Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-35 Good News / Same Old News  
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3398 posts, RR: 26
Posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11385 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

According to Flight Global, the US Marines now have an 8 plane training squadron in action.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...glin-afb-marines-fly-first-f-.html

the same old news is: it was noted elsewhere that the computer programing completion may slip further out.

the question remains will these 8 aircraft still be operational when the programming is finally installed, or will they be in the desert? Further will the pilots being trained still be in the service at that point? If not, what is the point in training them?

90 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12356 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11365 times:

Despite the ridiculous costs, in my mind it seems the F35 is now a foregone conclusion.

Quoting kanban (Thread starter):

the question remains will these 8 aircraft still be operational when the programming is finally installed, or will they be in the desert?

Seems like the early F16As got used for quite a while before being retired off.

If it's just software being upgraded then chances are good it will happen.

If that software requires a bunch of computer upgrades to run, at some point they won't bother.

Quoting kanban (Thread starter):
Further will the pilots being trained still be in the service at that point?

Surely some will be.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 11241 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 1):

If it's just software being upgraded then chances are good it will happen.

It's software. Even number blocks are pure software upgrades, odd number blocks are more extensive and are akin to a commercial C check as they involve structural work.

The USMC intends on IOC in July 2015, per the latest comments from the Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 1):

Surely some will be.

And some will be the instructors training other F-35 pilots.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 11219 times:

Quoting kanban (Thread starter):
what is the point in training them?

That's a great point. Someone should ask the Marines if all the pilots now flying the F-35 are contractually obligated to stay on beyond 2019 and for how long beyond 2019. That is the only way it would make sense to train pilots now - and even that's a stretch because the same pilots could just as easily wait a few more years to start training.

I don't know about the B version, but the A and C versions only require 3 training flights to qualify on the F-35.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3392 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 11203 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
That's a great point. Someone should ask the Marines if all the pilots now flying the F-35 are contractually obligated to stay on beyond 2019 and for how long beyond 2019. That is the only way it would make sense to train pilots now - and even that's a stretch because the same pilots could just as easily wait a few more years to start training.

This is likely more along the lines of starting to write "the book" on the plane, operating it, and maintaining it. Also developing a pool of instructors.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3398 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11166 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
the A and C versions only require 3 training flights to qualify on the F-35.

I hope:
1) that's with some prior flying training in another comparable aircraft
2) that's after all the computer code is written and installed freeing the pilot forget the plane operation and go looking for something to shoot at.
3) the tail hook is working

Pointguy.. I'm being sarcastic..


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11165 times:

All this to and fro about the F-35.

It may have some great features, yet to be demonstrated, and it may have some real drawbacks (my personal belief), but also yet to be demonstrated or documented. Many in the mil-av community are dubious about this thing. But it's likely too big to stop for the USA. The same is not true for others, i.e., Oz buying more SHs.

The only image I can conjure up is something swirling the bowl after you flush. Definitely something will come out the other end of the pipe. But not necessarily what you thought it would be.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11162 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
yet to be demonstrated
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
yet to be demonstrated or documented
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
But not necessarily what you thought it would be.

How can you say C after you say A and B?


User currently offlineseachaz From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 220 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11090 times:

Whats the 'good news' here? What's the cost overrun on this program now? Is it more then the amount the FAA faced with sequestration cuts? And whats the latest betting line in Vegas for the C model's redesigned tail-hook actually working this summer?
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/04/10/lo...mises-tailhook-fix-to-navys-f-35c/


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11071 times:

Quoting seachaz (Reply 8):
Whats the 'good news' here? What's the cost overrun on this program now?
http://www.armed-services.senate.gov...013/04%20April/Bogdan_04-24-13.pdf

Quote:
Concurrency costs were originally estimated to be roughly 5%-8% of recurring flyaway costs. Over the past year, the F-35 program has worked with Lockheed Martin to refine the estimate of concurrency costs based on actual F-35 discrete data results from qualification events. As a result of this approach, our concurrency estimate has decreased to 3%-5% of recurring flyaway costs
Quote:
As in any complex development program there are challenges, but I believe the enhanced capability of the F-35 will provide the backbone of the US combat air superiority for generations to come. The technological capabilities of the aircraft are sound. The program’s management is rising to the challenges of managing this complex system with discipline, transparency and accountability. Our progress continues at a slow but steady pace. I intend on completing this program within the budget and schedule I have been given. I ask that you hold me, my team, our stakeholders and contractors accountable over the coming months and years to ensure that we develop and deliver the warfighting capability this country needs.
Quoting seachaz (Reply 8):
And whats the latest betting line in Vegas for the C model's redesigned tail-hook actually working this summer?
Quote:
A Critical Design Review was completed in February 2013 on a redesigned arresting hook system and modeling and simulation involving the redesigned hook showed a marked improvement in performance. Ground test of this newly redesigned hook is scheduled at Lakehurst, NJ in the 4th Quarter of 2013, followed by aircraft carrier qualifications in 3rd Quarter of 2014. Although work remains to be done, I am confident this new hook will meet our needs.


