on the 33rd Fighter Wing side. The upcoming Record of Decision may permit more construction or demolition, but we won't know until we go through the SEIS process,” he said in the email.

“Should any alternative other than Preferred Alternative, Alternative 1A — Eglin Main, or the No Action Alternative is selected by the decision-maker in the final SEIS ROD, Eglin Main will still have to be used as the primary operating airfield until such time that new infrastructure can be constructed to accommodate F-35 flight operations elsewhere.”

Read more: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articles/force-46450-postpones-afb.html#ixzz1ipUwvq7o

buglerbilly

09-01-12, 12:48 PM

Pentagon Contract Announcement

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued January 6, 2011)

United Technologies Corp., Pratt & Whitney Military Engines, East Hartford, Conn., is being awarded a $194,097,296 advance acquisition contract with fixed-price line items for long lead components, parts, and materials required for the delivery of 37 propulsion systems for the Lot VI F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program (18 conventional take-off and landing [CTOL] for the Air Force; six short take-off and vertical landing for the Marine Corps; seven carrier variant for the Navy; four CTOL for the Italian Air Force; two CTOL for the Royal Australian Air Force; and associated spares.

Work will be performed in East Hartford, Conn. (64 percent); Bristol, United Kingdom (25 percent); and Indianapolis, Ind. (11 percent), and is expected to be completed in September 2012.

Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy ($37,137,996; 19.1 percent), the U.S. Marine Corps ($84,683,000; 43.6 percent), the U.S. Air Force ($54,929,988; 28.3 percent), and the governments of Italy ($11,564,208; 6 percent) and Australia ($5,782,104; 3 percent).

This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1).

The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting (N00019-11-C-0082).

-ends-

buglerbilly

12-01-12, 02:20 AM

Lockheed Martin Delivers First Two Marine Corps F-35s To Eglin

BF-6, the first F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) production jet delivered to the U.S. Marine Corps, arrives at its new assignment with the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing's Marine Fighter/Attack Training Squadron 501 at Eglin AFB, Fla. The 5th Generation fighter jet, piloted by U.S. Marine Corps pilot Maj. Joseph Bachmann, touched down on Florida’s Emerald Coast at 3:13 p.m. CST after a 90-minute ferry flight. It was followed by BF-8 which landed at 4:39 p.m. CST piloted by U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Col. Matt Taylor. BF-6 and BF-8 are the first F-35s delivered to the base in 2012 and the seventh and eighth F-35 now stationed there. The aircraft will be used for pilot and maintainer training at the base’s new F-35 Integrated Training Center. (photo by Angel DelCueto)

FORT WORTH, January 11th, 2012 -- The first two Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] production model F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft were delivered to the U.S. Marine Corps today. The two jets are now assigned to the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing's Marine Fighter/Attack Training Squadron 501 residing with the host 33d Fighter Wing at Eglin AFB, Fla.

The aircraft, known as BF-6 and BF-8, flew separately arriving at 3:13 p.m. and 4:39 p.m. CST respectively after their approximate 90-minute ferry flights from Fort Worth, Texas. U.S. Marine Corps Maj. Joseph Bachmann piloted BF-6 while U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Col. Matt Taylor flew BF-8. Both 5th Generation fighters will be used for pilot and maintainer training at the new F-35 Integrated Training Center.

“Today marks the beginning of a new era of advanced capabilities for the U.S. Marine Corps,” said Larry Lawson, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program executive vice president and general manager. “The F-35B’s versatility, as demonstrated onboard the USS WASP (LHD-1) last fall, will revolutionize our nation’s expeditionary combat power in all threat environments by allowing operations from major bases, damaged airstrips, remote locations and a wide range of air-capable ships. This aircraft will give our warfighters the ability to accomplish their mission, wherever and whenever duty calls.”

F-35 STOVLs met many critical milestones in 2011. In October, F-35Bs conducted their first set of ship trials, known as Developmental Test 1, 20 miles off the coast of Wallops Island, Va. During the 19-day testing period, BF-2 and BF-4 conducted 72 vertical landings and short takeoffs, accomplishing all test milestones during the mission. For the year, F-35Bs accomplished 333 System Development and Demonstration test flights and 268 vertical landings.

BF-6 and BF-8 are the first two F-35 deliveries to the Department of Defense in 2012 and the seventh and eighth F-35 aircraft delivered to Eglin AFB since July 2011. Previously, six U.S. Air Force F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) jets were delivered to the base.

The F-35 Lightning II is a 5th Generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. Three distinct variants of the F-35 will replace the A-10 and F-16 for the U.S. Air Force, the F/A-18 for the U.S. Navy, the F/A-18 and AV-B Harrier for the U.S. Marine Corps, and a variety of fighters for at least nine other countries.

Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 with its principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems.

Uploaded by LockheedMartinVideos on Jan 11, 2012
Lockheed Martin production model F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft, BF-6 and BF-8, arrive at their new assignment with the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing's Marine Fighter/Attack Training Squadron 501 at Eglin AFB, Fla.

buglerbilly

12-01-12, 01:18 PM

Dutch Defence Minister In Texas to Discuss Joint Strike Fighter

(Source: Radio Netherlands; posted Jan. 11, 2012)

Defence Minister Hans Hillen says he did not avoid thorny issues during his recent visit to the JSF factory in Texas. “Lockheed Martin knows it will have to work hard to keep us on board,” he said afterwards. The Netherlands is still divided on the purchase of the F-35 which is to replace the country’s ageing fleet of F-16 fighter jets.

Minister Hillen said he was greatly impressed by the gigantic factory in Fort Worth where the F-35’s are being produced: “It’s a kilometre-and-a-half walk from one end to the other. You have no idea how big it is.”

The minister was allowed to put his signature on the first Dutch test plane which is currently under construction. He also had his picture taken with the plane in the background, but the photograph will only be released until after Lockheed Martin has ascertained that nothing classified as secret was accidentally included. The factory has extremely strict security regulations. Even taking out a mobile phone was banned because most of them can be used to take photographs.

Price

Minister Hillen said he informed his hosts of the thorny issues regarding the purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter that are causing political headaches in The Hague: “The price, the rumours about technical shortcomings. Are they true, and if they are not: why is it that they keep doing the rounds?”

In turn, the Dutch minister’s hosts clearly stated the thorny issue facing them: the Netherlands still has not taken a decision on a definitive order. “They do accept it; they are quite well informed about our political balance of power and public opinion,” the minister said. “However, I had to explain it to them once again because it is even more complicated than they thought.”

Delays

However, Mr. Hillen said the Americans are “extremely pleased” with the quality of the F-35 parts produced in the Netherlands. He is not much concerned about the delays to the JSF project. “It does not really affect us all that much, because we have postponed our final decision. It is much more of an issue to the Americans and others who have already placed their orders. It’s not my biggest headache.”

Mr Hillen said his biggest challenge was “to see whether we can convince a majority of the Dutch people and of parliament to choose this excellent plane as the successor to the F-16.”

Order

At present, such a majority does not exist. Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party, on which Prime Minister Rutte’s minority cabinet depends for parliamentary support, is opposed to the multi-billion euro investment in the F-35. Under the terms of the coalition agreement, the next cabinet will take the final decision on a definitive order. In Fort Worth, Minister Hillen reiterated his argument that “the Netherlands could well make more money from this project than it would ever cost. It creates great opportunities for Dutch industry: for employment, but also for innovation.”

Obama

Defence Minister Hillen is on a working visit to the United States. He will meet his colleague Leon Panetta in Washington. US President Barack Obama last week announced a new defence strategy for his country, in which the main focus changes from Europe and the NATO alliance to Asia and the Pacific.

“If that is the case, Europe has only itself to blame. We do rely on the Americans to resolve rather a large number of our problems. Are they maybe testing us to some extent, yes. But I don’t believe they are trying to shove Europe aside. On the contrary. They regard the joint values we created as too important to dump by the wayside.”

-ends-

buglerbilly

12-01-12, 01:20 PM

EDITORIAL: Japan's Choice of F-35 Fighter Raises Serious Questions

(Source: The Asahi Shimbun; published Jan. 10, 2012)

The government has chosen F-35 stealth jets jointly developed by nine countries, including the United States and Britain, as the mainstay fighter for the Air Self-Defense Force.

Japan will buy 42 F-35s over the next decade or so for a total 1.6 trillion yen ($20.81 billion), including maintenance and other costs.

It was an important policy decision made after a six-year selection process. But there are few signs that the government of the Democratic Party of Japan has tackled this task with the amount of effort and energy expected for a decision on such a huge outlay of taxpayer money.

It was clear from the beginning that the leading candidate would be a next-generation fighter aircraft equipped with cutting-edge military technologies the United States and Europe keep top secret, such as stealth technology to avoid detection by radar and high-performance engines.

Japan has also been researching these areas. But the government has done nothing to hasten the development of Japan's own technologies or use Japanese research efforts as leverage at the bargaining table.

In addition, the government made its decision solely on the basis of information provided by the manufacturers without carrying out its own test flights. In other words, the government simply swallowed their sales pitches.

The F-35 is the only next-generation fighter among the candidates. The other two were Boeing Co.'s F/A-18 and the Eurofighter, built by Britain's BAE Systems Plc and other contractors. The U.S. Air Force is also planning to make the F-35 its next mainstay fighter.

Given that both China and Russia are developing similar stealth technology for their jets, the government's choice seems reasonable.

But the selection has raised many serious questions, not least because the F-35 is still under development and the program is riddled with uncertainties.

Japan has demanded that deliveries begin in fiscal 2016. But there are growing concerns that the F-35 may not be introduced until 2018 or later due to technical problems that have caused delays in the program.

Even in the U.S. Congress, there has been a growing chorus of criticism about soaring costs.

The administration of Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda should have postponed its selection of the next mainstay fighter for at least a year to watch the course of events surrounding the F-35 program.

The Defense Ministry would, undoubtedly, have opposed such a move, saying it would make it impossible for Japan to maintain a fleet of 260 fighter jets--a key strategic principle set by the National Defense Program Guidelines.

But it is highly questionable whether maintaining that number of fighters is crucial for Japan's air defense. The selection process would have offered a good opportunity for fresh debate on the matter at the Diet.

We have urged the government to disclose more information about the selection process. But the government has been reluctant to meet our request, citing the need to protect "Japan's capability level and the trade secrets of the companies involved."

This attitude appears to support the view that it has been a political farce staged only to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

Other factors raise doubts about the F-35 decision. Unlike conventional fighter programs, Japanese companies are not allowed to supply any of the key components for the aircraft's control system, such as radar and electronic devices.

Although part of airframe production is open to Japanese defense contractors, the government's choice nevertheless represents a serious blow to Japan's aerospace industry.

Last autumn, Japanese production of fighter jets stopped for the first time since the end of World War II, raising concerns about the fate of more than 1,000 companies in the industry that boast highly sophisticated special technologies.

The selection of the F-35 has given no clues about the Noda administration's vision about the nation's air defense.

With Japan's state finances in serious trouble, the government needs to reinvent its air defense strategy.

-ends-

buglerbilly

14-01-12, 04:03 AM

Netherlands asks Denmark, Norway to join F-35 buy

(AFP) – 1 day ago

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta (R) greets Hans Hillen, the Netherlands Minister of Defense (AFP, Saul Loeb)

WASHINGTON — The Netherlands has asked Denmark and Norway to join it in acquiring and maintaining future F-35 fighter jets, Dutch Minister Hans Hillen said Thursday after meetings at the Pentagon.

The move was an example "of how far the Netherlands is prepared to go in cooperating with other countries in order to keep up NATO military capabilities," Hillens said at an address to the Atlantic Council during a brief US visit.

"Our F-16 fighter planes are coming to the end of their life cycle and their costly replacement is an issue of hot debate in Holland," he said.

Austerity measures squeezing defense projects in cash-strapped Europe is a major factor in prompting nations to join forces to acquire the new fighter.

"I have asked Denmark and Norway to think about cooperation regarding the fighter plan that will replace our F-16. By doing so, we can build existing cooperation between F-16 nations that are also considering the Joint Strike Fighter F-35 as a successor," Hillens said.

The three countries are contributors to an international consortium backing the development of the the F-35.

Dutch defense minister also met Thursday with his US counterpart Leon Panetta at the Pentagon, to discuss US force strategy in Europe, the upcoming NATO defense ministerial meetings to be held in early February in Brussels, and the NATO 2012 Summit scheduled for May in Chicago.

In discussing NATO issues, Panetta praised the Netherlands' "traditionally strong voice and leadership in the NATO alliance," said Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain John Kirby.

Lockheed Martin and the US government view global partners, including eight nations sharing program costs, as crucial to bringing down the overall price of the Joint Strike Fighter.

US defense officials have faced an uphill battle to contain the cost of the program, which has swelled to $385 billion -- technical problems have forced retrofitting efforts and a slower pace of production, driving up the price of each aircraft to roughly $113 million.

Copyright © 2012 AFP. All rights reserved

buglerbilly

14-01-12, 04:05 AM

F-35 Showed ‘Mixed Results’ in Tests, Pentagon Report Says

January 13, 2012, 5:02 PM EST

By Tony Capaccio

(Updates with comments from Lockheed Martin beginning in eighth paragraph.)

Jan. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 fighter, the U.S.’s top weapons program, had “mixed results” in tests last year of its flight characteristics and combat systems, according to a Pentagon report.

Director of Operation Test and Evaluation Michael Gilmore wrote in the report that the three versions of the aircraft in 2011 matched or exceeded the program’s restructured plan for tests designed to evaluate flying qualities. The jet in 2010 met most test goals after falling behind in 2009.

Flights designed to accomplish discrete events to demonstrate the aircraft’s war-fighting systems, such as navigation, enemy identification and targeting, fell behind 11 percent for the Air Force and 9 percent for the Marine Corps versions. The Navy’s aircraft carrier version is 32 percent ahead of schedule, the tester says.

“Development, integration and flight testing of the most complex elements of mission systems lie ahead,” Gilmore wrote.

The $382 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the Pentagon’s largest program. It plans to buy 2,443 jets for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

Production funding is estimated by the Pentagon to increase from the requested $6.9 billion this year to $14.2 billion in fiscal 2016.

Gilmore’s 13-page assessment is contained in his annual report on weapons testing that the Pentagon released today. Bloomberg News obtained a copy in advance.

Lockheed’s Response

“The report recognizes the numerous accomplishments of the F-35 program in 2011 such as the outstanding results from F-35 ship trials, completion of F-35C structural testing and the fact flight sciences and flight testing either matched or exceeded plan in 2011,” Lockheed spokesman Michael Rein said today in an e-mailed statement.

Flight tests in the report covered only the period through November, he said. Through December, “the flight test team completed 7,823 test points, an increase of 1,744 test points over the number published.”

The F-35 flight-test plan for last year called for the accomplishing 6,622 test points, Rein said.

Whether to Delay

The report outlines numerous challenges the test program faces as the Pentagon decides whether to delay purchasing 100 to 150 aircraft after 2017, the last year in the military’s five- year defense plan.

The report provides a neutral assessment of Lockheed Martin test progress that will be reviewed by lawmakers and the public throughout the fiscal 2013 budget process.

The short-takeoff and vertical landing Marine Corps model was placed on “probation” last year by then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates because of reliability and other problems. It’s the most complex model of the three versions.

The Marine Corps version in October successfully conducted initial trials from a ship at sea.

“However, significant work and flight tests remain to verify and incorporate modifications to aircraft required to correct known deficiencies and prepare the system for operational use,” Gilmore wrote.

“A significant amount of flight test and development remains to be accomplished” with some troubled components, including the propulsion system’s drive shaft, clutch and an actuator, he said.

Mixed Progress

The three variants exceeded by 105 the 812 test flights planned for last year. The flight program exceeded by 570 the number of planned test “points,” or planned flying events. It exceeded by 56 the 133 flights devoted to testing mission systems. Gilmore wrote.

“Overall, the program has demonstrated very little missions systems capability thus far in flight test,” Gilmore wrote. “In fact, the program has not delivered some of its intended initial training capability, such as effective and consistent radar performance.”

Gilmore said the 63 aircraft produced under Lockheed’s first four initial production contracts “will require significant numbers of structural modifications and upgrades to attain the planned service life” and full combat capability.

Rein said “the individual technical issues cited in the report are known issues that have engineering solutions either identified, in work or are currently in flight test.”

The assessment follows a team of Pentagon test, systems engineering and structural experts who concluded in a Nov. 29 report that “no fundamental design risks” would preclude production of the jet for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

It identified 13 current or likely test issues of varying severity, the combined effect of which “results in a lack of confidence” in the aircraft’s “design stability.” The issues include the Navy version’s tailhook for aircraft carrier landings, the system for dumping extra fuel before landing and excessive aircraft shaking during flight.

--Editors: Steven Komarow, Jodi Schneider

To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at acapaccio@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net

buglerbilly

14-01-12, 04:10 AM

Fight over fighter jet location

2012-01-13

Photo is manipulated

BIG loss for the town and locale of Bodø if this happens, a lot of money comes from the airbase.............mind you in Summer it barely gets dark and in Winter its barely light, I've been there on both yearly stages a number of times years ago...........great people of course!

Norway will invest €7 billion on 56 new F35 fighter jets. With new planes, the head of the armed forces recommends to move the mainbase from Bodø above the Arctic Circle to a more southern location. That triggers intense political debate about Norway's High North security policy.

In the future Norway might have no fighter jets stationed in the northern part of the country, if the recommendations from chief of Norwegian defence, General Harald Sunde, are heard.

The Norwegian F16 fighter jet base is today located in Bodø in northern Norway and in Ørlandet in southern Norway. When the €7 billion F35 fighter jets investment is in operation around 2020, General Sunde recommends locating all of them at Ørlandet outside Trondheim in mid Norway.

Shut down

This would mean that the current air base in Bodø will be shut down. The recommendation has been met with huge protests, especially from the northern parts of Norway. With an Air Force base on Ørlandet in sourthern Norway, the Norwegian fighter jets will not be able to reach the northeastern parts of Norway in one mission. At the same time the High North is considered one of the Norwegian Government’s main political priorities.

One of the Norwegian Air Force main jobs is to control military air traffic around the coast of Norway, especially to have an overview of the Russian Air Force traffic in the Barents Sea. According to the Norwegian Ministry of Defense this activity has decreased over the last years. The Norwegian Air Force says on the contrary that the Russian traffic has increased and will probably increase even more in the years to come.

A third location

However, the disagreements does not stop here, because a second location in northern Norway has been launched. Evenes airfield outside Harstad in Troms County is suggested as a third possibility and the county board of Troms supports this location.This has triggered a debate between the two North Norway counties of Nordland and Troms.

Even though the Chief of Defence has recommended Ørlandet for the new fighter jet base, the final decision is up to the Norwegian Government. State Secretary Roger Ingebrigtsen in the Ministry of Defense said this week that they are far from a conclusion and are still evaluating the different options.

- No matter which decision we take, the Norwegian Air Force will still be present in the High North performing all duties as normal, says Ingebrigtsen to newspaper Aftenposten.

buglerbilly

19-01-12, 01:17 AM

Lockheed Touts Fix for F-35 Fuel Dump

Jan. 18, 2012

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Lockheed Martin has found a way to fix the F-35 Lightning II’s fuel dump system, eliminating a potential fire hazard, a top company official said.

“We expect to have that configuration change back in the test airplane early this year,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed’s Joint Strike Fighter program manager. “The permanent modification that will go into all the production airplanes will be tested by the second quarter of this year.”

The current test aircraft fleet has an interim solution installed, Burbage said.

In conventional aircraft, fuel can be dumped through a mast that ejects the fluid away from the aircraft’s surfaces. But to keep the F-35 stealthy, the design pumped fuel out forcefully from a valve that is flush with the wing, Burbage said. This design allowed a portion of dumped fuel to move back toward the aircraft’s structure. On the Marine Corps’ F-35B version of the aircraft in particular, the fuel could flow too close to the roll-post ducts, part of the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing system, and potentially ignite.

The problem came to light in a November report to acting Pentagon procurement czar Frank Kendall compiled by the Defense Department’s top operational tester, J. Michael Gilmore.

buglerbilly

19-01-12, 01:19 AM

F-35 May Miss Acceleration Goal

Jan. 18, 2012

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

The F-35 Lightning II may not meet acceleration goals, a Lockheed Martin official said. / Lockheed Martin

The F-35 Lightning II’s transonic acceleration may not meet the requirements originally set forth for the program, a top Lockheed Martin official said.

“Based on the original spec, all three of the airplanes are challenged by that spec,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed’s program manager for the F-35. “The cross-sectional area of the airplane with the internal weapons bays is quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we’re replacing.”

The sharp rise in wave drag at speeds between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.2 is one of the most challenging areas for engineers to conquer. And the F-35’s relatively large cross-sectional area means, that as a simple matter of physics, the jet can’t quite match its predecessors.

“We’re dealing with the laws of physics. You have an airplane that’s a certain size, you have a wing that’s a certain size, you have an engine that’s a certain size, and that basically determines your acceleration characteristics,” Burbage said. “I think the biggest question is: are the acceleration characteristics of the airplane operationally suitable?”

A recent report by the Defense Department’s top tester, J. Michael Gilmore, says that the Navy’s F-35C model aircraft, which has larger wing and tail surfaces, is not meeting requirements for acceleration.

The report doesn’t say whether the F-35A and F-35B have hit similar snags.

Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., said that the revelation was not particularly surprising.

“It’s a strike fighter,” Aboulafia said. “It’s not an interceptor; it’s not an F-22.”

Aboulafia said it was unclear whether additional engine power could boost acceleration in the difficult transonic regime. So far, doubts about the aircraft’s aerodynamic performance haven’t diminished Lockheed’s sales prospects, he said.

The F-35 transonic acceleration specifications were written based on clean-configuration F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet fighter, Burbage said.

But unlike the Hornet or the F-16, the F-35 has the same configuration unloaded as it does loaded with weapons and fuel, Burbage said. When an F/A-18 or F-16 is encumbered with weapons, pylons and fuel tanks, those jets are robbed of much of their performance.

“What is different is that this airplane has accelerational characteristics with a combat load that no other airplane has, because we carry a combat load internally,” Burbage said, the F-22 Raptor notwithstanding.

Even fully loaded, the F-35’s performance doesn’t change from its unencumbered configuration, he said.

In the high subsonic range between Mach 0.6 to Mach 0.9 where the majority of air combat occurs, the F-35’s acceleration is better than almost anything flying.

Thus far, Lockheed has not had issues with the plane’s acceleration, Burbage said. There are top level Key Performance Parameters from which lower level detailed engineering specification are derived and Lockheed’s job is to meet as many of those specifications as possible within the laws of physics, he said. Discussions are underway about if those original specifications are relevant given the jet’s acceleration in a combat configuration, Burbage added.

Air Force Lt. Col. Eric Smith, director of operations at the 58th Fighter Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., and F-35 test pilot, said that flying the aircraft is a thrilling experience.

“I can’t even explain the adrenaline rush you get when you light the afterburner on that thing,” Smith said. “The acceleration is much better than an F-16.”

But the F-35’s aerodynamic performance is not what makes the jet special, Smith said. The F-35 powerful sensors and data-links and how that information is fused into a single coherent and easy to use display are what will make the jet an effective warplane.

Burbage added that while the F-35 is designed as a supersonic fighter, it’s not optimized for the extremely high supersonic speeds that the Raptor was designed to operate at.

“This is not a supercruising airplane like the F-22,” Burbage said.

buglerbilly

19-01-12, 01:25 AM

F-35C Tailhook Design Blamed for Landing Issues

Jan. 17, 2012

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Lockheed Martin has traced issues with the F-35C's tailhook problem to design and is correcting it, the company said. / Lockheed Martin

I'll throw thos slightly older, by a day, report on the tail hook problems. Look at the highlghted sentence, all of the doom-and-gloom CRAP written by uneducated morons in the Press and elsewhere comes down to a HOOK redesign..........:banghead

Completely BS responses by a whole raft of people, resources and idiots!

Lockheed Martin has traced the U.S. Navy F-35C Joint Strike Fighter’s troubles with catching a carrier’s arresting gear wires to the tailhook design.

Efforts to fix the problem are well underway, a top company official said.

“The good news is that it’s fairly straight forward and isolated to the hook itself,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed program manager for the F-35 program. “It doesn’t have secondary effects going into the rest of the airplane.”

Moreover, the rest of the design of the tailhook system, which include the doors and bay that conceal the device and other ancillary hardware, is sound, Burbage said.

“What we are trying to do is make sure that we got the actual design of the hook is optimized so that it in fact repeatedly picks up the wire as long the airplane puts itself in position to do that,” he said.

A preliminary review has already been completed and was done in conjunction with the Naval Air Systems Command and F-35 Joint Program Office.

Burbage said the hook system is already being modified in accordance with the new test data.

“We’re modifying the hook to accommodate what we found so far in test,” Burbage said. “The new parts, we expect to have them back in the next couple of months.”

Tests with the newly modified tailhook should start at Lakehurst, N.J, in the second quarter of this year, Burbage said.

That will give the F-35 program another set of data to study to make sure the new design works as promised. However, until those tests are done, there is no ironclad guarantee that the redesign of the tailhook will work, but Burbage said he is confident of that the modified design will be successful.

“The big test for this airplane is not until the summer of ’13 when we take the Navy jet out to the big deck carrier and do actual traps at sea,” Burbage said.

Burbage dismisses claims that the F-35C will be unable to land on a carrier as falsehoods.

“That’s patently not true,” he said.

Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., said the claim that the F-35C could never land on a ship was always highly dubious.

“They turned the YF-17 into a carrier plane, why couldn’t they correct carrier-hook problems here?” he said. “This does not appear to be a killer problem.”

Flight testing is designed to uncover and fix problems with a new aircraft, Aboulafia said.

“This is the kind of problem that might come out during the flight testing of a carrier-based plane,” he said.

Aboulafia added that the F-35 is an extremely ambitious program with its three variants — technical problems are par for the course.

The reason the problem with the hook arose in the first place is because of the inherent constraints of building a stealth fighter, said Burbage. The F-35 is the first naval stealth fighter and as such, Lockheed had the unique challenge of designing the jet with a tail-hook that had to be concealed when it’s not being used.

Because the tail-hook has to fit within the outer mold line of the F-35, the device had to be fitted further forward on the jet’s ventral surface than on other naval aircraft, Burbage said. The result is that the hook behaves differently than on previous fighters like the F/A-18.

In an ideal world, an arresting-hook will catch a wire 100 percent of the time, however in the real world that doesn’t happen due to various dynamic forces, the veteran former Navy test pilot said.

In the case of the F-35, one of those dynamic forces includes the way the wires react when the jet passes over them. The wire reacts in a sine wave pattern, Burbage said. “The time differential between when the main gear rolls over the cable and the time the hook picks up the cable on a more convention airplane, there is more time for that wave to damp out,” he said. “In the case of the F-35, one of our design constraints is that hook just has to be closer to the main landing gear than on a conventional aircraft because of the requirement to hide it inside the airplane.”

Another factor that effects landing on a carrier is the sheer force of the impact from a carrier landing. Unlike conventional land-based aircraft, naval aircraft don’t flare on landing. While the landing is on a more precise spot, it causes the tail-hook to oscillate vertically- which increases the chances that it won’t catch a wire, Burbage said. The dampening of that motion has to be tweaked, he said.

The shape of the hook itself also has an effect on the probability of catching a wire, he added. All of these are being tweaked to increase the chances that the F-35C will catch a wire on a carrier’s deck.

“We’re doing a redesign of the hook to increase the probability the hook will engage the wire a high percentage of the time,” Burbage said.

buglerbilly

20-01-12, 02:54 AM

Night Flights Commence for F-35

Jan. 19, 2012

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

The first night flight for the F-35 took place Jan. 18 at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. (Darin Russell / Lockheed Martin)

Pilots at Edwards Air Force Base (AFB), Calif., have started to test fly the F-35 Lightning II fighter at night, Lockheed Martin announced Jan.19.

Flown by company test pilot Mark Ward, aircraft AF-6, which is an F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant, took off at 17:05 on the afternoon of Jan. 18 and landed a little after sunset. The jet flew for a little more than an hour.

The sortie consisted of basic straight-in approaches, Lockheed’s press release said.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country at Eglin AFB, Fla., Marine Maj. Joseph “O.D.” Bachmann flew the 33rd Fighter Wing’s third F-35B to the seaside base on Jan. 19. The addition of the short takeoff vertical landing fighter brings the total number of F-35s at the Florida base to nine. Two B-models and six F-35As were delivered earlier.

buglerbilly

20-01-12, 04:03 AM

The Tailhook saga, this is the crux of the problem, the hook has to be kept hidden to maintain the stealth aspects of the plane. This has resulted in a VERY short tailhook length of 7+ feet, see illustration comparison below:

Because the F-35C – the Navy version of the plane – is stealthy, the tailhook must be housed inside the aircraft. That has shrunk the distance between the tailhook and the main landing gear to slightly more than seven feet, the shortest – i.e., diciest — in Navy history.

Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/01/19/tailhook-woes-cont/#ixzz1jy4JxiG9

ADMk2

20-01-12, 02:05 PM

Yes, but the tailhook reaches the ground. The length of the hook is not the problem. It has different geometry to ther carrier aircraft true, but then each and every one of those aircraft has a different hook length.

The problem is the wheel running over the wire and it slapping upwards after the wheels have run over it and the wire not having sufficient time to come back down in the fraction of a second it has before the tailhook attempts to catch it.

That is why the tailhooks are traditionally longer and so a different hook shape is being tried, instead of just using the existing one off the Super Hornet.

It seems to me this is a storm in a teacup, much like the F-35b's probation or the "loaded" F-35's inability to out-accelerate a clean F-16.

Duh. Very few aircraft in the world will out-accelerate a clean F-16. Let's put 18,000lbs of fuel on that F-16 and 4700lbs of weapons on that F-16 though and then race it against the F-35 and let's see how it goes.

Same for the Hornet.

The F-35 is a combat aircraft. Not a toy or an airshow queen. In combat, it will be plenty fast enough.

Milne Bay

20-01-12, 08:33 PM

Yes, but the tailhook reaches the ground. The length of the hook is not the problem. It has different geometry to ther carrier aircraft true, but then each and every one of those aircraft has a different hook length.

The problem is the wheel running over the wire and it slapping upwards after the wheels have run over it and the wire not having sufficient time to come back down in the fraction of a second it has before the tailhook attempts to catch it.

That is why the tailhooks are traditionally longer and so a different hook shape is being tried, instead of just using the existing one off the Super Hornet.

Yes, it seems to me to be the amount of separation between the wheels and the tailhook. The rear wheels are much closer to the end of the hook exacerbating the problem.
I wonder if a different shaped hook will cure it? The tailhook looks like it needs to be longer to give better separation from the back wheels.
Be interesting to see what they come up with.
MB

ADMk2

21-01-12, 12:35 AM

The engineers will over come this. They've already overcome greater engineering challenges in this program so far...

buglerbilly

21-01-12, 12:37 AM

They need to consider a fold-up tail hook, in other words, a tail hook that is folded in the short length when stowed in the stealth configuration and then drops and extends when landing that, combined with the new hook design (which I suspect is going to be a larger , more robust hook) should resolve matters and is simple engineering, the only complicating factor being making the fold-up, two-section lengths robust enough for repeated Carrier actions/landings.

buglerbilly

21-01-12, 12:40 AM

Panetta Takes F-35B Off ‘Probation’

Jan. 20, 2012 - 03:29PM

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the F-35B, seen here during testing aboard the USS Wasp in October, has improved its performance since former Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered the program be placed on probation. (Lockheed Martin)

That's a great pic!

PATUXENT RIVER, Md. — U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has taken the Marine Corps’ prized F-35B short takeoff vertical landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter off “probation,” the top Pentagon leader told a crowd of Navy testers.

Panetta said the F-35B, now in testing, had improved its performance in the year since the former Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered the effort placed under scrutiny because of a host of technical problems.

George Little, Pentagon press secretary, said that he couldn’t comment on whether F-35B production will now ramp up faster. But he said the variant has caught up with the Air Force and Navy versions.

A senior Defense official added that the capabilities of the B-model had particularly impressed the secretary. The AV-8B Harrier, which similar offers similar STOVL capabilities has proven useful fighting terrorists in the Middle East, he said.

Panetta said that aircraft, like the F-35, represents the type of advanced technology a smaller U.S. military will need.

“I welcome the Secretary of Defense’s announcement removing the F-35B Lightning II from “probation” and granting it full status commensurate with the other two variants of the Joint Strike Fighter, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos said in a statement. “I continue to be encouraged by the strong and steady progress that the F-35B team has made over the past year.

“As the F-35B program continues to mature, I want to reconfirm my commitment to the Department of Defense’s leadership and to Congress that the introduction of the F-35B into our fleet training squadrons and combat units will be done responsibly based on the merits of the test program, subsequent satisfactory progress in the operational evaluation, and the integrity of the airframe design itself,” he added. “As the principal service chief responsible for the fielding and operational employment of the short take-off-and-vertical-landing (STOVL) F-35, I will continue to closely monitor the jet’s progress on a daily basis, as I have over the past 13 months.”

buglerbilly

24-01-12, 12:38 AM

New JSF Software Boasts Voice Commands; It's Not Siri But...

By Colin Clark

Published: January 23, 2012

PATUXENT RIVER NAVAL AIR STATION: You climb up into your new Joint Strike fighter in your flight suit, pull on the flight helmet and say, "Hey darling, It's Squirt. Set up my screens the way I like em and let's go get some bad guys."

OK. The latest software in Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter isn't quite that much fun or as flexible as Apple's Siri voice command software on the new iPhone, but it does allow pilots to issue certain voice commands to the aircraft.

No, you can't tell it to find the most recent leader of Al Shabab in Somalia and blow up his Toyota. But you can sign in to the plane (supplemented with some highly classified ways to convince the plane you have permission to fly it) with your voice, change radio frequencies, alter the radio's volume and have it set up the two touch screens that give you most of your weapons and flight information just the way you like them.

It also allows you to program and turn on the aircraft's Identify Friend or Foe (IFF) system, key to the plane's ability to track where you and your enemies are.

Since this is the first effort at doing this, not everything is working fabulously yet. "Some of the commands work better than others," Marine Lt. Col. Matt Kelly told me and a colleague Friday. Kelly is one of the test pilots flying the F-35 at Patuxent River Naval Air Station. His call sign is Squirt. "It's not quite there yet."

Biggest let down about the new software? It "won't be used for weapons release," Kelly said before Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's speech here. Just imagine: "Darlin, arm the port Sidewinder missile. Please shoot that bastard on my tail. Thank you. Then let's go home."

buglerbilly

25-01-12, 10:21 AM

Israel makes fresh push to perform F-35 maintenance

By: Arie Egozi Tel Aviv

1 hours ago

Source:

Israel's air force has again expressed its opposition to the idea of performing heavy maintenance work on its future fleet of Lockheed Martin F-35 combat aircraft outside Israel.

As part of the US stealth fighter programme, Lockheed and the US Air Force want to establish regional maintenance centres for the F-35, with one such facility planned for Italy.

During recent talks between the Israeli air force and the USAF, Israel's opposition to using an overseas facility was underlined. A source close to the issue said the Americans understand the Israeli service's "special needs", and that alternative ways are now being evaluated to perform heavy maintenance on the F-35 at its own bases.

Deliveries from Israel's first order for 20 conventional take-off and landing F-35As are expected to start in early 2017, the source said, adding there is also an understanding that the air force will get permission to interface some Israeli-developed systems or equipment following their arrival.

This possibility applies mainly to the aircraft's electronic warfare suite, as previous Israeli requests to equip the type with domestically manufactured equipment were rejected.

buglerbilly

26-01-12, 02:45 PM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Royal Navy F-35C Concerns Come Into the Open

Posted by Robert Wall at 1/26/2012 6:37 AM CST

With U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta due to unveil budget cuts later today and Lockheed Martin reporting earnings, there was already plenty of opportunity for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter fireworks.

Now joining the action is the U.K., where closed-room comments by a senior Royal Navy Admiral have emerged, in which he raises questions about the availability of the F-35C in time to meet British needs. He also indicates a potential purchase of Boeing F/A-18E/Fs or Dassault Rafales as a stop-gap measure may have to be considered.

In comments reported by the U.K.'s The Times newspaper, retiring Adm. Trevor Soar is reported to have told an industry group in a closed door meeting he is worried that the F-35C may not be ready in time for the fielding of the new aircraft carrier towards the end of the decade in light of possible U.S. defense budget cuts.

In addition to the uncertainty over the U.S. spending plan -- a picture which could become clearer even today -- what may be driving the Admiral's interest in the alternative platform. Royal Navy pilots are now working with the U.S. and France, so they will be getting close-up experience with the Super Hornet and Rafale.
Any decision by the U.K. on its F-35C purchase -- beyond the three test aircraft already acquired -- will not come before next year.

How likely would a gap-filler purchase be? Not very, given the U.K.'s budget situation. That, of course, does not mean other courses of action would not be possible, including a lease-deal with the U.S. government for F/A-18E/Fs.

buglerbilly

31-01-12, 11:16 AM

Backwards parachutes ground some F-35s

By: Stephen Trimble Washington DC

10 hours ago

Source:

At least 15 Lockheed Martin F-35s are grounded for about 10 days to repack improperly installed parachutes, according to the programme office.

The grounding suspends all high-speed ground and flight tests at Edwards AFB, California; Eglin AFB, Florida and Fort Worth, Texas, the F-35 programme said.

Eight F-35s based at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, remain flightworthy.

The grounded aircraft are equipped with new versions of the Martin Baker US16E ejection seat, the F-35 programme said.

The wrong packing instructions were sent to the ejection seat manufacturer, the F-35 programme said. As a result, Martin-Baker packed the parachutes backwards, the programme said.

The ejection seats must be sent back to Martin Baker in the UK to reverse the parachutes.

The problem only involves newer ejection seats designated as -21 and -23. The F-35Bs and F-35Cs stationed at Patuxent River have older ejection seats with parachutes that were packed correctly, the programme said.

Despite two fleet-wide grounding orders last year, the programme completed all flight tests for 2011 in mid-November, although the number of test points accomplished lagged slightly behind.

buglerbilly

01-02-12, 01:17 PM

General Dynamics Awarded $24 Million F-35 Lightning II Gun System Contract

(Source: General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products; issued January 31, 2012)

CHARLOTTE, N.C. --- General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, a business unit of General Dynamics, was awarded a $23.6 million contract by Lockheed Martin Corp. for production of more than two dozen GAU-22/A gun systems for the F-35 Lightning II.

The GAU-22/A is a derivative of General Dynamics' proven GAU-12/U 25mm Gatling gun, which the company has produced for more than 40 years. The GAU-22/A is a lighter-weight, four-barrel version with improved accuracy over the GAU-12/U. General Dynamics has been manufacturing GAU-22/A guns for F-35 aircraft since 2009.

"The GAU-22/A's reliability lends a significant advantage in lower aircraft maintenance costs, while the gun's high rate of fire and increased range bring air superiority in tactical air-to-air and air-to-ground combat situations," said Steve Elgin, vice president and general manager of armament systems for General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products.

The F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter, is a fifth-generation multirole fighter used by all branches of the U.S. military and U.S. allies. An internally mounted GAU-22/A gun system will arm the conventional take-off and landing variant (F-35A), while externally mounted gun systems will be used by the short take-off and vertical landing variant (F-35B) and carrier version (F-35C) of the aircraft.

Production will begin in 2012 at General Dynamics' facility in Saco, Maine, which employs more than 400 people. Program management and engineering will be performed at the General Dynamics Technology Center in Williston, Vt. In addition to producing the GAU-22/A, General Dynamics' facility in Marion, Va., supplies advanced, lightweight composite radomes for the F-35 aircraft. General Dynamics' Marion facility employs over 450 people.

-ends-

Chunder

02-02-12, 07:43 AM

Stingy bastard.... Why can't you find us a god damned pic!?

buglerbilly

02-02-12, 09:16 AM

Whinge, whinge ferkin whinge....geroff yer ass and find one yersel'..........

buglerbilly

02-02-12, 09:30 AM

Look here............:razz

ARH v.3.1

02-02-12, 12:00 PM

:painting

Chunder

02-02-12, 12:57 PM

Look here............:razz

Bug.... you seriously are a top bloke.

buglerbilly

02-02-12, 01:12 PM

Modesty stops me from agreeing with the utter truth of that statement..............:thumbsup

buglerbilly

05-02-12, 11:35 AM

China's Role In JSF's Spiraling Costs

Feb 3, 2012

By David Fulghum, Bill Sweetman, Amy Butler
Washington, Washington, Washington

How much of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s spiraling cost in recent years can be traced to China’s cybertheft of technology and the subsequent need to reduce the fifth-generation aircraft’s vulnerability to detection and electronic attack?

That is a central question that budget planners are asking, and their queries appear to have validity. Moreover, senior Pentagon and industry officials say other classified weapon programs are suffering from the same problem. Before the intrusions were discovered nearly three years ago, Chinese hackers actually sat in on what were supposed to have been secure, online program-progress conferences, the officials say.

The full extent of the connection is still being assessed, but there is consensus that escalating costs, reduced annual purchases and production stretch-outs are a reflection to some degree of the need for redesign of critical equipment. Examples include specialized communications and antenna arrays for stealth aircraft, as well as significant rewriting of software to protect systems vulnerable to hacking.

It is only recently that U.S. officials have started talking openly about how data losses are driving up the cost of military programs and creating operational vulnerabilities, although claims of a large impact on the Lockheed Martin JSF are drawing mixed responses from senior leaders. All the same, no one is saying there has been no impact.

While claiming ignorance of details about effects on the stealth strike aircraft program, James Clapper, director of national intelligence, says that Internet technology has “led to egregious pilfering of intellectual capital and property. The F-35 was clearly a target,” he confirms. “Clearly the attacks . . . whether from individuals or nation-states are a serious challenge and we need to do something about it.”

The F-35 issue was ducked as well by David Shedd, deputy director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, but not the impact of cybertheft on defense spending and operational security.

“I am not going to talk about the F-35, Shedd says. “I’d be sitting with the secretary having a counseling session. The answer is absolutely yes. The leaks have hurt our efforts in that it gives the adversary an advantage in having insights into what we’re doing. It should be clear that whether there are leaks on the technology side or that affect preemptive decision-making, they are very damaging to the intelligence community.”

Those closer to the program are less equivocal about the damage that cyberintrusions are causing the JSF program.