Those are the words from F-35 program chief Gen Bogdan as of April 24, 2013 on those topics to the Senate Armed Services Committee.


User currently offlineseachaz From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 220 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11046 times:

"Specifically, the total cost of the four contracts for 63 planes was $12.28 billion — 10.9 percent more than the amount awarded under the original contracts. The government's share of the total overrun is about $756 million under the sharing incentive provisions included in the contracts, with Lockheed presumably footing the rest of the bill."

http://www.bizjournals.com/washingto...-racked-up-12-billion-in-cost.html

"The FAA had no choice but to cut $637 million as its share of $85 billion in automatic, government-wide spending cuts that must be achieved by the end of the federal budget year on Sept. 30."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...ll-operation-19057144#.UXzjKrWsh8E


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3398 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10955 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 9):
Those are the words

Thanks for the quote.. however the good general speaks in terms of percentages without accompanying numbers, so it is hard to tell just what a 3%-5% really means. But then most legislators are too dumb to look deeper.

on the tail hook, it is interesting that with a sense of urgency to correct the fault, and resume carrier trials, it will take over two years to correct and retrofit. This not a criticism of the plane, but one of the manufacturer. This part of the overrun costs should not be split with the government.


User currently offlineseachaz From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 220 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 10897 times:

The tail hook problem to me is one that should never have happened - its not new technology, its not even a new approach to an existing problem. Now there will be direct costs for the redesign but what about the added cost for the delays in testing other carrier specific systems at sea.

Anyway hope they get it all figured out and Lockheed is left footing a major portion of the bill. Still would love to see the C in full carrier ops, current air wings getting a bit stale looking with so many hornets and the C is best looking of the 3 variants to boot IMO.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10879 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 11):
on the tail hook, it is interesting that with a sense of urgency to correct the fault, and resume carrier trials, it will take over two years to correct and retrofit. This not a criticism of the plane, but one of the manufacturer. This part of the overrun costs should not be split with the government.

Well, the tail hook was supposed to be carrier trialed this year, but due to sequestration, this got pushed out. So in this case, the government is to blame for this.

Quoting seachaz (Reply 12):
The tail hook problem to me is one that should never have happened - its not new technology, its not even a new approach to an existing problem.

However, how the tail hook behaves when it tries to catch the cable is unique for every aircraft. Here's a quick history on tail hook design up to and including the F-35:
http://thanlont.blogspot.ca/2011/12/...ef-history-of-tailhook-design.html


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 10845 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 7):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
yet to be demonstrated
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
yet to be demonstrated or documented
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 6):
But not necessarily what you thought it would be.

How can you say C after you say A and B?

Quite easily. Apparently you do not grasp what "yet to be demonstrated" means.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12356 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 10834 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 9):
Concurrency costs were originally estimated to be roughly 5%-8% of recurring flyaway costs. Over the past year, the F-35 program has worked with Lockheed Martin to refine the estimate of concurrency costs based on actual F-35 discrete data results from qualification events. As a result of this approach, our concurrency estimate has decreased to 3%-5% of recurring flyaway costs

Hmm, my college professors would never let me get away with comparing percentages of unstated quantities...

Quoting kanban (Reply 11):
Thanks for the quote.. however the good general speaks in terms of percentages without accompanying numbers, so it is hard to tell just what a 3%-5% really means

  



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3398 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10797 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 15):
Hmm, my college professors would never let me get away with comparing percentages of unstated quantities...

you didn't happen to learn from Dr. Deming at Geo Washington did you?


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10144 times:

Eglin AFB received it's first Block 2A aircraft:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...es-its-first-block-2a-f-35-385643/

Quote:
Eglin AFB receives its first Block 2A F-35

By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC

The US Air Force's 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin AFB, Florida, received its first Block 2A configuration Lockheed Martin F-35A on 6 May. Another similarly configured aircraft is scheduled to arrive at the base later in the month.

This aircraft called, AF-25, is equipped with an initial version of the Block 2A configuration, but Eglin AFB will receive aircraft with a more advanced version of the software package later in the year, says Lt Col Lee Kloos, commander of the wing's 58th Fighter Squadron.

The squadron will receive the last of its 24 primary authorized aircraft and two backup aircraft by February 2014. Around that same time, the unit will start helping prepare the USAF's second training unit at Luke AFB, Arizona, which is expected to start receiving F-35As in January 2014, gear up to start training operations.

More at the link above.

Block 2A activates a number of features on the F-35 including:
- DAS sensors fully activated (instead of only half the sensors being activated)
- Enhanced data link systems activated
- Weather radar mode
- Enhanced training modes activated


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9756 times:

USAF maintenance staff working on the F-35 are reporting good news regarding the durability and maintainability of the F-35's coatings:

More at the link below:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...aintain-than-on-older-jets-385731/

Quote:
US Air Force maintenance troops working on the Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighter at Eglin AFB, Florida, say the stealth coatings on the new fifth-generation type are proving easier to work on than those on earlier low-observable (LO) platforms.