“You are on to something,” says a veteran combat pilot with insight into both the F-35 and the intelligence communities “There are both operational and schedule problems with the program related to the cyber data thefts. In addition, there are the costs of redressing weaknesses in the original system design and lots of software fixes.”

The subject also was addressed during Pentagon briefings about President Barack Obama’s budget for 2013.

“We are very attentive . . . to cybervulnerabilities in weapon systems, ours and those of others,” says Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. “It’s part of the modern world. It’s a highly computerized airplane. Like all our other computer systems, we have to be attentive to it.”

In July 2011, then-Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn pointed out that a foreign intelligence agency had victimized a major defense contractor and extracted 24,000 files concerning a developmental system. That is important because a decision to redesign a compromised system depends on whether the lost information would help the intruder develop similar systems and generate methods of attack and defense. Some U.S. officials have pegged the costs at tens of billions of dollars.

There is some empirical evidence to support this concern. China has made a habit in recent years of regularly rolling out new aircraft designs, including the J-20 stealth prototype strike fighter and a series of new unmanned aircraft that look like U.S. designs such as the Global Hawk and Sensor Craft.

Nonetheless, the Pentagon’s ardor for the strike fighter has not dampened.

“We want the airplane,” Carter declares. “We want all three variants. At the same time, there is the issue of cost and the performance of the program in this difficult time when we are trying to reach full-rate production. That’s still a concern. We’ll ride up that curve to full-rate production when it’s economically and managerially prudent to do it.”

Despite the proclamation of support for the program, the Pentagon is expected to reduce by 179 aircraft the U.S. buy of F-35s through 2017 in the forthcoming fiscal 2013 defense spending request, according to a Reuters report. If approved by Congress, this would dash the hopes of Lockheed Martin to swiftly ramp up production and lower per-unit prices, a goal tied to the company’s campaign to sell the aircraft abroad. The Pentagon’s reasoning for slowing production is to reduce the impact of yet-unknown problems that could still arise from the flight-test program. In addition, the Block II software package is late. It was slated for release to the flight-testing fleet by the end of last year.

An early concern about a possible avenue for hacking into stealth aircraft, the F-35’s Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL), is no longer suspect. It was dropped as an add-on to the F-22 and B-2 that would allow stealth aircraft to communicate without being detected. Program insiders say MADL was scrubbed as a “pure money issue.” MADL was designed for high throughput, frequency-hopping and anti-jamming capabilities with phased-array antenna assemblies that send and receive tightly directed radio signals.

The F-35 program may have been vulnerable because of its lengthy development. Defense analysts note that the JSF’s information system was not designed with cyberespionage, now called advanced persistent threat, in mind. Lockheed Martin officials now admit that subcontractors (6-8 in 2009 alone, according to company officials) were hacked and “totally compromised.” In fact, the stealth fighter program probably has the biggest “attack surface” or points that can be attacked owing to the vast number of international subcontractors.

There also is the issue of unintended consequences. The 2009 hacking was apparently not aimed at the F-35 but rather at a classified program. However, those accidental results were spectacular. Not only could intruders extract data, but they became invisible witnesses to online meetings and technical discussions, say veteran U.S. aerospace industry analysts. After the break-in was discovered, the classified program was halted and not restarted until a completely new, costly and cumbersome security system was in place.

There is another view of what is affecting JSF and why. A former senior staffer for the U.S. Senate contends that the F-35 program’s problems reflect diminishing interest in manned aircraft whose performance is limited primarily by its aircrew.

“I think the biggest issue facing the JSF is that there has been a profound shift in the military’s perception of the value of manned aircraft compared to unmanned aircraft,” he says. “I’ve had long conversations with a Marine Corps forward air controller who has just returned from Afghanistan. He pointed out that an F/A-18 can be kept on call for 15 minutes, but an unmanned Reaper is there for eight hours. The day of the fighter pilot is over. There has been a seismic shift in the military’s value judgment of manned and unmanned aircraft.”

However, that is a disputed analysis.

The JSF and its mission of penetrating integrated air defense systems will not be threatened by unmanned aircraft despite cost issues, says a retired aerospace official who has been involved with the F-35 throughout its life.

Marc 1

06-02-12, 02:48 AM

Quoted from above:

“I think the biggest issue facing the JSF is that there has been a profound shift in the military’s perception of the value of manned aircraft compared to unmanned aircraft,” he says. “I’ve had long conversations with a Marine Corps forward air controller who has just returned from Afghanistan. He pointed out that an F/A-18 can be kept on call for 15 minutes, but an unmanned Reaper is there for eight hours. The day of the fighter pilot is over. There has been a seismic shift in the military’s value judgment of manned and unmanned aircraft.”
More an airframe issue me thinks not a crewed/uncrewed issue. A B52 or B1B could also have been overhead for 8 hours with a payload of SDB's. Still, when you have a barrow to push you'll grasp at any straw to make your argument.

ARH v.3.1

06-02-12, 08:36 AM

It's still a fair point. A large portion of moderate-high risk or high profile interdiction missions are being conducted by long range cruise missiles, with the next generation of UCAV's likely to heavily supplement long range missiles, ISR is increasingly being dominated by unmanned aircraft, electronic warfare is going to be largely dominated by unmanned aircraft in order to get closer to the target...

Aircrew are increasingly being relegated as sensor operators that no longer need to be on board the aircraft to do their job. It just so happens that the only manned aircraft with the ability to remain on station for long periods are long range bombers, but there is no reason for them to remain manned other than the fact that there currently isn't an option to fly them unmanned. Take the aircrew out of the equation and the aircraft could potentially remain on station for days at a time.

Weasel

06-02-12, 12:31 PM

ADMk2

07-02-12, 01:38 PM

The US is worried about being hacked? Turn off the Internet then...

See that blue cable there with the rectangular clear plastic plug at each end? Pull it out. You'll be impervious to any hack ever invented.

Need to have a meeting? Get in a car, bus, train, plane, helicopter or boat and go and have a meeting. Again you are impervious to hacking should you do so.

L-M got pwned last year, because they let malware infected PDF's through their email systems from unknown external sources and stupid people opened these payloads, despite them being from unknown sources but ones clearly with a very poor command of the english language, on systems connected both externally and internally within L-M.

How friggin amateur can you get?

ADMk2

09-02-12, 05:40 AM

ITALY ORDERS INITIAL 3 F-35 FIGHTERS.

On Feb. 7, 2012, Gen. Claudio Debertolis, head of the agency that is responsible for the procurement of new armaments, has announced that Italy has already ordered the first three Lockheed Martin F-35s.

Unit price: 80 million USD.

Talking to the lower house’s defense commitee, Debertolis explained that these first planes will cost more than the rest of the fleet since costs are going to decrease as the program, currently in Low Rate Initial Production, continues. The Italian high rank officer is particularly optimistic, as he believes that the unit price will be around 70 million each (Lockheed Martin estimates 65M USD for the F-35A and about 73M USD for the F-35B), less than the 79 million USD currently paid for the Eurofighter Typhoon and much less of the 121 million USD per aircraft anticipated in 2011.

Quite surprising, since unit price is one of the JSF partner’s main concern, but possible, considering also that the Typhoon has just lost India’s mother of all tenders based on price.

Although there’s no official commitment yet, the initial requirement for Italy foresaw 131 examples (69 conventional take-off and landing F-35As and 62 of the short take-off and vertical landing variant F-35Bs). Debertolis confirmed that determining how many aircraft Italy will purchase is not a current task, since it will depend on the Defense Budget Review. Nevertheless, even if the number of aircraft will be much lower than the initial 131, the MoD will work to make sure that the industry will get the expected compensation.

Italy is working on stretching deliveries and slowing purchase “a much easier task than that with the Eurofighter program, since the F-35 procurement is modular therefore delays don’t imply increasing costs” Debertolis said.

Furthermore with the recent Eurofighter defeat in India, Italy is going to stop working on the Typhoon and “divert” part (if not all) of its workforce towards the F-35, being assembled at the Cameri FACO (Final Assembly and Check Out) facility.

Finally, Debertolis has confirmed that Italy will have both A and B variants, with the STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing) ones serving both the Air Force and the Navy, that will use them on the Cavour aircraft carrier.

In spite of the widespread criticism surrounding the program and the global financial crisis it looks like the F-35 has, if not a bright future ahead, at least good chances to survive the austerity measures of the new Monti’s technocratic cabinet.

http://theaviationist.com/2012/02/08/f35-typhoon/

Someone else who apparently is incompetent, corrupt and refuses to listen to all the "online expert"s.

Oh, and clearly doesn't agree with BS's accounting capability nor APA's capability analysis...

daniel

10-02-12, 11:21 AM

Aussies’ modest proposal: Sell us F-22s, mate

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/09/aussies-modest-proposal-sell-us-f-22s-mate/

For F-35 proponents, every sunrise brings new reasons for unease about the future of the program. It regularly gets bad headlines in the U.S. The Brits now say they’ll wait until 2015 before committing to buy any more jets. And as we’ve talked about before, there are rumblings Down Under that suggest the Australians may be losing their patience.

But proponents in the U.S. and Australia can take heart about one thing — these are the guys they’re up against:

Some of the most vehement critics of Australia’s involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter program had their day in the sun on Tuesday afternoon when they testified before a high level parliamentary defence committee. Representatives of anti-JSF think tank Air Power Australia and RepSim Pty Ltd were given an hour to make their case before the defence subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
By the time the group was 30 minutes into its presentation at least five of the committee members had left the room.

Remaining committee members, including Opposition defence spokesman Senator David Johnston, were told the JSF program was a failure, the planes only had limited stealth capability and that they were compromised by the use of a core design to produce three different variants; a conventional land based plane, a short take off and landing variant that will replace the US Marine Corps’ Harrier jets and a carrier version.

Air Power Australia wants the Australian Government to abandon the JSF and, instead, exert pressure on the US Government to scrap the program in favour of having Lockheed Martin re-open its F-22 Raptor production line and make that plane, arguably the world’s best air superiority fighter, available to the international partners.

Yeah, that’s gonna happen. You can’t blame them for taking what they believe is the best position for their government — and, after all, they’re standing upside down on the bottom of the planet, so the blood is probably rushing to their heads. But if Lockheed’s own Amur’kun advocates in Congress couldn’t save the F-22, the chances are even more remote that Canberra can do it.

All other things being equal, an export version of the F-22 could be a great idea for the U.S. On the What’s-Good-for-Lockheed-is-Good-for-America front, the company resumes cranking out airplanes down in Marietta. The Australian and Japanese air forces start flying the world’s greatest super-jet from their own fields in the Western Pacific. Lockheed comes back to the Air Force and says, hey, we’re so good at building these things in volume now, we’ll sell you a whole batch for fifty bucks apiece. The waves upon waves of F-22s in the skies block out the sun.

But this schoolboy fantasy will never be. As defense commentator Loren Thompson wrote this week, the U.S. has a spotty track record in dealing with potential export customers for military airplanes. He set up his post as an explanation of why India might have chosen France’s Dassault Rafale over the F-35:

New Delhi is a complicated place, and there were probably multiple reasons for the decision. But here’s one factor that hasn’t been reported. India made three different requests for information to the U.S. government over the last several years about sea-based versions of the F-35, and somehow nobody in Washington ever managed to answer any of them. Not surprisingly, the Indians eventually went away, but the lack of a U.S. response can’t have made a good impression.

This situation is reminiscent of the way Japan, another first-tier Asian power, was treated when it made repeated inquiries concerning possible purchase of the twin-engine F-22 fighter. Military planners in Tokyo felt the F-22 was uniquely suited to Japan’s geostrategic circumstances, and therefore were seriously contemplating its purchase. Their inquiries weren’t just ignored in Washington, but bluntly rebuffed. Tokyo eventually decided to buy the single-engine F-35 instead, which is just as stealthy but not as agile in the most demanding engagements (it’s still far superior to any foreign fighter).

So it seems the Aussies should not feel particularly slighted about either their membership in Club F-35 or a few peoples’ F-22 aspirations. Dealing with the U.S. apparently is a headache for everyone.

ADMk2

10-02-12, 01:15 PM

It's hilarious. The fact that the F-22 line has shut down, all the tooling packed up, the SME's moved onto other projects, the legislation that they promised us would be changed in 2005 still hasn't been changed and all the F-111's are buried under a million tons of crap at Ipswich, still hasn't stopped the lunatics... Did someone mention obsession much?

I note the transcript of that hearing isn't up yet, I can't wait til it is, it will be hilarious. It will be found here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/defenceannualreport_2010_2011/hearings.htm

jack412

10-02-12, 07:26 PM

obsession is the word, he would be better to accept that his dreams of f-22 and f-111 hasn't come to reality and move on, clear his head and rejoin the workforce, other than this folly he hasn't really done much since leaving RAAF.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/joint-strike-fighter-program-a-failure-think-tank/2448416.aspx
I note from from this that they had a sim to back up their claims, of course it was loaded their own 'data', rubbish in rubbish out

buglerbilly

12-02-12, 01:51 AM

UPDATE 1-Italy widely expected to scale back F-35 orders

Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:00pm EST

* Cabinet to review defence spending cuts Tuesday -govt source

* Italian defense minister to outline cuts to lawmakers Wednesday

* Italy to cut order to 100 from 131 -newspaper

By Steve Scherer

ROME, Feb 10 (Reuters) - Italy seems certain to scale back its major investment in Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, heightening uncertainty over the troubled stealth jet's future.

Defence Minister Giampaolo Di Paola has said repeatedly since January that the country's originally planned order of the 131 supersonic warplanes by 2018 was being "reviewed" because military spending cuts were necessary as part of Prime Minister Mario Monti's austerity plan to shore up public accounts.

General Claudio Debertolis, secretary general of the Defence Ministry and the country's armaments chief, confirmed to lawmakers on Tuesday that cuts were expected.

"There will be a revision of this Joint Strike Fighter programme to align it with disposable resources," he said.

Italy will ask for about 30 fewer planes, Corriere della Sera daily reported on Friday, without citing its source. Panorama magazine gave the same number on Jan. 18.

Government sources and lawmakers told Reuters that it was premature to say how many of the F-35 fighters Italy will order because of uncertainty over the version of the aircraft designed for short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL).

This version is supposed to replace ageing Harrier jets on Italy's new hi-tech Cavour aircraft carrier.

On Tuesday Monti's Cabinet will examine the Defence Ministry's new spending plan that includes reducing F-35 outlays and personnel cuts, according to a government source. The minister will then detail the package to parliament on Wednesday.

The Pentagon's F-35 program office declined comment on Italy's plans, saying all of the partner countries would meet in Australia in March to discuss their production plans.

PENTAGON CUTS

Uncertainty over the Pentagon's most expensive current arms programme is growing as participating countries cut or postpone orders, and flight testing continues.

Washington is expected to announce on Monday that it will postpone production of 179 planes over the next five years, bringing the total that would have been ordered between 2013 and 2017 down to 244 from 423.

In January the Pentagon announced $487 billion in defence cuts over the next decade.

"It's reasonable to do what the American government is doing, reduce the number of orders and spread them out over a longer time frame," said Federica Mogherini, secretary of the Italian Chamber of Deputies' defense committee and a member of the centre-left Democratic Party, the second-biggest bloc supporting Monti's technocrat government in parliament.

"It's not yet necessary to establish total number of planes we will order because costs are evolving, and all the technical problems have yet to be resolved," she told Reuters.

Some of the most significant technical problems concern the short take-off model, which has had engine trouble, and needed an early redesign due to excess weight. Recently, there were concerns about metal fatigue in a bulkhead, overheating of parts, and excess vibration in doors for an air input port.

Only the United States and Italy have so far said they plan to buy the STOVL version of the aircraft.

Australia has also said it is rethinking its plan to buy 12 of the radar-evading jets, and Turkey has put off buying two of them. Britain said earlier this month that it won't make a firm commitment on the number of planes until 2015. The other partners in joint construction of the plane are Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Canada.

Italy is the third investor in the programme after the United States and Britain. Italy is in the process of ordering its first three planes for $240 million, Debertolis said on Tuesday.

Centre-left lawmakers called for defence cuts as Monti's "Save Italy" austerity measures kicked in this year, hitting Italians with smaller pensions and higher fuel costs, property and sales taxes aimed at eliminating the budget deficit by 2013.

Two newspapers aligned with the centre-left Democratic Party criticized spending on the F-35 jet programme in a series of articles during the first half of January.

State-owned Finmeccanica is one of the subcontractors on the project. Finmeccanica's Alenia unit will assemble the planes purchased by Italy, the Netherlands and Norway.

"Even if the order we make is much lower than 131 we started with, Italy's work on the aircraft is still guaranteed," Debertolis told lawmakers. "We could have a significant decrease in orders and still keep Italy's industrial role intact."

ADMk2

14-02-12, 12:52 PM

So the transcript of the APA farce is up here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/defenceannualreport_2010_2011/hearings.htm

All boils down to:

America needs to restart F-22 production. That is all that can fix the ills of the world.

What a bunch of wankers. I'm going to be writing my member for allowing these fools to waste the Senate's time.

buglerbilly

15-02-12, 04:39 AM

U.S. slowdown on F-35 purchases to raise cost - Lockheed Martin

OSLO | Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:00am EST

OSLO Feb 14 (Reuters) - A U.S. plan to drag out purchases of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet would increase "somewhat" the total cost paid by the United States and international allies, Lockheed Martin said on Tuesday.

"It will raise the overall average cost of the total procurement of all the airplanes bought," said Tom Burbage, head of Lockheed Martin's F-35 programme, a day after the Pentagon said it would slow procurement of the fledgling radar-evading aircraft.

Burbage told Reuters the average cost would "go up somewhat" but declined to quantify the effect. "It just changes the dynamics of the cost equation," he said.

The Pentagon on Monday confirmed plans to postpone production of 179 F-35s over the next five years to save $15.1 billion, including $1.6 billion by funding 13 fewer aircraft in fiscal year 2013.

Burbage was in Oslo to discuss Norway's intention to purchase up to 56 F-35. Oil-rich Norway said its plans remained unchanged.

buglerbilly

15-02-12, 10:20 PM

Italy Reduces F-35 Order Amid Military Cuts

Feb. 15, 2012 - 06:10AM

By TOM KINGTON

Cuts driven by a severe National budget problem of major proportions

ROME — Italy will cut its acquisition of Joint Strike Fighters from 131 to 90, Defense Minister Giampaolo Di Paola told the Italian Parliament on Feb 15.

The reduction in Italy’s JSF order by 41 aircraft forms part of an all-around trimming of Italy’s armed forces, forced by a 28 percent cut in defense ministry spending in 2012 as Italy seeks to survive Europe’s economic meltdown.

Addressing a joint hearing of the defense commissions of the two houses of the Italian Parliament, Di Paola said that Italy would also cut tanks, helicopters and artillery. Two army brigades will be axed, he said.

Navy vessel numbers will also be cut, with patrol vessels dropping from 18 to 10 and submarines dropping from six to four.

Without giving further details, Di Paola said that Italy’s air defense fighter numbers would also drop.

Di Paola said the JSF remained essential to Italy as the aircraft that will replace its aging Tornados, AMX fighter bombers and AV8 aircraft. “Italy has already invested 2.5 billion euros ($3.29 billion) in the program,” he said. “We envisaged ordering 131. Now a review of the program has led us to conclude that 90 aircraft is achievable.”

Military bases will be reduced, and Italy’s military head count will drop from 183,000 to about 150,000. Civilian staff will be cut from 30,000 to 20,000. The personnel reductions, which have been mulled for a number of years, will take place over the course of a decade, Di Paola said. Personnel cuts will be made by limiting intake and farming out personnel to other state institutions.

At a press conference on Feb. 14, Di Paola said the personnel cuts would target Italy’s top-heavy officer class. “Fewer generals, fewer admirals, more operational readiness and technology,” he said.

ADMk2

16-02-12, 02:40 AM

We'll see. F-16 has lived a lot longer than any proposed, I believe F-35 will too. I suspect we'll see many of these reduced initial orders be supplemented years on down the track. Look at the latest F-16V announcement. These orders are all for the very first model of F-35. Whilst the original plans won't come to fruition, I suspect Lockheed Martin will be building the F-35 for at least as long as it has built the F-16 for and in 10-15 years, many will be wondering what all today's fuss is about as F-35's lead campaign after campaign, just as the F-16 has done for the last 30 odd years.

buglerbilly

17-02-12, 12:26 PM

F-35 Naval Variants Commence Weapons Testing

(Source: US Naval Air systems Command; issued Feb. 16, 2012)

PATUXENT RIVER, Md. --– Marine Corps Maj. C. R. “Jimi” Clift flies F-35B Joint Strike Fighter test aircraft BF-3 Dec. 19, 2011 with a 1,000-lb inert test GBU-32 in an open internal weapons bay for loads testing.

Significant weapons testing for the F-35B and F-35C variants is scheduled for 2012, including fit checks, captive carriage, pit drop and aerial drop tests.

The F-35B is the variant of the Joint Strike Fighter for the U.S. Marine Corps, capable of short take-offs and vertical landings for use on amphibious ships or expeditionary airfields to provide air power to the Marine Air-Ground Task Force. The F-35B is undergoing test and evaluation at NAS Patuxent River prior to delivery to the fleet. (ends)

Weapons Testing Under Way

(Source: Lockheed Martin; posted 16 February 2012)

F-35B and F-35C Lightning II weapons testing is now under way at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division test facility at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland.

The tests will include fit checks, captive carry flights (as shown here), and ground pit drops, all of which will lead to aerial drop tests later this year.

In this photo, taken 19 December 2011, Marine Corps Maj. C. R. Clift flies a dynamic loads test in an F-35B test aircraft with a 1,000-lb inert test GBU-32 satellite-guided bomb loaded in the aircraft’s internal weapons bay.

-ends-

ADMk2

17-02-12, 02:51 PM

Sweet F-35 video here including first DAS and EOTS footage. Pretty incredible stuff there...

buglerbilly

17-02-12, 11:40 PM

Every time I see the F-35 it screams "the right thing" to me, all in balance and with HUGE potential to go FAR further........

ADMk2

18-02-12, 02:03 AM

Every time I see the F-35 it screams "the right thing" to me, all in balance and with HUGE potential to go FAR further........

Yep I agree. Look at the F-16 how developed it was over it's life. Does this really represent what the aircraft was meant to provide at it's entry to service?

So it will be with F-35. The variants we see in 20 years time won't resemble the F-35A's we see flying today, especially in overall capability...

Unicorn

19-02-12, 10:14 AM

Sweet F-35 video here including first DAS and EOTS footage. Pretty incredible stuff there...

I note the RAAF engineer in that vid at the 4.50 mark.

.

ADMk2

19-02-12, 12:47 PM

Yep, an effective way to get the multi-national message across.

buglerbilly

20-02-12, 10:22 PM

F-35 Begins Flight Tests Equipped With External Missiles

Feb. 20, 2012 - 01:30PM

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

An F-35A version of the Joint Strike Fighter is seen during testing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. (Paul Weatherman / Lockheed Martin)

The U.S. Air Force’s F-35A version of the tri-service Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has begun flight testing with external stores at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., plane-maker Lockheed Martin said Feb. 20.

The JSF test force flew a plane loaded with two AIM-9X short-range air-to-air missiles, each carried on an external pylon. Additionally, the jet carried two 2,000-pound bombs and two AIM-120 radar-guided air-to-air missiles inside its twin internal weapon bays. A photo accompanying the Lockheed release indicates that the aircraft was also carrying four additional pylons that were not loaded.

The fifth-generation fighter is designed to carry up to 18,000 pounds on 10 weapon stations. Four of those weapon stations are inside its two weapon bays, the rest are on each wing. The wing weapon stations would only be used when stealth is not a priority as external carriage would betray the jet to enemy radars.

buglerbilly

20-02-12, 10:32 PM

Another pic..........

ADMk2

21-02-12, 02:45 AM

F-35 Begins Flight Tests Equipped With External Missiles
The wing weapon stations would only be used when stealth is not a priority as external carriage would betray the jet to enemy radars.

No, external stores will increase the aircraft's radar cross section over that it has when in full low observable configuration, it's not suddenly going to light up like New Years eve just because it's radar reflectivity has increased a bit.

Those pylons are designed for LO and I expect that they will mostly be used for weapons which won't fitin the internal bays like the JASSM and other LO weapons.

I believe only occasionally will non-LO weapons be carried externally on the JSF and then as part of a tactical force package with "full LO" and not full LO" aircraft but aircraft with large weapons loads operating hand in hand...

In addition to which those pylons can be ejected if necessary and full LO resumed mid-flight, though ejecting pylons would not be a regular event I would imagine. The cost would add up...

Jezza

21-02-12, 09:20 AM

Question, So why not wingtip AIM-9X rails

Gubler, A.

21-02-12, 10:28 AM

Question, So why not wingtip AIM-9X rails

I would hazard a guess: stealth...

Jezza

21-02-12, 11:04 AM

I would hazard a guess: stealth...

Haha, Love ya work

insert rails on wingtips to load sidewinders, in non stealth mode??

ADMk2

22-02-12, 01:11 AM

Haha, Love ya work

insert rails on wingtips to load sidewinders, in non stealth mode??

Wingtip rails can't be ejected if the pilot wishes to return his aircraft to LO configuration, pylons can be ejected...

buglerbilly

23-02-12, 04:29 AM

F-35 Plane Falls Short on Goals Costing Lockheed $32 Million

By Tony Capaccio

(Updates shares in ninth paragraph.)

Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Lockheed Martin Corp. lost $31.5 million of a possible $52.5 million in U.S. payments last year because its F-35 fighter failed to meet three milestones, according to Pentagon data.

Lockheed, the world’s largest defense contractor, had an opportunity to earn as much as $10.5 million for each of five performance goals set for the fighter. It successfully completed two, Joseph DellaVedova, the Pentagon’s spokesman for the F-35 program, said in an e-mail.

The forfeited $31.5 million marked the second consecutive year of reduced fees after Defense Secretary Robert Gates tightened payment criteria for the F-35, the Pentagon’s most costly weapons program, in February 2010.

The annual performance payments are Bethesda, Maryland- based Lockheed’s only fees on the $27.4 billion development contract that goes through 2016. Lockheed is paid separately for delivery of aircraft under the initial four production contracts.

The reduced fees marred a year when the Pentagon’s test office reported the three versions of the F-35 matched or exceeded the program’s restructured plan for tests designed to evaluate flying qualities. The jet met most test goals in 2010 after falling behind in 2009.

The Pentagon’s top weapons buying group, the Defense Acquisition Board, met yesterday to review a revised cost estimate and schedule for what’s now a $382 billion project. The results will be adopted in an official Pentagon decision memo, spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said in an e-mail.

Matters to Shareholders

Falling short on the milestones “matters to Lockheed Martin shareholders,” Byron Callan, director of defense analysis for Capital Alpha Partners LLC, in Washington, said in an e-mail. “Clearly, if incentives aren’t being earned, it means the program isn’t exceeding expectations. Being on track might be OK, but being on firmer ground would be even better in this budget environment.”

Higher fees to Lockheed Martin would confirm “what investors have been hearing -- that the program is making progress and test milestones are being knocked down,” he said.

Lockheed rose 46 cents to $87.61 at 9:57 a.m. in New York trading after increasing 6.5 percent in the 12 months through yesterday.

Citing improved performance, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last month ended a two-year “probation” that Gates had imposed on the Marine Corps version of the plane, the F-35B designed for short takeoffs and vertical landings. It is the most complex model.

‘Significant Progress’

“We successfully met the criteria for two milestones and made significant progress on the other three,” although the F-35 contract doesn’t allow for partial credit, Michael Rein, a Lockheed Martin spokesman, said in an e-mail.

“While we’re disappointed that we did not meet our customers’ expectations on all of the specific elements of the award fee milestones, we believe the F-35 program made outstanding progress in flight test, training and production in 2011,” Rein said.

For 2010, Lockheed earned $7 million of a possible $35 million based on performance, forfeiting the remaining $28 million because it failed to meet the required milestones.

Money Withheld

Gates had withheld from the F-35’s development program $614 million, Lockheed’s remaining unearned fees, as he extended that phase and delayed purchases of 122 aircraft.

He also directed the Pentagon’s F-35 program office to tighten criteria for earning the withheld money. The $35 million and $52.5 million in potential fees were part of a pool that is now down to $526.5 million.

Robert Stevens, Lockheed’s chairman and chief executive officer, said in a July 29 interview, that the company was “on track” to meet the five milestones. “Our heads are down,” he said. “We are focused.”

Of the five milestones, Lockheed and subcontractors Northrop Grumman Corp. and BAE Systems Plc successfully met all criteria for ground testing used to verify structural integrity at hundreds of airframe locations. Lockheed also completed sea trials of the F-35B, accomplishing 72 short takeoffs and 72 vertical landings on the USS Wasp.

Lockheed didn’t accomplish all the requirements for two software releases or of aircraft carrier “suitability” tests of launching and landings conducted on the ground in Lakehurst, New Jersey.

The fee was withheld because Lockheed needs to redesign a faulty tail-hook assembly that failed in some of the ground tests to fully hook onto the arresting cable used during landings. The flaw was discovered early enough to keep on track for testing at sea in 2014, according to DellaVedova.

Lockheed was informed of the fee decision on Jan. 30, four days after reporting fourth-quarter earnings, DellaVedova said.

--Editors: Larry Liebert, Terry Atlas

To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at acapaccio@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: John Walcott at jwalcott9@bloomberg.net

buglerbilly

23-02-12, 04:32 AM

Japan warns U.S. price of F-35 fighter must not rise

By Rie Ishiguro

TOKYO | Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:34am EST

TOKYO Feb 22 (Reuters) - Japan has repeatedly warned the United States against price rises in Lockheed Martin Corp's new F-35 fighter jet, its top government spokesman said on Wednesday, after U.S. and Lockheed officials noted delays in orders will increase its total cost.

The comments from Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura come after Japan's Sankei newspaper cited unidentified U.S. government officials as saying that Japan had threatened that it may even cancel its orders if prices climbed.

Japan picked the F-35 as its next mainstay fighter in December, choosing it over combat-proven but less stealthy rivals.

"When we were selecting the fighter, we asked those making the proposals to strictly observe their proposed prices and supply schedules. Japan has conveyed this to the U.S. from time to time," Fujimura told a news conference.

The Pentagon last week confirmed plans to put off orders for 179 F-35s over the next five years to save $15.1 billion, a move that Lockheed executive vice president Tom Burbage told Reuters would increase the price of the plane somewhat.

Canadian officials have been told the price of their jets would increase by a nominal percentage amount "in the low single digits" as a result of the U.S. slowdown.

Japan's Defense Ministry has said each jet would cost 8.9 billion yen ($112 million), or 9.9 billion yen including spare parts. The ministry plans to buy 4 jets in the year beginning in April and 42 units eventually.

buglerbilly

24-02-12, 08:58 AM

Turkey plans on buying 100 F-35

ISTANBUL- Hürriyet Daily News

Turkey will proceed with its plan to acquire dozens of F-35 fighter jets worth $16 billion, says the Turkish Defense Minister. Many partner countries of the international F-35 consortium have reneged on their purchasing plans

A F-35 fighter jet is on display at the Singapore Airshow Feb 12. Turkey wants to purchase 100 of them, with a total worth of $16 billion, to revamp its air forces. AFP photo

Turkey is planning to purchase 100 multi-purpose F-35 jet fighters worth $16 billion, Turkish Defense Minister İsmet Yılmaz has said, according to daily Milliyet.

The first two of the military aircraft will be delivered by 2015, he said. The decision to order two F-35s was made last month.

The multi-purpose F-35 fighter jets are being produced by the U.S.-based arms producer Lockheed Martin. Turkey became a member of the international F-35 consortium in 1999. Other partners of the consortium include Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, Norway and Denmark.

The statement indicates that Turkey is insisting on proceeding with its plan to purchase 100 F-35s even as many other partner countries, including the United States, have backtracked on their purchase plans due to delays and incremental costs.

The Pentagon postponed the purchase of 139 F-35 fighter jets for five years, while Britain said the decision regarding the number of F-35s that the country would buy would be delayed until 2015. Italy last week said its F-35 orders would be scaled down by 30 percent.

The U.S. government plans to manufacture 2,443 F-35 fighter jets, according to a statement made to Turkey in 2012, Yılmaz said. “Purchase orders in the upcoming years regarding the [F-35 military aircraft] will be subsequently assessed depending upon the negotiations.”

Turkey has spent $315 million so far on three phases of the development of the F-35 fighter jets that the country is producing as part of the partnership, Yılmaz said.

Noting the incremental costs of the three phases, he said Turkey’s contract regarding its partnership in the consortium did not cover those costs. Aircraft supply costs would become clear after the aircraft order deal is signed, he said.

Negotiations on codes

Progress has also been made on negotiations with the United States over granting Turkey the permission to load war software, weapons and ammunition onto the aircraft independently, he said in a reply to a written question by İsmet Büyükataman, an opposition Nationalist Movement Party deputy.

Responding to claims that the U.S. would not sell the software and block the independent integration of weapons and ammunition, the minister said, “Negotiations regarding the independent loading of war software, weapons and ammunition to secure the independent deployment and maintenance of the F-35 in Turkey are continuing.”

Defense Industry Undersecretary Murad Bayar said last month Turkey and the U.S. were negotiating over flight codes for the two F-35 military planes.

February/24/2012

buglerbilly

24-02-12, 09:12 AM

Photo release: F-35 test team completes first external stores testing on F-35B

Over an Atlantic test range, Lockheed Martin test pilot Dan Levin flies F-35B test aircraft BF-2 with external weapons pylons for the first time Feb. 22. (Photo courtesy Lockheed Martin)

Feb 23, 2012

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – Over an Atlantic test range, Lockheed Martin test pilot Dan Levin flies F-35B test aircraft BF-2 with external weapons pylons for the first time Feb. 22. The test measured flying qualities with external pylons, inert AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and centerline 25 mm gun pod. Significant weapons testing for the F-35B and F-35C variants is scheduled for 2012, including fit checks, captive carriage, pit drop and aerial drop tests.

The F-35B is the variant of the Joint Strike Fighter for the U.S. Marine Corps, capable of short take-offs and vertical landings for use on amphibious ships or expeditionary airfields to provide air power to the Marine Air-Ground Task Force. The F-35B is undergoing test and evaluation at NAS Patuxent River prior to delivery to the fleet. (Photo courtesy Lockheed Martin)

PEO(JSF) Public Affairs
(301) 757-2211

buglerbilly

24-02-12, 10:53 PM

AFA: Lockheed Readies Aggressive F-35 Test Schedule

Feb. 23, 2012 - 06:18PM

By MARCUS WEISGERBER

ORLANDO, Fla. — Lockheed Martin is preparing to ramp up flight testing of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter over the next year, including the first release of live weapons.

The multinational, tri-service program has put together a robust flight test schedule for 2012, according to Alan Norman, Lockheed’s F-35 chief test pilot. The program is expected to conduct more than 10,000 test points per year in 2013, 2014 and 2015, Norman said at a Feb. 23 briefing at an Air Force Association-sponsored conference here.

In addition to test jets that are already flying, operational test aircraft are expected to arrive at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., by the end of the year, Norman said.

At the same time, the program is preparing for the first live-fire test weapons from an F-35.

The program has started “pit testing” of weapons, or releasing weapons while the aircraft is parked on the ground. A Marine Corps F-35B has participated in these tests and similar trials will be conducted on an Air Force jet soon.

In recent weeks, F-35 aircraft have been flying with external, wing-mounted weapons, clearing the envelope for eventual live fire tests.

buglerbilly

25-02-12, 08:58 AM

JSF Chief Engineer: F-35 Military Flight Release To Happen Soon

Feb. 24, 2012 - 05:57PM

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

The Pentagon’s stealthy tri-service F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is making progress with a military flight release expected soon, the program’s chief engineer said. But software development and problems with the jet’s helmet mounted display are still major challenges.

“Yesterday, the Air Force had their airworthiness board for the LRIP-2 [low-rate initial production] jets that are at Eglin [Air Force Base, Fla.],” Doug Ebersole said during a Feb. 24 interview with Defense News. “Although we have not yet received the military flight release … yesterday at the airworthiness board we got certification of TACC [Tailored Airworthiness Certification Criteria] compliance — that’s really the output of that airworthiness board.”

That means that the Air Force is satisfied that its version of the aircraft, the F-35A, is safe to fly. It also means that the Air Force understands and accepts the risks where there are gaps in the jet’s compliance with service airworthiness regulations, Ebersole said. He said he can’t predict when the Air Force will issue a formal military flight release, but that it should happen soon.

The U.S. Navy’s Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has also cleared its LRIP-2 jets to operate at Fort Worth, where the planes are built, but the sea service requires an additional independent safety audit before fleet pilots are allowed to fly the aircraft, Ebersole said. “We expect that to happen in the mid-to-late March timeframe. Probably late March,” he said.

If that happens, it would mean that Marine pilots, who fall under NAVAIR’s purview, will be able to start training along side their Air Force brethren in their F-35B model jets next month.

Initially, qualified F-35 test pilots will fly local area operations to exercise the aircraft and the maintenance setup at the Florida base. Operational pilots will be able to start training after that is completed.

Flights at Eglin will be starting in no small part due to the performance of the F-35A, which has had no major developmental hiccups. “When I look at the CTOL [conventional take-off and landing], it’s actually performing pretty well,” Ebersole said. “There is nothing like the tailhook or what we worked through last year with the STOVL [short take-off vertical landing],” he said. The jet is progressing well in tests at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., and has started to perform engine restarts in flight. Already the Edwards test pilots have performed seven such engine re-lights, Ebersole said.

The Navy’s C-model is also performing well with the exception the recently discovered tailhook problem. “The tailhook is the only thing that really has come to light,” Ebersole said.

The likewise, the F-35B is also progressing well, he said. But two major issues worry Ebersole.

“I worry about software development — meeting the incremental block deliveries, and the other key one right now is the helmet,” he said. “But we’ve made good progress on the helmet in the last year.”

A solution to the problem of jittery images being displayed to the pilot is being tested right now on an F-35 during ground taxi runs. It will be tested in flight soon, Ebersole said. Likewise, the concern with latency — where the display lags behind the pilot’s head movements — has been mitigated, he said. Meanwhile, ICE-11 night-vision cameras should resolve the problems with visual acuity.

“A year ago, I had much more concern on the helmet than what I have today,” he said.

The software is a huge chunk of the F-35 developmental effort, but while the program is fairly good at catching problems, it needs to happen faster, Ebersole said. The program is working to add better tools and refine to its processes to fix that.

“We need to find them earlier,” Ebersole said. “We tend to find them too late in the development cycle.”

He praised plane-maker Lockheed Martin for adding a vice-president in charge of F-35 software development.

One Navy source had raised concerns that beyond the Block 3 software needed for initial operational capability, the current avionics architecture would not be able support the level inoperability and information sharing that the U.S. services require — which would necessitate a redesign of the avionics.

Ebersole countered that while there are candidate lists of capabilities that the U.S. services, foreign partners and JSF program are looking at, there is no definitive set of attributes that might be incorporated into a F-35 Block 4 configuration. “We don’t finalize what that list of Block 4 candidates are going to be until the March of ‘13.”

But Ebersole added, all of the capabilities that are being considered for the F-35 in Block 4 fit into the jet’s existing avionics architecture. Some of those capabilities will require hardware changes however, he said. “We don’t see any show-stoppers for the candidates as they stand today.”

The F-35 program plans to continually refresh the jet’s technology, Ebersole said. The current plan is to upgrade the software every two years, while the software and hardware would be upgraded every four years.

Other problems such as the tailhook, fuel-dump system, and heat from the jet’s afterburner damaging the tail surfaces at supersonic flights are relatively simple to solve, Ebersole said. As the program goes forward, there will be more problems that come to the surface, but that is case with any aircraft development program.

But to make sure that those problems are addressed with rigor, Ebersole — who started at the F-35 program a day before current program manager Vice Adm. David Venlet — said he is trying to instill a stronger sense of discipline into the engineering behind the program.

Ebersole said that the Joint Program Office (JPO) has shifted to an engineering process that is modeled along the lines of NAVAIR. Each variant now has a “class desk” responsible for that version of the jet, he said, and their team has set up a Lightning support desk to help operational units that are beginning to standup — for example the 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin.

Under Venlet’s direction, the F-35 engineering team has returned to the basics of systems engineering and has instituted formal review processes similar to NAVAIR, Ebersole said. Without these formal processes, problems can be missed as was aptly demonstrated by the F-35C tailhook design.

“We didn’t go start tying to go redesign it. The first thing we did is we went back and audited all of the requirements, Ebersole said. “We actually had a system requirements review … and what we found was that some requirements had been missed.”

While in years past, the JPO did do some form of review, but those reviews were not conducted with the level of formality as they are done now. “I think it was a gap,” Ebersole said.

buglerbilly

27-02-12, 10:42 AM

F-35 Local Area Flights Could Start This Week

Feb. 26, 2012 - 04:51PM

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

F-35A Lightning II local area flights might start as early as this week at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Fla., an Air Force source said. Such flights would commence once the Air Force issues a military flight release (MFR).

The Air Force Aeronautical Systems Center at Ohio’s Wright-Patterson Air Force Base might issue such a military flight release as early as this week, sources said.

According to Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) chief engineer Doug Ebersole, an Air Force airworthiness board declared the F-35A as being compliant with its Tailored Airworthiness Certification Criteria on Feb 23, which is a crucial step in granting a formal MFR.

The declaration means the Air Force is satisfied that its version of the aircraft, the F-35A, is safe to fly. It also means that the Air Force understands and accepts the risks where there are gaps in the jet’s compliance with service airworthiness regulations, Ebersole said.

A MFR would allow qualified F-35 test pilots to begin flying the stealthy fifth-generation fighter around the Florida base. Eglin currently has two test pilots who are qualified to fly the jet: Air Force Lt. Col. Eric Smith and Marine Maj. Joseph Bachmann.

Once those local area flights prove that the aircraft and maintenance procedures at Eglin are robust enough to sustain a full-scale training course for transitioning instructor pilots and students, Air Education and Training Command (AETC) will start the syllabus.

Smith and Bachmann will act as the initial instructors for the rest of the cadre at the 33rd Fighter Wing. The three services have selected some of the best, most experienced pilots to form the initial batch of instructors at Eglin.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy’s Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has also cleared the Marines’ F-35B short take-off vertical landing jets to operate at Fort Worth, Texas, where the planes are built.

However, the sea service requires an additional independent safety audit before fleet pilots are allowed to fly the aircraft, Ebersole said.