Maintaining the LO coatings on the new aircraft marks "a significant improvement", says Senior Master Sgt Eric Wheeler, a maintainer assigned to the 33rd Fighter Wing at the base. "Typically, [it] has not caused us a whole lot of downtime on this jet."

As maintenance personnel have become used to working on the F-35, the process has also become a lot easier. "We started off with an engine run being a huge event for us, [and progressed] to flying a four-turn-four," Wheeler says, referring in the latter case to a situation where a four-ship formation of aircraft can return from a sortie and be swiftly prepared to take off again.

This was hinted by other articles that the F-35's stealth coatings were considerably more durable and easier to maintain compared to previous generation of stealthly aircraft, with more of the internals being easier to access:
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-low-...-for-21st-century-combat-aviation/


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 9490 times:

We also have a video of the intentional departure and recovery in high angle of attack testing up on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWji8AcOYGA

Notice the tail slide in the first 15 seconds of the video.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...-35a-departure-testing-at-edw.html


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9379 times:

First non-test pilot to conduct an aerial refueling in the F-35:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/asd_05_17_2013_p03-01-579864.xml

The pilots seem to like the F-35 behind a tanker due to the different handling characteristics:

Quote:
Kloos says the F-35 is a stable refueling platform. Behind the tanker, handling qualities of the Lockheed Martin F-16 are “like driving a bumpy gravel road, while in the F-35 it’s a smooth, paved highway.”

The view is echoed by Tech Sgt. William Joe Parker, boom operator in the 336t Air Refueling Sqn Boeing KC-135 for the first refueling mission at the Eglin ITC. “He just parked the aircraft behind ours.”

The F-35’s flight-control laws change when the refueling-receptacle doors are opened, making it easier for the pilot to make small corrections, a technique similar to that used in the F-16.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9349 times:

Further cuts in F-35 procurement:

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/05/1...s-air-guard-modernization-at-risk/

By Sydney K. Freedberg Jr. a defense writer, and thus highly knowledgeable and connected.

“I don’t have the exact number yet,” Air Force Maj. Gen. Edward Bolton said Tuesday, but to pay the bill for sequestration, the service might have to cut its fiscal 2013 procurements by “two, three, four, maybe even five F-35s.”


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9090 times:

The USAF is expected to advance the data they declare IOC with F-35 to 2016, according to two sources in a recent news article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...bre94j0v0-20130520,0,6064960.story

Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force plans to start operational use of Lockheed Martin Corp.-built F-35 fighter jets in mid-2016, a year earlier than planned, using a similar software package as the Marine Corps, two sources familiar with the plans said on Monday.

The Air Force's decision to accelerate its introduction with a slightly less capable version of the F-35 software package means the planes will carry fewer weapons at first, although the software will later be upgraded to the final version, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said a final decision had not been made and declined to comment further. A spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 program office declined to comment.

The decision reflects the military's desire to start using the new warplanes, which are already rolling off the assembly line at Lockheed's sprawling Fort Worth, Texas, plant, even as military officials continue to test the plane.

"This decision gets that (U.S.) fifth-generation capability out on the front lines that much sooner," said one of the sources familiar with the Air Force's plans. "It also sends a message about confidence in the program to Congress and the international partners."

Former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said accelerating operational use of the new warplane would allow the Air Force to learn more about the F-35's integrated battle management system.

"This is not just about replacing aging F-15's or F-16's; it is about changing the order of battle and truly embracing a integrated form of warfare where the F-35 manages the targeting and directs supporting fire at the same time as providing more precise aim points," Wynne told Reuters in an email.

The Air Force, Marines and Navy must report to Congress by June 1 on their target dates for initial operational capability, or IOC, which marks the point when the services have enough planes on hand to go to war if needed. Actual deployments usually lag IOC dates by about a year.

The sources said the services would send Congress a list of target or "objective" dates for declaring initial operational capability and a list of "threshold" dates, or deadlines.

The Marines Corps is sticking to its plan to begin early operational use in mid-2015 of its F-35B jets, which can take off and land like a helicopter. It will be the first of the three U.S. military services to start using the jets.

More at the link.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3398 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9065 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

We have a vertical take off and landing video
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th.../f-35b-vertical-takeoff-video.html

however Flight Global notes:
"Anyways, vertical takeoff is a US Marine Corps requirement, however it's only intended from repositioning the jet where a short takeoff is not possible. That's because the F-35B can only do a vertical takeoff while lightly loaded with about 4,500lbs of gas--meaning it wouldn't be carrying a tactically significant payload."

So one wonders why set the plane down in the first place? for a potty break that you have to leave any munitions behind to get off again?


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 876 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8891 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 23):
So one wonders why set the plane down in the first place? for a potty break that you have to leave any munitions behind to get off again?

I would imagine any number of emergency situations might have you set down wherever you could. It might also let you relocate from just outside of a hardened shelter at an airbase with a smashed runway to say a nearby road where you could take on fuel and munitions. Or if there was a deck fouling on the big amphibious ships you might be able to set down on another small flight deck until it is clear and then reposition to the amphibious ship.

Really it is just kind of a bonus capability since the thing is designed to be a STOVL aircraft.

I will be more interested to see what the things MTOW with say a 700 foot roll turns out to be.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8771 times:

Good / bad news regarding costs:

http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=16035

First good news: F-35 aircraft program costs are dropping, primarily due to decreases in the prime contractor and subcontractor labor rates. Total aircraft program costs are now down by almost $5 billion dollars right now:

Quote:
F-35 Aircraft – Subprogram costs decreased -$4,942.4 million (-1.5 percent) from $331,855.2 million to $326,912.8 million, due primarily to decreases in the prime contractor and subcontractor labor rates (-$7,853.3 million) and revised airframe and subcontractor estimates that incorporate the latest actual costs from early Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) lots (-$1,121.3 million). There were additional decreases to correct cost allocations between the aircraft and engine subprograms that were established in the December 2011 SAR (-$981.0 million), lower estimates of required risk for initial spares (-$698.3 million), other support reductions due to maturation of the technical baseline and further definition of customer requirements and Service beddown plans (-$1,032.9 million). These decreases were partially offset by the application of revised escalation indices (+$7,016.4 million).

The bad news: engine program costs are up by almost half a billion dollars, due to revised escalation indices, and correction of cost allocations between the aircraft and engine subprograms:

Quote:
F-35 Engine – Subprogram costs increased $442.1 million (+0.7 percent) from $63,856.6 million to $64,298.7 million, due primarily to revised escalation indices (+$1,301.3 million), correction of cost allocations between the aircraft and engine subprograms (+$981.0 million), and a lower near-term ramp that extended completion from FY 2029 to FY 2032 (+$230.7 million). These increases were partially offset by revised estimates to incorporate the latest actual costs from early LRIP lots (-$848.8 million), outyear offsets of new escalation indices (-$865.2 million), and lower estimates of required risk for initial spares (-$362.9 million).


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8402 times:

IOC dates have been announced by the USAF, USMC, and USN:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...13/05/f-35-ioc-dates-revealed.html

Quote:
The Pentagon is revealing the initial operational capability (IOC) dates for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in a new report to the US Congress delivered on 31 May, as required by law.

The USAF's date is in 2016, with a squadron of 12-24 F-35A's with enough trained personnel for combat operations:

Quote:

The US Air Force, the largest US Department of Defense (DOD) customer for the tri-service jet, will declare its F-35A variant operational in 2016. "If the F-35 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Version 7 executes according to plan, Air Force F-35A IOC criteria could be met between August 2016 (Objective) and December 2016 (Threshold)," the report says.

The USMC's date is 2015, with a squadron of between 10 and 16 F-35B's with enough trained personnel for deployment with a Marine Air Ground Task Force:

Quote:

The Marines will declare IOC when the first squadron of between 10 and 16 aircraft is trained and ready "to conduct CAS, offensive and defensive counter air, air Interdiction, assault support escort, and armed reconnaissance in concert with Marine Air Ground Task Force resources and capabilities". The USMC also requires the jet's Autonomic Logistic Information System V2 software to declare IOC. Like the USAF, the Marines require Block 3F for their future needs, the report says.

The USN's date is between 2018 and 2019, with a squadron of 10 F-35C's:

Quote:

The US Navy however is holding firm on requiring the full Block 3F configuration for its F-35C IOC date. "If the F-35 IMS Version 7 executes according to plan, Navy F-35C IOC criteria could be met between August 2018 (Objective) and February 2019 (Threshold)," the report reads.

The report to Congress is below:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/144894824/F-35-IOC-Joint-Report-FINAL-1-pdf


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7857 times:

We have a live fire missile test!

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3716/8980388948_25c54f92a8_o.jpg

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35a-completes-first-in-flight-missile-launch


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7796 times:

Concurency costs have dropped by $500 million dollars according to the Pentagon:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...st-f-35s-drops-by-500-million.html

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/847...rop_In_F_35_Retrofits#.UbLrKpywU3A

Quote:
The estimate on upgrades for the first five contracts of 90 aircraft has dropped to about $1.2 billion from $1.7 billion, the U.S official said in a new report to Congress on “concurrency.” That’s the system under which the fighters are being built even as they’re still in development.
Quote:
The projected cost to retrofit the 32 aircraft in the fifth production contract -- the latest signed -- has dropped to $320 million from the $450 million the Pentagon estimated last year, in an example cited in the report.

The estimate is good news to Lockheed because the company must pay an increasing share of costs for upgrading planes beginning with the fifth contract.

The drop in concurrency costs follow a 1.1 percent decline reported last month that reduces the program’s total projected cost to $391.2 billion to develop and build 2,443 jets for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7513 times:

We have a F-35C used for the heavyweight tow tests:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_news_item.html?item_id=1073
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/news/2013_News_Web_F35C_13P00240_004_1269967624_1137.jpg

It's 4 2000lb GBU-31 JDAM's on the external pylons.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 7503 times:

Why they using external pylons? It pretty much negates the whole "stealth" selling point. What a bloated pig, USMC, USAF and other countries should just buy harriers.