“We expect that to happen in the mid-to-late March timeframe,” he said. “Probably late March.”

After the audit, Marine pilots, who fall under NAVAIR’s purview, will be able to start training along side their Air Force brethren in their F-35B model jets next month.

buglerbilly

28-02-12, 12:23 PM

Japan wary of F-35 cost escalation

By: Greg Waldron Singapore

1 hours ago

Source:

Japan has expressed concern to the US government about possible price rises involved in its Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter acquisition.

Last week, media reports from Japan cited chief cabinet secretary Osamu Fujimura as saying Tokyo had repeatedly expressed its concern about possible F-35 price increases.

In an email to Flightglobal, the Japanese Ministry of Defence outlined Tokyo's position on price increases. It said that if a price rises "without valid reasons, there is a possibility that a procurement could be cancelled".

"This message is conveyed to the US side occasionally. MoD will continue to request the US government to deliver the aircraft at the price in accordance with the content of the proposal by the period requested."

In December, Japan announced it had selected the F-35 as winner of its 42-aircraft F-X competition, the other competitors being the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon.

Lockheed has said the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) F-35A variant can be delivered for an average unit cost of about $75 million, although that number assumes the USA and eight partner countries order more than 3,100 jets during the next 25 years.

Japan's concerns come at a time when procurement decisions in several countries could influence costs associated with the F-35. In mid-February, the US Air Force cut its planned fiscal year 2013 buy of F-35s to 19 aircraft from 24, although its total planned buy remained unchanged at 1,700.

Italian defence sources told Flightglobal in early February that Rome could obtain 20-30 fewer F-35s than the 131 originally planned. Italy's planned procurement of 69 CTOL F-35As and 62 short take-off and vertical landing F-35Bs has come under fire in the Italian parliament for its anticipated total cost of €17.4 billion ($23.4 billion), with €2 billion already spent on the acquisition.

Australia is also reviewing its planned purchase of 100 F-35s. While stressing it is keeping all options open, Canberra has indicated it could reduce its planned buy in favour of more Super Hornets. Industry observers suggest Canberra could obtain between 12 and 24 additional Super Hornets to join its 24 F/A-18Fs.

In addition, the F-35 is competing against the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle and Eurofighter Typhoon in South Korea's F-X III competition for about 60 fighters. Given its stealth treatments and Seoul's familiarity with the F-15K, the F-15SE is in a better position to defeat the F-35 than was the case with the Super Hornet in Japan's F-X contest.

A 60-aircraft F-35 victory in South Korea could provide a substantial boost to the F-35's cost competitiveness.

buglerbilly

29-02-12, 10:17 PM

Eglin Pilots Should Take to Air in F-35 Next Week: USAF

Feb. 28, 2012 - 05:23PM

By Dave Majumdar

The military flight release allows qualified F-35 test pilots to begin flying the fifth-generation fighter around Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. (Lockheed Martin)

Test pilots at the 33rd Fighter Wing should start flying early next week after the U.S. Air Force’s Aeronautical Systems Center approved a military flight release Feb. 28, Air Force sources said.

Wing officials will brief Air Education and Training Command (AETC) chief Gen. Edward Rice on March 2 about the unit’s plans to conduct local area flights around Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. If everything goes well, Rice should approve the 33rd Fighter Wing to begin flight operations.

Flight operations could begin as early as March 6 if the weather cooperates, sources said.

That first sortie would be flown by one of Eglin’s two F-35 qualified test pilots: Air Force Lt. Col. Eric Smith or Marine Maj. Joseph Bachmann. Potentially, both pilots might fly if the wing launches a two-ship of F-35s.

Once local area flight operations prove the aircraft and maintenance procedures at Eglin are robust enough to sustain a full-scale training course for transitioning instructor pilots and students, AETC will start the syllabus for the remaining pilots at the base.

Smith and Bachmann will act as the initial instructors for the rest of the cadre at the 33rd Fighter Wing. The three services have selected some of the best, most experienced pilots to form the initial batch of instructors at Eglin.

Marine Corps officials are expecting their pilots to start flying the F-35B in late March after the Naval Air Systems Command completes an independent safety audit.

buglerbilly

04-03-12, 06:15 AM

UPDATE 2-Support cited for F-35 fighter after joint meeting

Fri Mar 2, 2012 11:42pm EST

* Countries gave program full support - sources

* Meeting sponsor Canada cites "good progress"

* Partners plan to make joint meeting an annual event

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON, March 2 (Reuters) - The United States and eight other countries helping to develop the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter underscored their full and continued support for the program, according to two sources who attended a gathering hosted by Canada.

Despite U.S. plans to put off orders for 179 planes over the next five years and a steady drip of news about technical problems and developmental issues, a statement issued by Canada on Friday cited "good progress" on the program.

Julian Fantino, Canada's associate minister of National Defence, hosted a dinner on Thursday and all-day meeting at his country's embassy in Washington, D.C., on Friday to improve communication among political officials from all nine partner countries. They agreed to make it an annual event.

"While good progress continues to be made, we will always be vigilant with our stewardship of taxpayers' hard earned dollars," he said in a statement, adding that Canada would stick to stick to its budget for replacing its aging F-18 fighters.

He said the program had already resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts for Canadian firms.

The two sources said all nine countries underscored their full and continued support for what one described as the "backbone of allied defense in the free world".

Lockheed Martin Corp is developing three variants of the radar-evading, supersonic fighter jet for the United States and eight countries -- Canada, Britain, Australia, Turkey, Denmark, Norway, Italy and the Netherlands.

Senior U.S. officials sought to reassure the partner countries that Washington remains committed to the multinational program, and that it values their participation.

The slowdown in U.S. orders and budget pressures at home have prompted some of the partners to rethink their own orders. Italy last month cut its planned buy of 131 planes by 30 percent, and others may follow suit.

Privately, some foreign and even U.S. officials have expressed concern that the Pentagon's actions and tough comments from some officials are eroding support for the program despite significant strides in testing.

Japan, one of the first foreign customers outside the partnership, this week said it may cancel orders for 42 F-35 fighters if the price goes up or deliveries are delayed.

"Our support of this program is clear," said Pentagon spokeswoman Lieutenant Colonel Melinda Morgan.

Navy Vice Admiral David Venlet, the official who manages the Pentagon's costliest weapons program, and acting acquisition chief Frank Kendall gave updates about development milestones and testing of the new warplane, as did officials from Lockheed.

PENTAGON SAYS PARTNERSHIP IS INTEGRAL

"The international partnership is integral to F-35 development and we maintain strong lines of communication with the partner countries' leadership about Joint Strike Fighter development and testing," said Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the F-35 program office.

Fantino organized the meeting to facilitate greater collaboration among political officials from the nine countries funding the plane's development -- the first time so many countries have worked together to design and build a new plane.

In the past, the Pentagon has provided updates to senior leaders from the partner countries only on a bilateral basis. But military officials from the nine countries already meet twice a year for review sessions. The next military-level meeting will take place March 14-15 in Australia, where the partner countries will formally update their procurement plans.

"The multinational Joint Strike Fighter Program represents a new model for international cooperation," the Canadian statement said, adding that the partners agreed that "multilateral updates add purpose over bilateral discussions and updates."

Fantino, a member of Canada's Conservative-led government, is under pressure from the New Democratic Party opposition to hold an open and transparent competition for the new warplanes before committing to buy 65 of the new F-35 fighter jets.

"The Conservatives shouldn't be giving a blank cheque to Lockheed Martin before they know the real costs of the F-35s," Matthew Kellway, a legislator with the NDP, said in a statement.

Separately, Robert Scher, deputy assistant secretary of defense for South and Southeast Asia, told reporters the issue of possible F-35 sales did not come up at all during annual U.S.-India defense policy talks held in New Delhi last month.

Scher said Washington didn't need to "go on a marketing campaign," noting that "India knows full well their own needs and their own requirements and will ask us for any and every thing that they're interested in."

Scher said India was looking at a range of U.S. military hardware across all of the military services, but declined to discuss any specifics. He described the defense and security realm as "one of the areas of greatest progress and promise" in the overall U.S. relationship with India.

buglerbilly

05-03-12, 02:55 AM

Sunday, March 04, 2012

Pentagon Slackens Difficult-To-Achieve JSF Performance Requirements

Posted on InsideDefense.com: March 1, 2012

The Pentagon last month relaxed the performance requirements for the Joint Strike Fighter, allowing the Air Force F-35A variant to exceed its previous combat radius -- a benchmark it previously missed -- and granting the Marine Corps F-35B nearly 10 percent additional runway length for short take-offs, according to Defense Department sources.

On Feb. 14, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council -- in a previously unreported development -- agreed to loosen select key performance parameters (KPPs) for the JSF during a review of the program convened in advance of a high-level Feb. 21 Defense Acquisition Board meeting last month, at which the Pentagon aimed to reset many dimensions of the program, including cost and schedule.

Pentagon sources said a memorandum codifying the JROC decisions has not yet been signed by Adm. James Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the JROC chair.

Sources familiar with the changes, however, said the JROC -- which also includes the service vice chiefs of staff -- agreed to adjust the "ground rules and assumptions" underlying the F-35A's 590-nautical-mile, combat-radius KPP.

Last April, the Pentagon reported to Congress in a selected acquisition report that "based on updated estimate of engine bleed," the F-35A would have a combat radius of 584 nautical miles, below its threshold -- set in 2002 -- of 590 nautical miles.

To extend the F-35A's combat radius, the JROC agreed to a less-demanding flight profile that assumes near-ideal cruise altitude and airspeed, factors that permit more efficient fuel consumption. This would allow the estimate to be extended to 613 nautical miles, according to sources familiar with the revised requirement.

The estimated combat radius of the short-take-off variant, which is being developed for the Marine Corps, is 15 percent lower than the original JSF program goal even though the aircraft is slated to carry fewer weapons than originally intended, according to the April report.

The short-take-off-and-landing KPP before the JROC review last month was 550 feet. In April 2011, the Pentagon estimated that the STOVL variant could execute a short take-off in 544 feet while carrying two Joint Direct Attack Munitions and two AIM-120 missiles internally, as well as enough fuel to fly 450 nautical miles. By last month, that take-off distance estimate grew to 568 feet, according to DOD sources.

The JROC, accordingly, agreed to extend the required take-off distance to 600 feet, according to DOD officials.

The JROC review of the F-35 program last month was held in accordance with a policy adopted by the council in June 2010, which requires a reassessment of requirements for all programs with cost growth exceeding 25 percent of the original program baseline. One goal of the policy is to determine whether a decision to relax requirements should be made to improve acquisition cost and schedule estimates. -- Jason Sherman

buglerbilly

05-03-12, 03:43 AM

U.S. Air Force Approves JSF Flight Operations: Sources

Mar. 3, 2012 - 09:35AM

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

An F-35A test aircraft is seen during refueling from an Air Force tanker. (Lockheed Martin)

The head of the U.S. Air Force’s Air Education and Training Command (AETC) has approved test pilots at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., to begin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter flight operations next week, sources said March 2.

Eglin’s two qualified test pilots, Air Force Lt. Col. Eric Smith and Marine Maj. Joseph Bachmann, will take to the air on March 6, weather permitting.

The decision was made by U.S. Air Force Gen. Edward Rice, AETC commander.

The seasoned aviators will fly a series of local area flights in order to gauge the readiness of 33rd Fighter Wing’s new F-35As and assess the robustness of the unit’s maintenance procedures.

Once the aircraft and maintenance procedures prove they are up to the task of running a full training syllabus, AETC will authorize the wing to start spinning-up new instructor pilots and students.

Smith and Bachmann will serve as instructors for the rest of the wing’s aviators. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps have assembled some of their most talented pilots to form the initial cadre at 33rd Fighter Wing.

buglerbilly

06-03-12, 04:43 AM

Mon Mar 5, 2012 7:25pm EST

Norway finalizing plans to order about 50 fighters

* Official does not see big change in price

* F-35 to fly at Florida training site on Tuesday

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

March 5 (Reuters) - Norway's No. 2 defense official said he was more upbeat about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program than in a long time after visiting a test site in California last week and meeting with the eight other partners on the program.

Defense State Secretary Roger Ingebrigsten said on Monday that Norway was finalizing its plans to buy "approximately 50 fighters," but did not expect any significant cost increases to its order.

Lockheed Martin Corp is developing three variants of the radar-evading, supersonic fighter jet for the United States and eight partner countries - Canada, Britain, Australia, Turkey, Denmark, Norway, Italy and the Netherlands.

Senior U.S. officials last week met with partner countries and sought to reassure them that Washington remains committed to the program, despite its own plans to postpone orders for 179 planes for five years.

That decision, driven by U.S. budget pressures, could delay cost savings that will be realized once production is ramped up.

"We think that we are going to pay close to what we said we would in 2008," Ingebrigsten told Reuters by telephone after returning from his U.S. visit. "The main approach will be the same as it has been since 2008."

He declined to provide details ahead of the Norwegian government's submission to parliament in two weeks. Previous plans called for Norway to buy 56 aircraft for 61 billion Norwegian crown ($10.89 billion), in undiscounted 2011 crowns, or 72 billion crowns when a greater contingency is counted.

"I can't say we're going to do exactly what we said in 2008 but our plan is to procure approximately 50 fighters," he said.

The slowdown in U.S. orders and budget constraints at home have prompted some of the partners to rethink their own orders. Italy last month cut its planned buy of 131 planes by 30 percent and others may follow suit.

U.S. officials insist Washington still plans to spend $382 billion to buy a total of 2,443 fighters for the Air Force, the Navy and Marine Corps, the costliest weapons program ever.

TEST SITE, FIRST FLIGHT

Ingebrigsten led a Norwegian delegation to Edwards Air Force Base in California last week to visit one of two key test sites for the new fighter.

"I haven't been so optimistic related to the F-35 ... for a long time," Ingebrigsten said.

He said Friday's meeting of officials from the Pentagon, Lockheed, and the eight partner countries was useful, with all sides citing their continued support of the program. Canada hosted the meeting at its embassy in Washington.

He praised U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and his deputy, Ashton Carter, who made a brief appearance at the meeting, for their willingness to be transparent about the program, and said U.S-Norwegian bilateral ties were strong.

The member countries will finalize their purchase plans ahead of a formal military-level March 14-15 meeting in Australia of representatives from all nine countries.

Ingebrigsten said delays or cuts in orders from the United States and Italy, among others, could be bad news for the program, but they would be partially offset by orders from Japan, and possibly South Korea and Singapore in coming years.

Separately, officials at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida said the F-35A, the conventional takeoff and landing variant developed for the U.S. Air Force, would have its first flight at the base on Tuesday morning.

Test pilots will fly the planes initially as they test out the syllabus for the program that will be used to teach Air Force and Marine Corps pilots to fly the new plane.

buglerbilly

06-03-12, 09:43 PM

Schwartz Defends Reduced Combat Radius for F-35

Mar. 6, 2012 - 04:23PM

By MARCUS WEISGERBER

The U.S. Air Force’s top uniformed officer played down changes to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s requirements that allow the multibillion-dollar jet to meet flight test goals.

Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, told members of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee that reducing the combat radius of the F-35A by five miles is more cost-effective than modifying the fighter to meet performance goals set a decade ago.

“The difference between the key performance parameter for distance versus the estimate for performance is five miles,” Schwartz said at the March 6 hearing. “The question to me is: How much do we want to invest in order to recover that five-mile margin? It was a judgment call and I think not an unreasonable one.”

Last week, InsideDefense.com reported that the Pentagon had shortened the combat radius requirements for the F-35A, the Air Force version of the fighter jet. The website also reported that DoD officials had increased the take-off length of the of the F-35B, the Marine Corps version.

buglerbilly

14-03-12, 05:18 AM

Tory about-face on F-35 jets as minister denies ‘definitive decision’ on $16B deal

Postmedia News Mar 13, 2012 – 2:02 PM ET | Last Updated: Mar 13, 2012 7:01 PM ET

Two years of unwavering Conservative support for the F-35 took a major hit Tuesday as Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino said the government has not ruled out walking away from the troubled stealth fighter program.

Fantino also revealed a team of defence department officials have been considering “all kinds of contingencies” should the F-35 not be ready to replace Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18s and acknowledged the government does not know how much each F-35 will cost.

The revelations led opposition parties to question why the sudden about-face after the Conservatives fought an election, in part, on purchasing the F-35 and sought to paint critics of the program as unpatriotic.

Fantino was appearing before the House of Commons’ defence committee with Defence Minister Peter MacKay and several high-level defence department officials less than two weeks after a major, closed-door meeting of F-35 partner nations in Washington.

The Conservative government initially announced in July 2010 that Canada would buy 65 F-35s for $9 billion to replace the country’s CF-18 fighters. The decision was made without an open bidding process and would be this country’s largest-ever military purchase. Others pegged the price tag at up to $30 billion.

Since then, however, the stealth fighter program has faced numerous cost overruns and delays, leading a number of international partners, including Australia, Britain, Italy and even the U.S., to reconsider their involvement.

Responding to NDP questions on Tuesday, Fantino told the committee Canada is still very much involved in efforts to develop the stealth fighter and wants to see the program come to fruition.

“There are many reasons we feel (the F-35) program will afford not only us but the partner nations the greatest advantage in terms of air supremacy and those kind of issues,” he said.

“There is only one stealth aircraft available for Canada,” MacKay added.

However, Fantino also acknowledged for the first time that the government is concerned with “the stability” of the F-35 development program, before noting Canada has not yet signed an actual contract to purchase the fighters — and there is no guarantee it will.

“The determinate decision has not yet been made as to whether or not we are going to actually purchase, buy, acquire the F-35,” Fantino said, later adding: “We have not yet discounted the possibility of backing out of the program.”

The minister said the government had set aside $9 billion to replace Canada’s CF-18s, and that figure will not be exceeded. For that reason, a team of senior defence department officials has been assembled to look at alternatives should the F-35 be too expensive.

“We continue to monitor the options available to us all around the world,” Dan Ross, the defence department’s head of military procurement, told the committee, though he indicated the F-35 remains the best option. “We really don’t see any change is what’s available out there.”

Fantino’s comments stand in sharp contrast to the Conservative government’s hard-line on the F-35 over the past 20 months, including during the federal election campaign last spring.

At that time, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said it was “sad that the new jets have become an issue in this campaign,” while saying he was “very confident” in the government’s original cost estimates.

The government has also dismissed opposition questions about the program as a sign those parties aren’t supportive of the Canadian Forces.

“This government has been committed across the board from the time we were elected to equipping, supporting and funding members of the Canadian Forces so that they can do the important work that we demand of them,” MacKay said in response to opposition questions on Feb. 16.

“We are very proud of them. We are going to continue to support them. I encourage the member opposite to do the same.”

NDP defence critic David Christopherson told reporters after Tuesday’s committee meeting that Fantino’s comments showed the government has been “all bluster and the reason they suggest it’s maybe unpatriotic is because they don’t have solid answers to give.”

“They’re in serious trouble here,” he said of the government. “This program is not working, it’s not flying. Literally, it’s not flying.”

Liberal defence critic John McKay believed the meeting in Washington, which was hosted by Fantino at the Canadian Embassy, showed how serious the problems facing the F-35 are, which is why the government has come clean with its concerns.

“The real question to me is how come it took so long?” he said. “We’ve been going on this for I don’t know how many years.”

McKay said the question now is whether an affordable replacement can be found for the CF-18s before they are due to be retired in 2020.

buglerbilly

20-03-12, 01:43 PM

Transcript: Minister for Defence & Minister for Defence Materiel – Doorstop Interview (excerpt)

(Source: Australian Department of Defense; issued March 20, 2012)

The following is a partial transcript of an informal (“doorstep”) interview of Australian defense minister Stephen Smith, detailing his answers to two questions about Australia’s position on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program:

JOURNALIST: With the former Joint Strike Fighter a strongly mixed message was coming from around the globe on the Joint Strike Fighter, I noticed that some of the briefings happening from American delegations in Australia recently, the Canadians suggested that they might actually not go ahead with the purchase, and the Japanese are looking at coming on board, what’s the situation as far as you can see of the plane, and of Australia’s-

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, I make this point very strongly, there is no mixed message so far as Australia is concerned. Australia’s message for some six or more months now has been that we will not allow a gap in our air combat capability to emerge or arise, and as a consequence of that in the course of this year, we’ll be making very careful judgements about whether, as a result of the scheduling of the Joint Strike Fighter moving to the right, to use the jargon, there is a need for us to consider other or additional capability.

In terms of our commitment to the Joint Strike Fighter, we are contractually obligated to purchase two, and that is still on track to be effective in 2014, that’ll be done in the United States for testing and training purposes, we’ve announced that we will purchase an additional 12, and we’ll make a judgement in the course of this year, or early next year, about the timing, or the timetable, of the delivery of those 12, and any judgement or decision by the Government about any future purchases, will be done in an orderly fashion, once we’ve dealt with those issues.

Recently in Australia we had a meeting of the Joint Strike Fighter project management team or committee, that was chaired by Warren King, the CEO of the Defence Materiel organisation, I met with a number of the people attending that meeting, and made those points, which is now a longstanding Australian Government position.

The United States position is now comparable in the course of December of last year, and January of this year, with various announcements made by anyone from Secretary of State for Defence Panetta, to his deputy, Ash Carter, to Admiral Venlet, to Acting Secretary Kendall, we are now essentially in the same space so far as the Joint Strike Fighter is concerned, which is making a judgement about gap in capability, as the United States is doing, now looking at the maintenance program for their F-16s, and then looking at the timetable for purchase of additional Joint Strike Fighters to which we’re not currently contractually obligated.