They don't know what they are doing.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2314 posts, RR: 2
Reply 31, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 7483 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 30):
Why they using external pylons? It pretty much negates the whole "stealth" selling point. What a bloated pig, USMC, USAF and other countries should just buy harriers.

It's a "heavyweight ground tow test". The F-35 can certainly carry external ordnance (which obviously impacts stealth), and it can't carry 8000lbs internally. Presumably you still need to test that configuration, even if it isn’t stealthy. Besides, stealth is probably not that important during a tow.


User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7459 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 30):
Why they using external pylons? It pretty much negates the whole "stealth" selling point. What a bloated pig, USMC, USAF and other countries should just buy harriers.

well for one, because it is a test. For another, the F35 is designed to use external stores in a permissive environment to increase capacity. In a permissive environment the F35 can carry a significantly larger amount of ordinance by using external stores. Internal capacity is up to 2 1K bomb loads (including JSOW/JSOW-ER) plus AA missiles. By using external stores, the F35 can carry upwards of 12,000 pounds into battle. Designing a fighter plane that couldn't use external stores would be an actual issue.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7407 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 30):
Why they using external pylons? It pretty much negates the whole "stealth" selling point. What a bloated pig, USMC, USAF and other countries should just buy harriers.



They don't know what they are doing.


You know exactly why they are using pylons that negates stealth and your comment was just a troll effort.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7258 times:

Where is that facepalm smiley when you need it. All three of you apparently missed the sarcasm.

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 845 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7262 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 32):
Internal capacity is up to 2 1K bomb loads (including JSOW/JSOW-ER) plus AA missiles.

Just to be clear, internal load is 2 * 2K + 2 * AIM-120 for F-35A & C and 2 * 1K + 2 * AIM-120 for F-35B.

Quoting spink (Reply 32):
By using external stores, the F35 can carry upwards of 12,000 pounds into battle.

Combining external and internal it is closer to 18K. Pylons 3 & 9 are rated for 5K so could carry the GBU-28 if the integration work was done. I don't think a dual 2K JDAM rack exists for pylon 3 & 9 though so as you say in practise the jet is limited to 12K consisting of 6 * 2K JDAMS plus AAMs.


User currently onlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 695 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7133 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 34):
Where is that facepalm smiley when you need it. All three of you apparently missed the sarcasm.

I missed it, too. It could easily have been said in earnest by someone. Just because you and the 3 others think it's a self-evidently risible statement, doesn't make it clear you were being sarcastic.

Same goes for the Canada troll in the Great Lakes thread. People who later claim they were trying to be funny need to work on not coming across as sowing discord. All it takes is another few words, or yes, a smiley if you're lazy.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7114 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 35):
Combining external and internal it is closer to 18K. Pylons 3 & 9 are rated for 5K so could carry the GBU-28 if the integration work was done. I don't think a dual 2K JDAM rack exists for pylon 3 & 9 though so as you say in practise the jet is limited to 12K consisting of 6 * 2K JDAMS plus AAMs.

And even then, you still have 17k remaining in the MTOW for a F-35C for fuel. That's almost a full tank for a F-35. In other words, a heavily loaded F-35 maxed out on weapons will go very far on internal gas.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 38, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6912 times:

http://nation.time.com/2013/06/04/al...ther-pricing-dodges/#ixzz2VFqhiLWj

Time Magazine has done a lot of research. They explain it very well. Read yourselves;

The Pentagon, in an unusual move, broke the program into two pieces – airframe and engine – beginning in 2011. If you want a fighter with an engine, add $21.8 million for the base-year PAUC and $26.2 million for the then-year PAUC. That makes the actual Program Acquisition Unit Cost for each F-35 (with an engine) $130.0 million in obsolete 2012 dollars or $159.2 million in actual appropriations, past, present and future.

........................

To predict a labor market being $7.9 billion lower than that predicted just one year ago suggests that such estimates can be produced on demand by simply tweaking a computer model, rather than exercising caution in anticipating the ultimate cost of a program that has already proven extremely problematic and subject to more increases than decreases.

In addition to having this optimistic bias toward the future, the SAR also exercises a dubious view of the past. It assumes $1.1 billion in savings based on “revised airframe and subcontractor estimates that incorporate the latest actual costs from early Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) lots.” However, specific contract data and empirical annual cost data, which we’ll tackle later, show those LRIP lots have been increasing in cost, not decreasing. An article at defense-aerospace.com cogently explains some of these issues.

.............................

So there you have it: PAUCs based on unachievable production numbers, APUCs derived from learning curves that never happen, URFs that assume that purchasers want to buy airplanes they cannot operate, prices translated into obsolete dollars, convenient declarations of savings to be realized 25 years from now, predictions proclaimed to be as reliable as a coin flip.

These and other dodges add up to a snake pit of misinformation about what an F-35 costs—past, present and future.


Read more: http://nation.time.com/2013/06/04/al...ther-pricing-dodges/#ixzz2W9lkrOtk


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 6880 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
Time Magazine has done a lot of research. They explain it very well. Read yourselves;

Read who wrote the article. It's Winslow Wheeler. Not the most objective person to write the article. Wheeler has been the lead bagman for the anti-defense crowd since before he lost his cushy Congressional staff gig. His argumentation and tactics are well known...and very predictable.

He's pretty much anti-defence spending. And his articles reflect that, not only here, but through his other articles at POGO. His articles target pretty much EVERY single defence procurement project, calling each system a waste, be it F-22, whatever.

[Edited 2013-06-13 22:32:49]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 40, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6844 times:

PB, why do you make stuff up here on A.net?

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 41, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6840 times:

http://digital.vpr.net/post/f-16-architect-calls-f-35-combat-turkey

Another interesting take. I suggest listening to the audio


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 845 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6836 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 40):
PB, why do you make stuff up here on A.net?

Wheeler is an outspoken critic of not only the F-35 but a lot of new development systems Tommy, no two ways about it.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 41):
http://digital.vpr.net/post/f-16-architect-calls-f-35-combat-turkey

Another interesting take. I suggest listening to the audio

Sprey's views on the F-35 are well known. Sprey is part of the fighter mafia who are known for the following,

In retrospect, the group's greatest contribution was the promotion of E-M as a basis for evaluating and designing aircraft for air combat maneuvering.[1] At a time when the US military was seemingly obsessed with technological solutions, the Fighter Mafia acted as the opposite extreme from which a more balanced approach to fighter design would emerge. However, this can be seen as ultimately a defeat of the Fighter Mafia and its ideals. While this balanced approach would result in the highly successful F-15, F-15E, F-16, F/A-18 and F/A-18E/F, it did so at the betrayal of the Fighter Mafia's campaign for the US military to adopt a single-role, low-tech fighter in large numbers.

The group's uncompromising disdain of and campaign against advanced weapons, radars, ECM, and multi-role designs, what they characterized as "gold-plating", would prove erroneous. For example, the Fighter Mafia argued that the ground attack mission should be handled by more appropriate, dedicated aircraft such as the A-10, which has had an outstanding record in that area[1] and that the addition of more electronics to F-16 caused its weight to rise to the point where it lost its edge in dogfighting, the mission for which it had been designed.[6] The vision of the group would have seen the US build thousands of dedicated short-ranged, low-tech, fighter-only aircraft to counter Soviet air power on a numerical superiority basis, a plan that was never endorsed by the USAF or the USN.[4] Instead, the success of US military aircraft has shown that the same technology would protect aircraft from missiles in an increasingly sensor-saturated battlefield, and would enable the multi-mission capabilities of modern aircraft. And while the US aircraft has engaged in few air-to-air encounters since Vietnam, the trend continues to show that missiles and in particular increasingly mature long-range missiles are the primary weapon on choice in modern combat, a trend that started as far back as the Vietnam War but continues to be downplayed by the Fighter Mafia.[4][7][8]

Although Sprey often portrays himself as a "principle designer" of the F-16, the actual plane that entered service included the long-range missiles, sensors and multi-role capability that he continues to criticize today.[4] Interestingly, the Fighter Mafia can be considered presently active, as Sprey has become an often-cited critic of the F-35, including using comparisons of the accident rates of the early F-16 design that most strongly felt his design influence to argue that the F-35 ought to be equally unsafe.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia

So would you trade in the F-15, F-16 and F-18 in all their variants because Sprey thinks they're "gold plated"......


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 43, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6738 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 42):
So would you trade in the F-15, F-16 and F-18 in all their variants because Sprey thinks they're "gold plated"......

Read or listen to what he says about the F-16 today and the follow up designs to the F-16. Besides, the Soviet Union is long gone and was a different point in history than today.

Why don't you and PB actually address the issues mentioned regarding the F-35 in the two articles I linked, rather than personally attacking those who bring those issues up? Address the issues, otherwise you have nothing to say about the F-35. Personal attacks are useless, especially by the F-35 mafia here.

[Edited 2013-06-14 10:59:41]

User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 876 posts, RR: 11
Reply 44, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6722 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 43):
Why don't you and PB actually address the issues mentioned by the two articles I linked, rather than personally attacking those who criticize the F-35 and trying to discredit them? Address the issues, otherwise you have nothing to say about the F-35.

Setting aside the issue of the man for a bit I think the article you linked to is not really telling anyone much. Those different cost factors are present for all major military programs. The "Alphabet Soup" he is critical of are really just different price numbers designed to assist with different types of decisions. He takes the view that it is deceptive but that is far from the truth.

All of the different cost factors are important depending on what you are trying to decide to do and they are not unique to the F-35 at all. They are also not easy to find on a lot of other programs as they are hidden for commercial reasons in process not as subject to examination as the F-35 has been.

The complaining about accounting terms is just kind of silly on his part.

To a degree once R&D is finished the PUAC is somewhat irrelevant in the decision on how many to buy. If you presume that you are going to buy and need X number of fighters the relevant comparison cost is either URF or APUC. For the United States, once the F-35 is in operation, the comparison is basically this.