JOURNALIST: -since capabilities, have you given any reassurances on what the plane can do, whether it [indistinct]

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, two or three general remarks. Firstly, I’ve always been confident that in the end the project would get up because of the significant investment that the United States has made in it, firstly.

Secondly, one of the advantages that Australia has, that we chose the conventional strike fighter only so we don’t have the complications that we’ve seen in the two other variants.

Thirdly, because I’ve been confident that the project would get up, there have been some developmental issues and you’ve seen reference to the so-called concurrency issues where there was an attempt to continue to develop the plane at the same time as produce. That’s now been effectively stopped.

So there are a range of development challenges; but in the end I’m confident that the Joint Strike Fighter will end up being an effective fifth-generation plane.

My concern has been one of scheduling, one of production, one of availability; and that’s why, in that context, I am being absolutely assiduous about ensuring that we don’t have a gap in capability; we’ll make that judgement or decision in the course of this year. And I have indicated previously, as I do again today, we’ve made no conclusions about that, but additional Super Hornets is an obvious option.

[I]-ends-

buglerbilly

23-03-12, 05:12 AM

Leak suggests F-35 fighter jet purchase fraught with errors

Draft of auditor general's report due April 3 suggests government broke procurement rules

The Canadian Press Posted: Mar 21, 2012 8:55 AM ET Last Updated: Mar 21, 2012 9:16 AM ET

A draft copy of an upcoming auditor general report condemns both National Defence and Public Works for ignoring procurement rules and not doing their homework before the government committed to purchase the F-35 stealth fighter jet. (Northrop Grumman handout)

F-35 jet a bargain at $65M?Canada's auditor general has both National Defence and Public Works in his sights when it comes to the troubled F-35 stealth fighter program, say senior government sources.

A draft copy of the scathing review, circulating in Ottawa for weeks, suggests the air force didn't do its pricing homework and government officials failed to follow procurement rules, say those who've read it.

It's not clear whether the language will be toned down in the final report, Michael Ferguson's first as auditor general, when it's released April 3.

But federal officials familiar with the document note no final decision on purchasing the multi-role fighter has been made, and may take a year or two.

"It's bad, (but) how can the auditor general be auditing a purchase that hasn't taken place?" said one senior official, who asked not to be identified.

"The process to select, you can look at. They are pre-supposing a decision to acquire has taken place and it hasn't."

Julian Fantino, the minister in charge of defence procurement, gave a similar message to the House of Commons defence committee last week, and went further by saying that Ottawa reserves the right to bail on the multibillion-dollar program.

Canada's commitment softening

Senior officials say the auditor general's harsh review is behind the Harper government's change in posture over the last few weeks, where a hard-line message of commitment has softened into skepticism about the international program, which is billions of dollars off target and years behind schedule.

The Conservative government's plan has been to buy 65 of the radar-evading jets.

The sources said the Harper government was warned last year not to be so absolute in its public support, especially in the aftermath of Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page's criticism of the air force's cost estimates.

Politicians were apparently counselled to say they'll "have a look at it" and a formal contract signing was still "three years away from now."

But the advice was ignored, coming on the eve of an election where the Liberals attempted to make the F-35 purchase one of their campaign planks.

Instead, the Conservatives dug in and insisted their July 2010 commitment to the Lockheed-Martin fighter as a replacement for the CF-18s was final.

They held to that position even in the face of mounting worries about further delays and possible cost increases as the U.S. government pushed off some of its initial aircraft orders to future years.

There is apparently growing frustration within the military that it is going "wear" the criticisms of the auditor's report.

One senior official noted the air force didn't have to make a decision on replacing the 1980s vintage CF-18s for a few years and that the 2010 announcement was all about positioning business and the aerospace sector for F-35 contracts.

Procurement safeguards ignored

Liberal defence critic John McKay said he finds the potential criticism of Public Works to be most troubling.

"They are, in effect, the watchdog of the procurement process," McKay said Tuesday.

"Just because you haven't signed a contract doesn't mean that you're not in a procurement process. So, I don't know if that is a valid reason."

Alan Williams, a former senior procurement official, also said the absence of a contract is irrelevant and added the important principle of civilian control over the military is at stake with the F-35 program.

He said the air force has run roughshod over the defence establishment and dictated what it wants and if civilians don't challenge it, the system is called into question.

"They're there to safeguard the system. If they don't do that, why do you need them there?"

The Conservatives, he said, have no one to blame but themselves for the political back-peddling.

"The poor taxpayer has every right to question what the heck is going on here," he said.

"The government's strident (tone) and scorn for opposition from any source, whether it's MPs or whether it's from the (Parliamentary Budget Officer) or whatever, essentially precludes any kind of reasoned dialogue."

Much of the debate around the program centred on the cost.

The Conservatives have insisted the entire purchase and support costs will be between $14 billion and $16 billion, making the jets the largest defence purchase in Canadian history. But the budget officer and critics have challenged that, delivering estimates of up to $29.5 billion.

buglerbilly

23-03-12, 02:39 PM

British Test Pilot Marks Milestone In the Joint Combat Aircraft

(Source: Naval Air Systems Command; issued March 22, 2012)

PATUXENT RIVER, Md. --- A Royal Air Force (RAF) squadron leader became the United Kingdom's first military test pilot to fly the F-35C, the carrier variant of the Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, Feb. 21.

As an international program, the F-35 has eight cooperative partners working with the United States; the United Kingdom was the first country to join the program in January 2001. The UK is planning to purchase the carrier variant to enter service as the joint combat aircraft (JCA).

"The F-35 has the best handling of any jet I've flown, which means it's going to be easier to land on a ship than current aircraft. And pilots can devote all of their attention to the mission," said Jim Schofield, RAF squadron leader.

"Combined with the world's best sensors which allow the pilot to find and target anything that's out there, and a stealthy signature, which means the enemy can't do the same to you, this is exactly the aircraft the UK needs to provide the best protection for our soldiers, sailors and airmen for the next 35 years," he further explained.

Schofield's flight is the latest in a series of milestones for the UK's JCA program, which included the first F-35C launch on the test electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) Nov. 18, 2011, and the rollout of the first UK F-35 from the production line four days later. EMALS is the current launching system of record for the future HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier, currently under construction.

"This is another major step forward for the UK's Joint Combat Aircraft programme," said Group Capt. Harv Smyth, the UK's JSF national deputy. "Squadron Leader Schofield is now test-flying both the [short takeoff and vertical landing] and carrier variants of the F-35, which affords the UK unprecedented early learning regarding this 5th-generation air system. This is a very exciting period for JCA, as not only are we now testing both the B and the C variants, but we look forward to taking delivery of our first production F-35 aircraft later this year."

According to the RAF's website, the F-35 employed as the JCA in UK forces will offer many advantages over legacy platforms: low observability, supersonic flight, improved survivability, internal and external weapons carriage, increased range and easier supply and maintenance.

The F-35C carrier variant of JSF is distinct from the F-35A and F-35B variants, with its larger wing surfaces and reinforced landing gear to withstand catapult launches and deck landing impacts associated with the demanding aircraft carrier environment. The F-35C is undergoing test and evaluation at Naval Air Station Patuxent River prior to delivery to the fleet and international partners.

-ends-

buglerbilly

24-03-12, 02:26 AM

Norway strengthens plan to acquire 'best value' F-35

By: Craig Hoyle London

11 hours ago

Source:

Norway has reaffirmed its plans to buy the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, with its new defence White Paper also outlining a possible acceleration in first deliveries of the type.

Oslo in 2008 selected the conventional take-off and landing F-35A to replace its Lockheed F-16AM/BM fighters, and has already ordered an initial four to support its future training requirements. The first two of these could be delivered a year early, in 2015, according to the 23 March document.

"The ambition remains for a total acquisition of 52 aircraft, including four training aircraft, and despite changes made by other partner nations Norway finds that its previous and robust real-cost estimates remain accurate," says defence minister Espen Barth Eide. "We remain confident that the F-35 represents the best capability for the best value possible."

© Lockheed Martin
Norway has reaffirmed its plans to buy an eventual 52 F-35A strike fighters

With the F-35 acquisition to represent a major undertaking, the defence ministry's plan for the 2013 to 2016 period includes a "temporary strengthening" of its budget equating to a 7% increase in spending. Oslo also wants to bring forward and extend its planned expenditure on the combat aircraft to spread its costs.

"A new start date of 2017 is being considered, while the final procurement year may be extended to 2023 or 2024," Eide says. Each annual acquisition will require approval from the Norwegian parliament, as will a decision on whether to acquire the final six planned production examples.

Once fielded, the Royal Norwegian Air Force's F-35s will be operated from Ørland air base, in addition to providing quick reaction alert cover from Evenes in the north of the country.

Norway's continued confidence in the F-35 will come as welcome news to Lockheed, following widespread reports of concerns over cost and schedule delays among other future operators Australia, Canada and Japan. US Air Force secretary Michael Donley also said on 20 March that future problems with delivering the aircraft would "be paid for by tails" against the service's stated intention to buy 1,763 examples.

Also contained within Oslo's new White Paper is a plan to introduce the maritime version of NH Industries' NH90 utility helicopter to service in the 2013-16 period. Eight of the aircraft are already on order for the Royal Norwegian Navy.

buglerbilly

30-03-12, 10:16 AM

F-35 programme stable, but costs may rise slightly

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

9 hours ago

Source:

The US Department of Defense's mammoth tri-service F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme is relatively stable, but there could be some small additional cost increases.

"I don't anticipate any cost growth-[not] anything near scale that you described," says acting Pentagon procurement Chief Frank Kendall in reply to a question by Senator John McCain on 29 March.

Kendall was testifying during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Kendall was nominated to become the next Department of Defense acquisitions chief by President Barack Obama when his predecessor Ashton Carter became the deputy secretary of defense.

Kendall says he hopes any cost growth would be far less than $10 billion when answering another question posed by McCain.

But he says there will be additional problems that are going to be discovered on the programme. That will cost some additional dollars.

The programme was recently restructured yet again after a series of cost increases and delays. The F-35 programme's costs have risen by $150 billion since its inception.

The F-35 follows a long line of delayed and over-budget programmes.

"I'm not confident that any defence program will not experience an overrun," Kendall says. "That would be quite a statement after the last 50 years of history."

Concurrency between designing, building and testing the aircraft simultaneously has been blamed by senior US officials for the programme's various maladies.

buglerbilly

30-03-12, 11:42 AM

DoD Adds $17B to Total Cost Estimate for F-35

Mar. 29, 2012 - 08:42PM

By MARCUS WEISGERBER

F-35 test aircraft are seen at Naval Air Station Patuxent Aircraft, Md. (Lockheed Martin)

The U.S. Defense Department projects a nearly $17 billion increase in the total cost of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program from prior estimates, according to a new Pentagon report.

DoD now says the entire program will cost $396 billion, according to Pentagon’s selected acquisition report, which was sent to Congress on March 29. Defense News obtained a copy of the document.

The price tag, which includes procurement and development costs, uses “then-year” dollar estimates, which accounts for inflation over the life of the program.

DoD still plans to buy 2,443 of the Lockheed Martin-built aircraft for the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. Production of U.S. jets is expected to go until the late 2030s.

Slowing down procurement of the F-35 in the near term, as laid out in DoD’s 2013 budget request, will add nearly $6.2 billion in procurement and development costs. DoD removed 179 F-35s from planned purchases between 2013 and 2017.

DoD officials have said that slowdown is necessary to finish development, thus avoiding even greater costs of having to modify production jets to meet the final configuration.

The overall sustainment cost for the program is estimated at $1.1 trillion, according to the document. The Pentagon is conducting a two-year “should cost” assessment of operation and sustainment costs that will continue in 2012.

DoD now plans to fully ramp up production of Marine Corps and Navy versions at a pace of 50 jets per year in 2018, according to the document. Last year’s report projected 50-aircraft-per-year buys beginning in 2017.

Air Force production is expected to hit 60 jets in 2018 and peak at 80 jets in 2021. Last year’s report projected 80-aircraft-per-year buys beginning in 2017.

buglerbilly

01-04-12, 12:12 AM

Pentagon Confident In F-35 Buy Schedule

Mar. 31, 2012 - 11:31AM

By MARCUS WEISGERBER

Two F-35A Joint Strike Fighters and an F-16 Fighting Falcon taxi on the runway at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., in August 2011. (Chrissy Cuttita / U.S. Air Force)

The U.S. Defense Department believes the military services will be able to purchase large quantities of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter late in the decade, despite competing modernization priorities and a relatively flat Pentagon budget.

A report sent to Congress on March 29 details the Pentagon’s plan for near peak production rates for the Lockheed Martin-built stealth jet beginning in 2018. In that year, program officials said they will be able to purchase 110 jets. By 2021, the production rate will hit 130 jets, which includes versions for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

But there are serious concerns within the Air Force and Navy about whether they will be able to afford the number of aircraft projected to be bought later this decade.

“We worked very closely with all the services, and particularly the programming and budgeting staffs of the services, to ensure that our program fits within their overall total obligation authority for the service in those years,” Air Force Maj. Gen. John Thompson, the F-35 deputy program executive officer, said in a March 30 briefing with a group of reporters in Arlington, Va.

Late in the decade, around 2018, the Air Force and Navy are expected to have a number of expensive programs enter production.

For example, the Air Force’s KC-46A tanker plane, now in development, is expected to enter full-rate production in that time frame, in addition to a new rescue helicopter, and a new bomber program is expected to be well underway. The Navy’s Ohio-class submarine replacement, the SSBX(X), is projected to consume a large portion of the service’s shipbuilding budget.

In February 2011, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress he wasn’t sure the services would be able to afford all of the modernization programs envisioned in the 2020s.

“We continue to be concerned about affordability in the long term of the Joint Strike Fighter,” Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said at a March 8 conference sponsored by McAleese & Associates and Credit Suisse.

DoD now plans to fully ramp up production of Marine Corps and Navy F-35s at a pace of 50 jets per year in 2018, according to DoD’s recently updated selected acquisition report for the program. Last year’s report projected 50-aircraft-per-year buys beginning in 2017.

Program officials are expecting the Navy and Marine Corps jets to be evenly split at 25.

Air Force production is expected to hit 60 jets in 2018 and peak at 80 jets in 2021. Last year’s report projected 80-aircraft-per-year buys beginning in 2017.

“As we got closer out to the end of the [five-year future years defense plan], based on our analysis of Lockheed Martin’s capabilities and based on the production desires of the services and partners, we elected to go into a gradual production ramp,” Thompson said.

The deputy program manager expressed optimism that the Air Force could reach that 80-aircraft-per year goal. Those numbers might have to be tweaked to accommodate international purchases, Thompson noted.

“We’ve been given a production profile to plan to [and] we’re doing that,” Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed’s vice president for F-35 program integration and business development, said March 30.

The estimated cost per jet varies depending on a multitude of factors, including whether already spent development costs are included.

Using 2012 dollar values, the program office projects the Air Force version of the jet, the aircraft being purchased by most international customers, to cost $78.7 million.

The carrier version’s recurring flyaway cost is projected at $87 million, and the Marine Corps’ short-takeoff, vertical-landing version at $106 million, also using 2012 dollar values.

The average procurement unit cost of all versions, including contractor services, publications, training and support equipment and other items, comes in at about $109 million per jet.

Despite the cost increases, Lockheed said the F-35’s cost will be on par with the F-16, one of the combat jets it is designed to replace. The company believes the Air Force version of the F-35 will cost closer to $70 million per aircraft.

Company officials said this is on par with the F-16, since the F-35 comes with additional equipment not included in F-16 cost estimates, such as a targeting pod.

Using then-year dollar estimates, DoD now says the entire F-35 program will cost $396 billion, $17 billion more than it estimated last year, according to the selected acquisition report. The overall sustainment cost for the program is estimated at about $1.1 trillion, according to the document.

DoD officials project the F-35 program will cost $1.51 trillion over 55 years. That cost includes production, development, operations, sustainment and other items, according to program officials. The program cost estimate last year was $1.38 trillion. That’s a $124.2 billion, or 9 percent, increase.

The new estimate also adds two and a half years to the program.

Slowing procurement of the F-35 in the near term, as laid out in DoD’s 2013 budget request, will add nearly $6.2 billion in procurement and development costs. DoD removed 179 F-35s from planned buys between 2013 and 2017.

“As we have restructured and rebaselined our development program, as we’ve flattened our production ramp and as we’ve addressed the life-cycle costs going forward ... we are confident that the program that we have now established is executable,” Thompson said.

The program has experienced issues with the jet’s helmet-mounted display and the carrier-version tail hook.

“We have the appropriate resources, we have the time to do the work the correct way and we absolutely, positively have the support of all the services, our eight international partners and our growing posse ... of [foreign military sales] customers,” Thompson said.

Frank Kendall, the acting Pentagon acquisition executive, approved the new F-35 baseline March 26, Thompson said. The program has not been rebaselined since 2002.

“That acquisition-program baseline essentially reflects our revised program, sets our cost, schedule and technical performance going forward. It updates us from base year ’02 to base year ’12 dollars, [and] breaks the program down into two major subprograms — aircraft and engine,” Thompson said.

Kendall gave the OK on March 28 to continue development and low-rate production. DoD sent the revised F-35 numbers to Congress in its selected acquisition reports March 29.

“A large portion of the [authorization memo Kendall signed] was devoted to affordability targets for the program, both in the unit recurring flyaway cost and then cost per flying hour,” Thompson said.

“We have got to drive cost out of the program. Affordability is a major focus on the program going forward, but we know we can’t just concentrate on affordability,” Thompson said. “We have issues, such as software development, that we have to dependably deliver.”

Lockheed is three months behind on software development, O’Bryan said. The company has built a $150 million “mission systems lab” to test new software and has hired 200 new software engineers to work on these issues.

Poor_Canada

05-04-12, 12:34 PM

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-hit-reset-button-on-plan-to-buy-65-fighter-jets/article2392622/

I;m not as good as Bug but here goes!

The Harper government is starting anew on its multibillion-dollar fighter-jet purchase.

“We’re pressing the reset button,” a senior government official said on Wednesday.

The need for fresh thinking on the state-of-the-art aircraft acquisition has been made loud and clear by this week’s hard-hitting report by the Auditor-General, which is still reverberating across the country with its findings of mismanagement and misinformation.

The government’s new strategy implies scrapping a process going back to 2006, led by the Department of National Defence and operating under the assumption that the Lockheed-Martin F-35 was the only logical choice to replace Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18s.

The new team being put in place this week to oversee the purchase, dubbed the next-generation fighter-jet secretariat in government circles, will seek to mimic the strategy used in last year’s successful awarding of $33-billion in shipbuilding contracts. The secretariat will be led by officials at Public Works and Government Services Canada, the same department that was kept out of the loop for four years on the purchase. It will also include officials from DND, Finance, Industry, the Privy Council and Treasury Board.

This is developing into a huge scandal in Canada, especially as the Tories political message as economic stewards - bungling the biggest public project in decades is BAD.

buglerbilly

09-04-12, 03:18 AM

Canada Caps F-35 Funding After Audit

Defense Department Loses Procurement Authority

Apr. 8, 2012 - 04:55PM

By DAVID PUGLIESE

F-35A test aircraft fly in formation over Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., in December 2011. (Lockheed Martin)

VICTORIA, British Columbia — Canada’s proposed purchase of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been thrown into turmoil after the government’s auditor found Department of National Defence (DND) officials withheld key information from Parliament about the fighter jet, underestimated costs and didn’t follow proper procurement rules.

In response to the April 3 auditor’s report, the Canadian government has capped its funding for the F-35 project and, in an unprecedented move, will take the procurement out of the hands of the DND.

Conservative Party Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on April 4 that Canada has not signed any contract to purchase the F-35, and that more oversight of the acquisition will be done before any such decision.

“The auditor-general has identified a need for greater independence and supervision over some of the activities of the Department of National Defence,” Harper said. “The government will put that supervision in place before we proceed.”

The government will create a new F-35 secretariat, which will assume control of the proposed purchase of the next-generation fighter jet for the Canadian Forces.

Prior to any purchase, the government also will commission an independent report of the F-35 acquisition and costs.

The funding envelope for the purchase of 65 F-35s also will be capped at 9 billion Canadian dollars ($8.9 billion), ensuring that additional defense dollars will not be funneled to the project if the cost of the aircraft continues to climb. That funding envelope includes the acquisition of associated weapons, infrastructure, initial spares and training simulators.

“Funding will remain frozen and Canada will not purchase new aircraft until further due diligence, oversight and transparency is applied to the process of replacing the Canadian Forces’ aging CF-18 fleet,” Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose said in a statement.

The government, however, has rejected demands from opposition ministers that Defence Minister Peter MacKay resign on the grounds his department misled Parliament on the F-35 purchase.

The report, “Replacing Canada’s Fighter Jets,” written by Auditor General Michael Ferguson, found that the DND kept the government in the dark on the proposed purchase of 65 F-35s.

“Problems relating to the development of the F-35 were not fully communicated to decision makers, and risks presented to decision makers did not reflect the problems the JSF program was experiencing at the time,” Ferguson wrote.

Full life-cycle costs were understated and other costs were not provided to parliamentarians, he added. DND officials knew F-35 costs were likely to increase, but did not inform the government, according to the report.

Ferguson also found that although the DND told Parliament’s budget officer in 2011 that the F-35 purchase, including long-term maintenance and support, would cost 14.7 billion Canadian dollars the year before, it had quietly estimated the actual price tag to be 25 billion.

In addition, key decisions were made without approvals or proper documentation, and the DND “did not exercise due diligence” in the proposed acquisition.

F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin issued a statement saying “it fully supports the government of Canada’s response to the auditor general’s report. We continue to look forward to supporting the government of Canada as they work to provide the Royal Canadian Air Force a fifth-generation fighter capability.”

The Canadian government’s proposed purchase of the F-35 has fueled political controversy since it was announced in the summer of 2010, with opposition MPs attacking the deal as too expensive.

Canada flies 78 modernized CF-18 fighter aircraft. The F-35A, the conventional-takeoff-and-landing version of the plane, is the replacement.

For years, there has been strong support for an F-35 purchase within the Canadian Air Force. In May 2006, Canada’s chief of the Air Staff completed an options analysis study that examined the future global market for next-generation tactical fighter aircraft.

“The results of this study have indicated that the JSF family of aircraft provides the best available operational capabilities to meet Canadian operational requirements, while providing the longest service life and the lowest per aircraft cost of all options considered,” according to a Sept. 19, 2006, briefing report.

The two-page report was prepared for then-Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor by the Office of the Assistant Deputy Minister for Materiel.

buglerbilly

11-04-12, 10:17 PM

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

U.K. F-35 Ready for Takeoff (Update)

Posted by Robert Wall at 4/11/2012 9:42 AM CDT

The first U.K. F-35 is about to take to the air.

BK-1, as the test aircraft is designated, could start flying today, weather permitting. The flight would take place at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth facility. The aircraft was rolled out in November.

(Photo: Lockheed Martin)

It will be the first aircraft built for a non-U.S. customer to be airborne. The Netherlands is due to be second in line. Its first fighter rolled off the production line this month.

The U.K. is buying three test aircraft. BK-1 and BK-2 have been built. The plan for the third is uncertain, as is much of the U.K.'s overall F-35 plan. They are tangled in the muddle of the long-delayed PR12 program review.

The U.K., which initially was going to buy Stovl F-35s, two years ago opted to purchase F-35Cs instead. With that decision, it worked out a deal with the U.S. to swap BK-3 (the third test aircraft) for a C-model (CK-1).

Now, however, London is thinking about reversing course, after realizing that it may be more expensive over the life of the entire carrier-strike program to shift to the F-35C. The decision of whether to return to the F-35B is to be finalized as part of PR12, which London has been slow to complete as it struggles to balance the books in the budget update.

Parliament is due to return from recess next week. But don't necessarily expect a quick resolution of PR12 and, with it, a resolution of the F-35B versus F-35C discussion in the U.K.

buglerbilly

16-04-12, 12:49 PM

PICTURE: Lockheed flies UK's first production F-35

By: Craig Hoyle

2 hours ago

Source:

The UK’s first Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II production fighter made its inaugural test flight on 13 April. The aircraft, an F-35B short takeoff/vertical-landing (STOVL) model, flew a series of functional flight checks during the sortie. Lockheed’s Bill Gigliotti was at the controls during the 45min flight.

The new aircraft will have to complete a series of company and government tests flights before it is accepted by the UK. This particular aircraft will be used for training and operational tests at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, beginning later this year, Lockheed says. The Florida base is the home of the US Air Force’s 33rd Fighter Wing, the first US training wing.

© Lockheed Martin
The UK’s first Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II production fighter made its inaugural test flight on 13 April

"Not only is this a watershed moment for the Joint Strike Fighter program, since BK-1 is the first international F-35 to fly, but it also brings us one step closer to delivery of this essential fifth generation capability for the UK, " said group captain Harv Smyth, the Joint Strike Fighter UK national deputy.

The fact this first UK F-35 is a B-model is slightly awkward, however. The UK had earlier switched from the F-35B model jet to the US Navy’s F-35C carrier variant, however the UK’s Ministry of Defence is considering reversing that decision. The cost of refitting one of that nation’s two carriers, which are currently under construction, with catapult launch and arresting gear have been proving to be greater than the UK government anticipated.

buglerbilly

16-04-12, 10:05 PM

Paper: U.K. Reverting to STOVL JSF for its Carriers

Apr. 16, 2012 - 09:44AM

By ANDREW CHUTER

A plan to revert to the F-35B version has been under consideration for weeks in the face of mounting concern over the cost of converting the two aircraft carriers now being built by a BAE Systems-led alliance to launch and recover the C version. (Lockheed Martin)

Britain’s military chiefs have unanimously backed a plan to switch back to the short take-off, vertical-landing (STOVL) version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to equip its aircraft carriers, a report in The Times newspaper said April 16.

The newspaper quotes unnamed officials as saying the “overwhelming case” from military chiefs for a change from the catapult-launched F-35C to the F-35B STOVL version could land on Prime Minister David Cameron’s desk this week.

A plan to revert to the B version has been under consideration for weeks in the face of mounting concern over the cost of converting the two 65,000-ton aircraft carriers now being built by a BAE Systems-led alliance to launch and recover the C version.

Some estimates put the figure at as much as 1.8 billion pounds ($2.85 billion).

Work on converting the first of the aircraft carriers now being built at yards across the U.K. to launch and recover F-35Cs has already begun and British pilots are already being seconded to U.S. Navy carriers to hone their flying skills.

In opting for the STOVL variant, U.K. would be reverting to an earlier decision. The U.K. carriers were to carry the STOVL variant until Britain’s Conservative-led coalition government decided in its 2010 strategic defense and security review to drop the STOVL aircraft selected by the previous Labour Administration in favor of the C model. Cameron and others claimed the F-35C was more cost-effective and capable.

The review also said the catapult-launched version would be better able to cooperate with U.S. and French carriers and aircraft — an important factor as for budget reasons Britain decided it couldn’t afford to operate both carriers and would either have to sell or put in extended readiness the second vessel.

Now Cameron and the government looks like it might have to do a U-turn at a difficult time politically following a series of policy gaffes in other areas.

The government has already been heavily criticized since its security review decision to ax the BAE AV-8B Harrier and decommission its last fast-jet capable carrier, leaving at least a 10-year capability gap before the availability of the new F-35-equipped carrier.

Continuing debate over which of the jets Britain should purchase for its Royal Navy/Royal Air Force strike jets was behind Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond’s postponement of an announcement detailing the Ministry of Defence’s spending plans for the 2012/13 financial year — known as Planning Round 12.

Balancing the books at the previously heavily overspent MoD is expected to result in the axing or delay of a number of programs.

In a statement April 16 the MoD said it was “currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the Equipment Plan. As part of this process we are reviewing all programs, including elements of the carrier strike program, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed. The defence secretary will announce the outcome of this process to Parliament in due course.”

The Times story coincided with an announcement from F-35 contractor Lockheed Martin that the first of three jets acquired by the British for training and evaluation work has made its maiden flight.

The aircraft is a STOVL variant — one of three purchased by the previous Labour Government. The deal was rearranged at the last minute to switch one of the aircraft to the C variant after the Conservative-led coalition opted to switch to the conventional take-off variant.

ADMk2

17-04-12, 12:59 PM

This way they get two carriers and maybe enough F-35B's to have a useful capability. With F-35C they got a delayed funding requirement, because the ships simply couldn't have catapults added so quickly...

They've already got 3x F-35B's on order. Order another 45 or so and they can reform Joint Force Harrier (or JF Lightning I suppose) relatively quickly and have enough aircraft to deploy a useful carrier or land based LO attack capability at a third of the cost of their original plans...

A few years down the track they can replace their Tornados with additional F-35A or B's or even additional Tiffies if they really like and the UK will save cash AND have a useful air combat capability...

JKM Mk2

17-04-12, 02:14 PM

Ahhh it all sounds so simple and logical! Let's just wait and see how they can f*#% it all up again.

JKM

ADMk2

19-04-12, 05:21 AM

Contrary to Peter Goon's belief, weapons testing is well underway on the F-35. It has conducted captive carry, instrumented weapons environmental flights and now pit drop testing. So far, nine combinations of weapons have been tested using AIM-120 AMRAAM, Paveway II GBU-12 laser guided bombs and GBU-32 JDAM (1000lbs) all internally on F-35B and C. No word yet of drops from externally carried weapons. So far so good. The "bomber" doors aren't proving much of a problem at present either apparently...

Still to come will be AIM-9X, Laser JDAM, SDB I/II and JSOW, which will round out the intended Block III weapons capability. A pretty good variety of weapons at the entry to service level, I'd suggest...

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NavairNewsStory&id=4976

Chunder

21-04-12, 10:09 AM

This way they get two carriers and maybe enough F-35B's to have a useful capability. With F-35C they got a delayed funding requirement, because the ships simply couldn't have catapults added so quickly...

Brain - can - not - c o m p u t e ?!

You deplete the budget to fund two (or is it one, you've already said you'll mothball one) and not have enough F-35 B's certain to have a useful capacity?

I thought the Aircraft carrier had a useful capability or they wouldn't be getting them. Let alone getting two and maybe enough for 'useful' capacity.

JKM Mk2

21-04-12, 02:47 PM

Actually, I'm not so sure that anybody in the UK MoD (or treasury) really has any idea of why they want these carriers (apart from job creation) and what they will actually do with them once they are in service. There just doesn't seem to be any coherent plan as to why they are building them and what do they plan to do with them after that -let alone whether or not the RN will actually have aircraft that will be able to operate from them. The entire RN situation (not just the carriers) is borderline f*%#ed IMHO. Sell 'em to India and be done with it!

JKM

Gubler, A.

22-04-12, 01:16 AM

Brain - can - not - c o m p u t e ?!

You deplete the budget to fund two (or is it one, you've already said you'll mothball one) and not have enough F-35 B's certain to have a useful capacity?

I thought the Aircraft carrier had a useful capability or they wouldn't be getting them. Let alone getting two and maybe enough for 'useful' capacity.

It looks like the UK will only buy 48 F-35s which will be manned by a mix of RN and RAF pilots. If they are F-35Bs it will be a lot easier for the UK to maintain a fully carrier qualified F-35 force than if they are F-35Cs. If they are the later it would be likely due to cost issues that only a proportion will be carrier qualified and this will require a lot of joint effort with the USN and French Navy. It will also make it very difficult for the UK to surge their force because of the long lead times in F-35C carrier qualification. The F-35B on the other hand doesn’t require the training needed to land on carriers and will be actually much easier to train new pilots on than the Harrier was. Therefore all this means that a STOVL carrier will be far easier to staff with a full 36 F-35B air group than likewise on a CATOBAR carrier with F-35Cs.

ARH v.3.1

22-04-12, 07:17 AM

Therefore all this means that a STOVL carrier will be far easier to staff with a full 36 F-35B air group than likewise on a CATOBAR carrier with F-35Cs.

Not to mention that deck operations will also be far easier by having vertical/short landings.

ADMk2

22-04-12, 10:14 AM

Brain - can - not - c o m p u t e ?!

You deplete the budget to fund two (or is it one, you've already said you'll mothball one) and not have enough F-35 B's certain to have a useful capacity?

I thought the Aircraft carrier had a useful capability or they wouldn't be getting them. Let alone getting two and maybe enough for 'useful' capacity.

Not sure where I said I'd mothball anything?

I believe a carrier with 16-24 F-35B's (normal ops, more could fit for contingencies) on it will provide a very useful capability. I'm not certain that they will buy enough F-35B's to fit out two complete carrier air wings plus the land based training and development unit they will need to maintain to keep currency with the capability though.

What two carriers will give them is an ability to have a carrier available virtually all year round. The F-35B fleet and associated helo's can transition between the carriers easily enough, so in this time of reduced budgets they won't need to fund anywhere near enough F-35B's to equip both carriers AND a land based unit.

Modifying the carriers to cat / trap configuration would have hindered that arrangement and left the UK with a huge bill to get only 1 carrier. The currently being assembled carrier is too far through the building process to fit the cat / trap capability I understand...

That was the intent of my previous post on the UK and F-35B.

Regards,

AD

ADMk2

22-04-12, 10:18 AM

buglerbilly

22-04-12, 02:25 PM

They plan on selling them to India I believe, just like Invincible. With the Indian procurement system, the UK will get 40 years out of them, before India takes possession of them however...

Plus they'll refit them for India, that's worth another Billion or three as the Russians have found out.......................

buglerbilly

25-04-12, 02:33 PM

Aerospace industry worries as Tories backtrack on F-35 purchase

STEVEN CHASE AND DANIEL LEBLANC

OTTAWA— From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Apr. 24, 2012 8:47PM EDT

Last updated Wednesday, Apr. 25, 2012 7:59AM EDT

Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks to employees at a Waterloo, Ont., firm that manufactures accessories for the F-35 fighter jet on March 11, 2011.
REUTERS

The federal government is officially back-tracking on the process of buying the F-35 stealth fighter, part of a reassessment of the purchase that’s causing anxiety among Canadian companies hoping to tap billions of dollars in spin-off work for the jets.

The Department of National Defence has issued a significant correction to the “Plans and Priorities” report it tabled in Parliament for MPs last year.

In an “erratum” note, it says the 2011-12 report wrongly described the F-35 purchase as being in “definition” project phase, which generally means an item has already received preliminary approval from Treasury Board, the gatekeeper for federal spending.

Instead the decision to buy a next-generation fighter is being reclassified as being in “option analysis” phase, which means Ottawa is still determining what it needs in terms of a plane.

In the note, National Defence blames an unknown bureaucrat for the snafu, saying someone made a “typographical error” in the 2011-12 “Report on Plans and Priorities.”

The annual Reports on Plans and Priorities are an important accountability exercise for federal departments, which must file these documents in the Commons each year.

The Conservatives have hit the reset button on the decision to buy the jets following a hard-hitting report by Auditor General Michael Ferguson that criticized DND for withholding information on the purchase from political decision makers.

This back-tracking has introduced uncertainty for the Canadian aerospace industry.

Maryse Harvey, a spokeswoman for the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, confirmed growing concerns in the private sector as Ottawa re-evaluates its F-35 plans.

“If Canada doesn’t buy the F-35, there will be an impact on Canada’s contribution as a partner and the benefits that we receive from this platform. It will be a proportional impact.”

Ms. Harvey said that one of the biggest problems is that companies have to be “state-of-the-art” simply to bid on work on the F-35s, which requires large investments in equipment and training.

She said the government’s current stance on F-35 is sowing doubts about its participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program and leaving companies in the dark.

“They have to take risks. Now that they have to assess if the risk is too great at this point or if it is worth it,” Ms. Harvey said. “This is where the government’s hesitation at this point, the questioning of its decision of July, 2010, is not helping. It’s having an impact.”

The lure of spin-off economic benefits was a key driver in the Harper government’s decision to announce back in July, 2010 that it would purchase the F-35 to replace aging CF-18s.

Companies say they’ve effectively been put on hold.

“Things have been slowing down,” said Suzanne Benoit, president of Aero Montreal, an industry association of some of Canada’s biggest aerospace firms.

“The industry is hoping for rapid decisions and for things to move forward, because companies now are in a waiting pattern.”

A senior government official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, insisted that Canada remains an official partner in the F-35 project.

“There is no plan to leave the program,” the official said.

The Harper government is tight-lipped about the F-35 project’s benefits.

It refuses to identify all the companies that have won F-35 related contracts, saying that would be a breach of privacy.

If Canada decides to buy the F-35, taxpayers will spend upwards of $15-billion to buy and maintain the planes, but so far Canadian companies have only won a combined total of $435-million (U.S.) in deals to supply the F-35 project.

That’s up slightly from $350-million (U.S.) last June.

The opposition, however, is seeking to pore through details of the F-35 process to date, which could prolong the uncertainty surrounding the program. The public accounts committee of the House has launched an inquiry into the Auditor-General’s report, with the NDP and the Liberal Party seeking to hear from dozens of witnesses on the topic.

However, the Conservative Party, which has a majority on the committee, has agreed only to hear from Auditor-General Michael Ferguson on Thursday and senior bureaucrats from four federal departments on Tuesday.

Initially, the Conservatives tried to delay the appearance by Auditor-General, but relented after the chair of the committee, NDP MP David Christopherson, threatened to quit his position, stating that tradition called on Mr. Ferguson to launch the hearings.

buglerbilly

25-04-12, 02:53 PM

F-35A Completes First In-Flight Refueling Mission with External Weapons

(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued April 24, 2012)

FORT WORTH, Texas --- On Saturday, Apr. 21, a Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II conventional takeoff and landing aircraft completed the program’s first in-flight refueling mission while configured with external weapons at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. George Schwartz piloted the test aircraft, known as AF-4, with two external inert AIM-9X weapons and four external stores. Internally, the jet was carrying two Joint Direct Attack Munitions and two Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles. The two-hour mission tested the flying qualities of the aircraft while maneuvering with external weapons. This test paves the way for weapons separation testing later this year.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs about 123,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation's net sales for 2011 were $46.5 billion.

-ends-

Chunder

27-04-12, 10:46 AM

Not sure where I said I'd mothball anything?

You didn't. My brain farted, I couldn't understand the logic of the direction...

I believe a carrier with 16-24 F-35B's (normal ops, more could fit for contingencies) on it will provide a very useful capability. I'm not certain that they will buy enough F-35B's to fit out two complete carrier air wings plus the land based training and development unit they will need to maintain to keep currency with the capability though.

My thoughts were the carrier was specifically sized to ramp up to USN Tempo (i.e with what the USN floats about with 44 odd Jets) on the odd occasion. I never imagined that they would in practice float around with 36 odd F's on deck, unless need be.

What two carriers will give them is an ability to have a carrier available virtually all year round. The F-35B fleet and associated helo's can transition between the carriers easily enough, so in this time of reduced budgets they won't need to fund anywhere near enough F-35B's to equip both carriers AND a land based unit.

I hate this form of accountancy the Mod seems to run. It runs like accrual accountancy for future airframes that don't exist - ultimately because the carriers have been started too soon. Running around saying they don't have the money to afford something which simply does not exist.

Modifying the carriers to cat / trap configuration would have hindered that arrangement and left the UK with a huge bill to get only 1 carrier. The currently being assembled carrier is too far through the building process to fit the cat / trap capability I understand...

Thanks to the numerous spock logic's we seem to have - I have had a complete change of opinion regarding the thinking behind it. Initially it made me want to chuck with regards to the sacrifices the RN has had to make to retain Fast jets (albeit not theirs and not to their specks) especially with regards to the amount of Fast Jets the RAF has for threats which don't exist. But I am easily pliable...

That was the intent of my previous post on the UK and F-35B.

Thanks for the explanation.

buglerbilly

28-04-12, 12:10 AM

USMC to start F-35B flights next week at Eglin AFB

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

3 hours ago

Source:

The US Marine Corps will start local area flights on the F-35B next week at Eglin AFB, Florida, but all is not well at manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

Workers at the company's Fort Worth, Texas, factory went on strike at midnight on 22 April after they failed to reach a contract agreement with Lockheed. "The parties are not meeting at this time," a company spokesman says. "And there is no scheduled meeting."

While it is impossible to tell how long the strike could last, Lockheed says that there will not be any disruption to the F-35 programme in the near-term. The company had planned out contingency measures two months beforehand in case of a strike, which could happen every three years during wage and benefits negotiations.

©US Air Force

Lockheed is using salaried employees with manufacturing skills to keep production going. "We're continuing operations," the spokesman says.

The union also has about 150 workers each at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, and Edwards AFB, California, who are also on strike. Limited flight operations at the two flight test facilities are continuing by drawing upon the skills of salaried workers and military personnel.

Meanwhile, local area flights at Eglin AFB, Florida, are on-going with the F-35A conventional take-off and landing version. But on 1 May, the USMC's F-35B models should be joining the F-35A in the air once Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) gives its consent.

"[We] expect to be flying on or about 1 May," a senior USMC official says.

buglerbilly

01-05-12, 11:31 AM

Italy Remains Committed to JSF Program, Defense Minister Says

Apr. 30, 2012 - 06:24PM

By MARCUS WEISGERBER

Italy still remains committed to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program despite announcing plans earlier this year to slash its purchase quantity more than 30 percent.

The F-35 will provide a “much bigger capacity” over existing aircraft and will allow Italy to be at “the front edge of capacity with the United States,” Italian Defense Minister Giampaolo Di Paola said at during an April 30 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Italy plans to purchase F-35A conventional jets for its air force and F-35B short take-off, vertical-landing jets for its Navy.

In February, Di Paola announced Rome — which has invested more than $3 billion in the Joint Strike Fighter program — would reduce its F-35 buy from 131 to 90 aircraft.

The F-35 program also came up when Di Paola met with U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at the Pentagon on April 30.

Panetta “reiterated the United States commitment to developing the Joint Strike Fighter and the technology advancements both nations will receive as a result of fielding this 5th generation fighter,” George Little, the DoD press secretary, said in an email.

Panetta noted that the F-35B, which has experienced numerous development issues, has come off probation imposed by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates “after catching up to the other variants’ testing milestones,” Little said.

Other than the U.S. Marine Corps, Italy is currently the only planned operator of the F-35B.

Beyond the F-35, Italy still has plans for a military that is agile, sustainable and interoperable despite defense spending cuts, Di Paola said.