F-35 URF/APUC vs Alternative URF/APUC (or if you want something new then you would compare it to the PUAC for a prospective new fighter).

So if the URF for the F-35 is really what Wheeler says it is then (using F-35 vs F-18E) we are looking at this in 2012 dollars (which is the way to look at it because inflation will impact the F-35 and other US built aircraft equally).

F-35A ($76.8 million URF/$104.8 million APUC) vs F-18E ($80.4 million APUC)

See below for the F-18 APUC number I am using but it is important to note that the F-18E cost includes no military construction of any kind because the USN is ordering them and has already built the bases for its existing F-18's and F-18E's is already had prior to that buy so it would be higher for the USAF.

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistic...0-%20SAR%20-%2031%20DEC%202011.pdf

If you are the USAF looking at the comparative cost of the two aircraft the URF is an appropriate metric to use. At this point in the decision cycle using the PAUC is not really appropriate. You could make an accounting argument for including the basing modifications necessary for the F-35 (though the F-18E would also have its own demands for the USAF since they don't operate the type) and any difference in the cost of spares and the like. But these are going to be marginal differences really.

What will distort the PAUC is the R&D cost. And yes, this is an important metric for the overall cost effectiveness of the program. But, and I can't stress this enough, the R&D money in sunk cost. It is gone. And it is not coming back. You don't and should not make purchase decisions on that. If the government wants to start an inquiry and start stringing people up from street lights for the R&D cost of the thing then more power to them. But it has almost no relevance to making a purchase decision in 2012, let alone in 2015-2025.

The relevant decision for the USAF going forward is the marginal cost of adding F-35's to its fleet vs adding something else. For that a cost somewhere between URF (which is a then year look at cost effectiveness really) and APUC (which is a whole program look at it) are the relevant metrics. And there the F-35 honestly does not do poorly at all and the numbers are right there in Wheelers story to show it.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6728 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 43):
Read or listen to what he says about the F-16 today and the follow up designs to the F-16. Besides, the Soviet Union is long gone and was a different point in history than today.

Actually, Sprey was not the designer of the F-16. According to Jacob Neufeld, who interviewed Sprey in 1971, Pierre Sprey was a weapons system analyst on the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense staff. By Sprey's own account, Sprey was a self-proclaimed expert with an engineering degree but no military experience. After graduation from Yale, Sprey became a research analyst at the Grumman Aircraft Corporation for space and commercial transportation projects. He came to OSD/SA in 1966, where he declared himself an expert on military fighter aircraft, despite his lack of experience. Sprey admitted being a gadfly, a nuisance, and an automatic opponent of any program he was not a part of. At most, Sprey participated in the development of the initial REQUIREMENTS.

BTW: This is called a “fallacious appeal to authority”, a logical fallacy. The only way any arguements from both Sprey and Wheeler can be taken as the truth is if the following happens:

X holds that A is true.
X is a legitimate expert on the subject matter.
The consensus of subject-matter experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there exists a presumption that A is true.

As both Sprey and Wheeler are not legitimate experts, nor does the consensus of subject-matter experts agree with Sprey and Wheeler, any quote or argument from them are fallacious arguments.

FYI: Do you know who was the list of sponsors for Sprey's talk in Burlington, Vermont that was mentioned in the article you listed to? This is the list below:
http://www.vtiso.blogspot.ca/2013/05...bomber-in-burlington-citizens.html

Quote:
*Sponsors*: Ben Cohen (of Ben and Jerry), Peace and Justice Center, USAction, Vermont Workers Center, Save Our Skies, Stop the F-35 Coalition, Veterans for Peace, Burlington Quakers, CPOC, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, PAX Christi, Vermont Progressive Party, International Socialist Organization, 350.org

I'm not going to say in a nutshell who these people are, but draw your own conclusions.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 43):

Why don't you and PB actually address the issues mentioned regarding the F-35 in the two articles I linked, rather than personally attacking those who bring those issues up? Address the issues, otherwise you have nothing to say about the F-35. Personal attacks are useless, especially by the F-35 mafia here.

Because Wheeler and Sprey both have agendas, which is revealed upon closer examination. It is important to realise this when someone comes out and is billed as being an expert on a subject.

Both Wheeler and Sprey (as members of POGO) know how to play the media; they will make some sort of sound bite, which would be dropped fairly quickly and something else concerning whatever project is in their sights will be targeted as a ‘failure’, ‘mistake’ or ‘criminally negligent’ decision/design feature/performance characteristic, perhaps from the same report, or from one to come later. This is because POGO et al are acutely aware that an extended exchange or dialog with anyone who disagrees with them will expose the misdirection they (POGO et al) endeavor to sustain. POGO and Wheeler go for the sound bite to plant negativity into the public’s consciousness knowing that the general public’s attention span is short.

By the time anyone dives deep into a POGO/Wheeler claim and does any in-depth analysis into their claims and realises that their claims are totally out of left field, the public has moved on to other circuses. Such ‘Hit and Run’ tactics, along with their careful cultivation of media enablers, allow POGO/Wheeler relief from ever having their methods, biases and motives undergo serious public scrutiny. This is classic guerrilla warfare of the information domain.