Rome will still need to “invest much more in situation awareness, in intelligence” and precision munitions, he said.

buglerbilly

02-05-12, 05:09 AM

DSCA: Japan requests 4 F-35As with options for 38

Posted in Air Force on May 2nd, 2012

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency has notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Japan for a possible sale of an initial four F-35As with an option to purchase an additional 38 aircraft. The estimated cost is $10 billion.

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2012/Japan_12-15.pdf
Source (PDF)

buglerbilly

03-05-12, 10:52 AM

Australia to push back F-35 decision by two years

By: Greg Waldron Singapore

4 hours ago

Source:

Australia will delay its acquisition of 12 Lockheed Martin F-35A aircraft by two years to save costs associated with the programme.

The decision to buy the 12 aircraft will be made in 2014-2015, as opposed to later this year, says minister for defence Stephen Smith.

Canberra has only committed to two F-35As, which will be delivered in the USA and used for ground and aircrew training. Plans call for it to buy an additional 12 under Project Air 6000 Phase 2A, and a subsequent 58 under Phase 2B.

The reports suggest that Australia hopes to save A$1.6 billion ($1.64 billion) by delaying the purchase. Smith said the move mirrors a US decision earlier this year to delay the acuisition of 150 F-35s.

"When we embarked upon the project we did a couple of very sensible things; firstly we chose the conventional Joint Strike Fighter, and secondly we put a fair amount of padding in our cost and in our timetable," says Smith. "On the timetable we have been making sure that we don't end up with a capability gap. We'll make that decision formally by the end of this year in terms of the capability gap, but my current advice is that the life of our 71 F-18 Classic Hornets and our 24 Super Hornets is sufficient for our air combat capability, but we'll make an advised judgement before the end of this year."

Boeing hopes to sell additional F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets to Canberra. Australia already has 24 Super Hornets that it acquired to fill a capability gap owing to F-35 programme delays, and Smith has consistently maintained that additional Super Hornets are an option.

Canberra's delay will only heighten cost concerns associated with the F-35. Japan, Norway and Canada have expressed concerns about the programme's cost.

buglerbilly

08-05-12, 12:50 PM

Lockheed receives $237.7 million F-35 contract modification

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

13 hours ago

Source:

Lockheed Martin has received a $237.7 million contract modification to a fixed-price-incentive-fee F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) production contract.

The money is for making configuration changes as a result of the JSF developmental test effort. There are hardware and software modifications that need to be made on the 32 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) IV jets that Lockheed is building for the US Department of Defense (DoD) and foreign partners.

©Lockheed Martin

The contact modification "increases the concurrency cap" for all three F-35 variants. "The concurrency cap establishes the threshold at or under which the contractor is obligated to incorporate government-authorized changes," reads a DoD release.

Lockheed says, "This money could pay for items already identified or fund future items as well, up to the new cap limit."

Of the $237.7 million, the Department of the Navy is paying for $153.2 million; another $69.4 million comes from the US Air Force. The United Kingdom is paying $8.2 million and the Netherlands $6.94 million.

buglerbilly

09-05-12, 05:43 AM

F-35 boss: We’re getting it right, just give us time

By Philip Ewing Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 6:11 pm

There’s nothing wrong with the F-35 Lightning II that old fashioned engineering can’t fix, its program boss told Senate lawmakers on Tuesday — the only question is how long it’ll take.

In a genial session with three members of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s air-land panel, Vice Adm. David Venlet said “technical and cost issues certainly exist” with Lockheed Martin’s jet of tomorrow, the largest defense program in history.

They include the pilot’s helmet continuing to fall short of spec; problems with the tailhook on the Navy’s C version; electronic warfare “antenna quality;” and “buffet loads in flight,” Venlet said.

But — “Every issue we have in view today is very much in the category of normal development for fighters — tactical aircraft. Good old fashioned engineering is going to take care of every one of those and we will work on those hard enough that they’re deemed good enough by the fleet.”

See? Nothing to worry about. So when can the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy expect their As, Bs and Cs to reach initial operational capability?

Still no word on that.

Venlet said he’s heard from the services that they were pleased with the year the program had in 2011 — which included the B’s debut at sea and other milestones — but even they, by his own account, are holding out to see whether Lockheed and the Joint Program Office can keep it up.

“They would say ‘Dave, we’d like you to be more than a one-year onder — string a couple of years of performance together and we’ll declare IOC.’”

No rush! In the meantime, the Air Force is just going to go ahead and extend the lives of 300 of its F-16s; the Navy will extend the lives of 150 of its F/A-18 Hornets; and the Marines are going to plan to keep flying their AV-8B Harriers until 2030. Australia, a charter member of Club F-35, may delay its purchase by another two years, even as the U.K. and Canada keep up their Hamlet routines about what kind of jets they want or even whether they want them. But the Fellowship is basically solid and new members could even be around the corner — Venlet said program officials are getting ready to play in South Korea’s pending fighter competition.

Lockheed officials jumped in ahead of Venlet’s optimistic assessment with another announcement Tuesday detailing the F-35’s progress so far this year. The F-35 fleet is flying up a storm, said spokeswoman Laurie Quincy: Air Force As have flown 164 times. The Marines’ Bs aircraft have completed 122 flights, 114 of which began with a short takeoff, and Bs have conducted 49 vertical landings. (The B can land conventionally or vertically.) Navy Cs have flown 87 times.

“[T]he … fleet surpassed the 15,000 total test point threshold, completing approximately 25 percent of the program’s entire requirement of more than 59,000 test points,” Quincy said. “Overall the F-35 test program remains ahead of the 2012 flight test plan, which calls for the accumulation of 1,001 test flights and 7,873 baseline test points as well as additional points beyond the original plan.”

Plus the jets have demonstrated their speed, agility, and ability to carry some payloads, though they haven’t released any live weapons yet.

Still, there were many cracks in Tuesday’s happy facade. Venlet acknowledged that the F-35’s software — both for the jet itself and the offboard system that will help manage its logistics — remains a big challenge. (“You can’t ever take your eye off the software,” he said.) He said the Air Force’s Aeronautical Systems Center and Naval Air Systems Command both would be playing a bigger role in helping wrestle that down, the latest admission that service systems expertise has been lacking from the joint program.

And another witness, Vice Adm. Walter Skinner, a senior Navy Department weapons-buyer, said there’s still of lot of work ahead figuring out what’s wrong with the C’s tailhook. Although Venlet has said before that the hook problem was just one of those things you discover when you’re developing an airplane, engineers don’t quite know what they’re in for, Skinner said.

“The hook not engaging has happened to other aircraft besides the F-35,” he said. “We’ve gone through initial fault trees for that occurance, we’re still in analysis, we’ll have a preliminary design review at end of next month, at which time we’ll be able to ascertain the scope of the fix, the cost, and if there will be a schedule penalty associated with implementation.”

So there are still many hurdles, but the bottom line, said Venlet, is that the F-35 has until fiscal year 2016 to continue with its tests. “If it all stays within the family of normal fighter development,” he said, “we have ability to stay on schedule and on cost.”

If it doesn’t, DoD may delay buying more airplanes to punish Lockheed, but the overall program will continue as it always has.

buglerbilly

09-05-12, 12:51 PM

About-turn on new variant of carriers’ fighter plane

David Cameron has approved a major retreat over aircraft for the Royal Navy’s new carriers, abandoning plans to buy the conventional take-off version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

U.S. Navy variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35C Photo: GETTY

By James Kirkup, Deputy Political Editor

6:20AM BST 09 May 2012

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, will tell MPs tomorrow that the Government will now purchase the jump-jet model of the plane instead, reversing one of the central decisions in the Coalition’s controversial defence review.

The Prime Minister’s National Security Council yesterday considered Mr Hammond’s plan, which will be announced to the House of Commons.

Mr Hammond will claim the decision will save hundreds of millions of pounds and help the Armed Forces. But he will face accusations of a climb-down driven by financial miscalculation.

The decision to buy the conventional take-off “C-variant” of the F-35 was at the heart of the Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2010.

Deploying the aircraft would require modifications to the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers to install catapults and landing gear.

The Ministry of Defence originally estimated the cost of that work at around £400 million, but internal MoD projections now put the figure at closer to £2 billion.

Mr Hammond told The Daily Telegraph this week that, since the defence review, “the facts have changed” on the choice of planes for the new carriers.

Attempting to balance the defence budget after years of overspending, Mr Hammond yesterday told Cabinet ministers that the rising cost should lead to the catapult plan being abandoned.

The Daily Telegraph earlier this month disclosed a secret Ministry of Defence paper showing military planners considered the jump-jet to be less useful and powerful than the conventional variant.

Despite the embarrassment of overturning the decision, ministers will argue that the change could bring some military benefits to the UK. In particular, buying the jump-jet could mean the next generation of carriers is ready to sail

The decision to install catapults on the new carriers was expected to delay the arrival of the new vessels until at least 2020. Delays in completing the conventional variant plane could have pushed that date back to 2023 or even later, leaving the UK without a working aircraft carrier for at least a decade.

By contrast, the development of the jump-jet fighter is proceeding more smoothly than expected, meaning the aircraft could be ready to fly from the new carriers as early as 2018.

Adopting the jump-jet could also allow the Navy to have two operational carriers. Under the review, one of the new carriers is to be mothballed to save money.

Downing Street confirmed a statement on the carrier programme was imminent.

buglerbilly

16-05-12, 05:17 AM

Italian AF, Navy Head for F-35B Showdown

May. 15, 2012 - 11:21AM | By TOM KINGTON

ROME — Italy’s decision to slash its overall F-35 Joint Strike Fighter order from 131 to 90 jets has kick-started a debate over how the Italian Air Force and Navy can divide a shrinking number of F-35B short-takeoff, vertical-landing (STOVL) versions in the package.

With both services wanting the jet and neither likely to get the number they want, talks are underway at the Ministry of Defense to find a solution, with a pooled fleet a growing possibility, officials and analysts said.

Before Defense Minister Giampao-lo di Paola announced the JSF reduction in February, prompted by defense spending cuts, the Air Force had planned to acquire 69 conventional F-35As to replace its Tornados and 40 F-35Bs to replace its AMX fighter bombers, citing a need to field STOVL aircraft to exploit short landing strips. That left the Navy with 22 STOVL versions to replace its aging AV-8 Harriers on its new carrier, the Cavour.

In a recent interview with the Italian publication Airpress, Air Force chief Gen. Giuseppe Bernardis said, “The Air Force will have 75

F-35s, of which 15 will be B, adding to the Navy’s 15.”

His prediction, however, followed statements from Rear Adm. Paolo Treu, head of Italian naval aviation, that 22 STOVL aircraft, not 15, is the absolute minimum number the Navy can order. That suggests the talks at the MoD will be heated.

“If the Navy is asked to go down to 15 aircraft, it will fight to the very end against it,” said Silvio Lora-Lamia, who has covered Italy’s JSF acquisition for Bologna-based defense publication Analisi Difesa.

Bernardis’ prediction envisions the Air Force losing nine F-35As and 25 F-35Bs. The Navy would lose fewer STOVLs — just seven. But Navy officials claim that 22 F-35Bs is just enough to keep a full contingent aboard Cavour during operations.

With three aircraft likely to be kept in the U.S. as a contribution to a pilot training pool and five predicted to need maintenance at any given time, 14 would be left. They and six helicopters complete Cavour’s line-up.

While Cavour awaits its JSFs, the vessel has completed qualification to host Italy’s AV-8s as a stopgap before they are retired from service around 2020. Qualification had not been completed during last year’s Libyan conflict, meaning that Italy’s older carrier, the Garibaldi, was called in to launch AV-8 missions over Libya.

If the STOVL fleet is 30 aircraft, neither the Navy nor the Air Force would be able to manage, one analyst said.

“If the Air Force wants a squadron, 15 aircraft is not enough,” said former Italian military chief of staff Gen. Vincenzo Camporini, now a vice president at the Italian think tank IAI.

The only solution, he said, is for the two services to operate one pooled fleet. “This has to be the future, otherwise it is unsustainable,” he said. “There should not be a problem for pilots if their aircraft was being used by another service the week before an operation.”

A pooled fleet, he said, would mean one shared air base. Currently the Navy plans to host its JSFs, when on land, at its Grottaglie base in southern Italy. The Air Force is eyeing its Amendola base, also in southern Italy, as one of two JSF bases.

A senior defense source confirmed the aircraft would be interchangeable. But pilots will not be, due to the different skills involved in flying from land and from a carrier deck.

geof

16-05-12, 12:48 PM

Still carn't get my head around how there seems to be no real push by anyone of any note in Defence who carn't see the benifits of changing say 24 or so of our A's to B's. Having an aircraft of that note that could be deployed to just about anywhere in the country and surrounds, and ofcourse onto the LHD's if needed ... would be perfect for us IMO ... oh well ..

ADMk2

16-05-12, 03:01 PM

The F-35A's couldn't be operated from the LHD's without major modification to the ships and consequential impact on their amphibious role.

Furthermore the F-35A can be deployed just about anywhere in the country now, so why would we want the additional cost and reduced capability that -B offers?

I think there is a fundamental disconnect as to the understanding of the support the -B will require to operate from remote locations. This isn't a basic Harrier. It's a LO fighter jet. The physical security requirements for LO aircraft are high. It requires a runway or special matting to operate from and the requirements to maintain it's LO for extended periods are high.

Operating this jet for extended periods in remote locations won't be happening even with USMC. For the additional cost involved, we'd be far better spending that money towards engineering and construction capabilities to rapidly repair airfields in a time of crisis as well as improved overall hardening. At least these measures would have some utility other than in a conflict.

An F-35B wouldn't. IMHO...

buglerbilly

16-05-12, 11:19 PM

USAF: F-35B cannot generate enough sorties to replace A-10

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

1 hours ago

Source:

The US Air Force has concluded that the short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) Lockheed Martin F-35B- model aircraft cannot generate enough sorties to meet its needs; therefore the service will not consider replacing the Fairchild Republic A-10 Warthog close air support jet with that variant.

Meanwhile, the USAF and the US Navy are hoping to more closely integrate their forces as part of the US Department of Defense's (DoD) new AirSea battle concept.

"The F-35B is well-suited to support of the Marine Air Ground Taskforce (MAGTF) in very austere locations," says USAF chief of staff Gen Norton Schwartz, speaking at an event hosted by the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. "But the reality is, is that scenario is not a high sortie generation scenario."

The USAF and the US Navy need greater sortie generation rates than the F-35B can provide, Schwartz says.

"What we think is needed is high sortie generation in order to provide persistence over the target and to engage the variety of targets that may exist," he says. "Not in a confined battlespace, but more on a theatre basis."

©Lockheed Martin

The F-35B is an interesting aircraft, Schwartz says. But while the USAF had at one time considered the variant as a potential replacement for the A-10, given the fiscal constraints the services faces and the need to generate more sorties, the USAF will not buy the F-35B, he says.

Retired Lt Gen George Trautman, a former US Marine Corps (USMC) deputy commandant for aviation, disputes Schwartz's assertion that the F-35B cannot generate as many sorties as the A or C model aircraft.

"The F35B has highest sortie generation rate among the three JSF [Joint Strike Fighter] variants," Trautman says. "There may be other reasons the air force doesn't want the B, but sortie rate isn't a factor."

In fact, the USMC's concept of operations depends on the STOVL variant generating more sorties more rapidly than other JSF models, says retired USMC Lt Gen Emerson Gardner, a former naval aviator.

The key performance parameters (KPP) for the F-35 require higher sortie rates for the B-model at four sorties per day. The A and C models are only required to generate three sorties per day.

"So far in SDD [System Development and Demonstration], all three variants are on track to exceed their KPPs at the completion of SDD," Gardner says. "The B looks to come in at about six sorties per day, the A at about 3.5 and the C at close to four."

While USAF will not consider buying the F-35B, the service is fully committed to buying its own conventional take-off F-35A variant. Fighters like the stealthy F-35 are not in any danger of being replaced by unmanned combat aircraft anytime in the near future because those machines are not yet capable of flying in airspace protected by advanced integrated air defence systems.

"The reality is, is that at least in the current [generation], a remotely piloted aircraft cannot survive in contested airspace," Schwartz says.

Stealthy fifth-generation fighters, the Northrop Grumman B-2, the nascent USAF Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), are critical capabilities for the US military to operate inside anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) environments.

Those types of aircraft "will allow us to operate within contested airspace and assert our access," Schwartz says, "Which is the fundamental tenant of AirSea battle."

The DoD's new AirSea battle concept, while still integrating the USMC and US Army, is primarily driven by the USN and USAF. At its most basic level, the concept calls for the seamless integration of USN and USAF assets so that the two service's aircraft, ships, submarines and space assets all work together, says USN chief of naval operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert.

"Our links need to be similar," Greenert says, "Or minimally compatible."

Eventually, if everything goes according to the USAF and USN vision, a USAF Boeing E-3 Sentry or USN Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye could seamlessly share a common picture with an Aegis cruiser and F-22 or Boeing F/A-18 at the same time.

The two services are already working on a next generation data-link to share all that information, Schwartz says. But for existing legacy platforms, there will need to be "gateways", like the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN).

But there is the danger of information overload. At the senior leadership level, the air or maritime joint component commanders might not need to know all of the detailed information that the other needs. Already, there might be too much extraneous data, Greenert says. In the future, that information will need to be filtered properly.

"I don't want to everything that the air component commander knows," he says. "We're already almost overloaded from that perspective we want to share what the...critical contacts of interest are cross domain."

geof

17-05-12, 08:32 AM

ARH v.3.1

17-05-12, 10:08 AM

I don't see why people have such a hard time with the feasibility of operating f35's from a ship custom built to operate the aircraft. The equipment required is modular and bolts right in to the heavy vehicle deck. The presence of fighter aircraft will only impact amphibious operations if the full troop load out is needed, if it is needed at all for that particular operation.

buglerbilly

19-05-12, 01:21 AM

F-35 problems on their way to being fixed

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

8 hours ago

Source:

The F-35 Lightning II is making good progress through flight testing this year, a top Lockheed Martin official says. Most of the biggest challenges faced by the programme should be well on their way to being fixed by the later part of the year.

One major issue that has recently popped up on the US Navy's F-35C variant is that the aircraft's tail-hook has had to be redesigned. That is because the existing design has failed to catch an arresting cable during trials. Lockheed is working on a new improved hook design that should fix the problem.

"We have modified the hook pointwith a lower center of gravity," says Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed's vice president for F-35 programme integration and business development. Additionally, "we've redesigned the hold-down damper."

©Lockheed Martin

The new design is scheduled for its preliminary design review in "the summer." That will be followed by a critical design review in the fourth quarter.

After the new hook design undergoes shore-based qualification trails, the F-35C will undergo sea trials on a carrier in late 2013 or early 2014.

Lockheed is also set to test fixes to the jet's troublesome helmet-mounted display (HMD) this summer, O'Bryan says. Lockheed has reached an agreement with the US government on the HMD requirements, which will help the company to fix imagery lag on the helmet by tweaking the system's software, he says.

The company is also adding micro inertial measurement units (IMU) to the helmet and pilot's seat to dampen out jittery images. "We're going to fly those micro-IMUs this summer," O'Bryan says.

Lockheed hopes that the new ISIE-11 camera, which replaces the existing ISIE-10 cameras, will resolve jet's night vision acuity problems. The new system will undergo testing at MIT's Lincoln Labs later this summer. The system will now consist of two ISIE-11 cameras, one of which will be mounted in the helmet and another on the canopy bow, and imagery pumped in from the F-35's six distributed aperture system (DAS) infrared cameras.

"We're optimistic, we've got a good plan," O'Bryan says.

Meanwhile, the pilots have started to test the imagery from the distributed aperture system. Initial results look to be very promising, O'Bryan says. But there will need to be tweaks as flight tests reveal potential issues.

Other avionics tests are proceeding well. The F-35 has already started testing the Link-16 data-link and will soon start to test the variable message format link which is needed for the close air support mission. There are also ongoing tests with the radar, electronic warfare, and infrared targeting system, which are needed for the release of the Block 2A training software.

On the flight sciences side, the US Marine Corps short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B test programme is further along than that of the F-35C. The previously troubled B-model is now running 20% ahead of this year's planned test schedule, O'Bryan says.

The F-35B has flown at altitudes over 49,000ft and has hits speeds of Mach 1.4. That's just shy of the F-35's required 50, 000 ft ceiling and Mach 1.6 design speed limit, he says. The B-model has also flown at its maximum airspeed of 630 knots and has achieved its maximum 7G limit.

"It's about over 50% complete with its clean-wing full-envelop test points," O'Byan says.

©Lockheed Martin

The F-35C is also about 20% ahead of this year's flight test plan, O'Bryan says. Like the F-35B, the C-model has flown out to 630 knots, but the naval variant is required to hit 700 knots. The C-model has also flown at 45, 000 ft and at speeds of Mach 1.4. It has also hit its maximum 7.5G limit.

That means the USN version has completed about 40% of its clean configuration flight envelope test points, O'Bryan says.

Out at Edwards AFB, California, F-35A will have completed 45% of the totality of its flight test points by the end of the year. By the fourth quarter, the F-35A should have competed its first full lifetime of durability testing, O'Bryan says. There have thus far been no new issues that have arisen as a result of the tests.

'That, I'm happy to say, is going well," he says.

The all versions of the jet have started flying with external stores. Later this year, the aircraft will enter into high angle of attack testing up to 50angle of attack, O'Bryan says. The programme will also start wet runway tests, engine air starts, and weapons releases.