Also, FYI, both Sprey and Wheeler did a hachet job on the F-22 a few years back. This is the article:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/07/13/stop-the-f-22-now/

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 44):
All of the different cost factors are important depending on what you are trying to decide to do and they are not unique to the F-35 at all. They are also not easy to find on a lot of other programs as they are hidden for commercial reasons in process not as subject to examination as the F-35 has been.

In a simple graphic from someone else, this is what each cost factors represents:
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/9260f8a5.jpg

[Edited 2013-06-14 12:19:30]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 46, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6709 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 44):
The "Alphabet Soup" he is critical of are really just different price numbers designed to assist with different types of decisions. He takes the view that it is deceptive but that is far from the truth.

He explains the soup. He is not critical of the soup itself. What he is critical of, is how the numbers, in the case of the F-35, are jigged so the soup numbers appear better. That's fraud IMHO. And I can offer another example he hasn't.

The difference in operating cost between the F-16 and F-35 has shrunk in the latest SAR? WHY? Not due to the F-35 operating costs, no. But because the F-16 costs have been inflated beyond the real world numbers. They know what the numbers are very very well, but have inflated them.

Supposedly to include costs of some things the F-16 does not have and that the F-35 does. So they pretend the F-16 has self diagnostics a la F-35 for instance and pretend these are F-16 costs. However, the F-156 costs are what they are, period. You can't do a "if the F-16 had this, it would cost more to operate..." Anyway, this is actually funny to me, because such diagnostic features are supposed to reduce operating costs, not increase them. There is so much twisted effort in the F-35 program by so many involved, that it's fraudulent. Some people should start being prosecuted and go to jail, IMHO.

Maybe we should do the reverse too and say if the F-35 could pull 9 sustained Gs like the F-16 can, or could accelerate like the F-16 - that would cost additional for the F-35. But these are all accounting gimmicks, in an attempt to make the F-35 look better from all angles. But it is fraud. The F-16 and the F-35 are different planes and the cost a certain amount to operate. Inflating one to make the other look better is fraud.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 44):
The complaining about accounting terms is just kind of silly on his part.

How much this will actually cost is meaningless and silly? Not to me.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 45):
Also, FYI, both Sprey and Wheeler did a hachet job on the F-22 a few years back
PB, please stop the personal attacks on anyone who criticizes your pet plane and address the issues raised. You yourself have been caught making stuff up here, so best you re-establish your credibility by addressing the issues with verifiable and credible sources. Thank you.

[Edited 2013-06-14 12:49:54]

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3398 posts, RR: 26
Reply 47, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6683 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 45):
As both Sprey and Wheeler are not legitimate experts, nor does the consensus of subject-matter experts agree with Sprey and Wheeler, any quote or argument from them are fallacious arguments.

Many people have opinions, the ones we agree with that have some background we call experts, those we disagree with regardless of background we question their legitimacy, bias, purpose, manhood, what ever..

Rather than denigrate people and their opinions, just say you disagree with their opinions, otherwise it looks like you protest too much. One thing I've learned is the louder one rants and negates the other person's opinions, the less secure he is in the his own position.

It's funny how two of you can not put down the battle...

there are only a couple things here
A) the program is expensive
B) some of the attributes have not been realized
C) no planes have crashed
D) any deployment in fighting configuration is years away
E) it will probably be superseded with a new design within 10-15 years (although that design's production will be 20 years out).


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 48, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6670 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 47):

It's funny how two of you can not put down the battle...

The waste and corruption and selfish self serving going on within this program, at the expense of other needy government expenditures, is not funny to me. This is not a battle for me against other A.netters. There is nothing to discuss with people who make stuff up. I just ask they stop making stuff up and stop making personal attacks and just stick to the F-35 issues if they want to discuss the F-35. Is that too much to ask?

I think the saying is true: "If the good people do nothing, bad things will happen."

In this vein, if we don't stop the military contractors from totally infesting our government, we will look more like a Banana Republic than a 1st world country. I love Bananas though.

The F-35 program and the many top people who run it, are the poster child of this endemic issue. The scope of wrong information said even under oath over such a long period in the F-35 program, is breathtaking to me. And the more they push the envelope of misrepresentations without consequences, the more they will push the envelope, etc...When will these people be stopped and held accountable for all the wrong stuff they've said under oath over the years?

The cover up job is almost worse than the problem itself. That is the confirmation of malfeasance.

This is not funny stuff, it's scary stuff and a sad state of affairs.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6670 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
He explains the soup. He is not critical of the soup itself.

Actually, he is. From your article from Time:

Quote:
PAUCs based on unachievable production numbers, APUCs derived from learning curves that never happen, URFs that assume that purchasers want to buy airplanes they cannot operate, prices translated into obsolete dollars, convenient declarations of savings to be realized 25 years from now, predictions proclaimed to be as reliable as a coin flip.

If the most authoritative document on F-35 unit costs has serious flaws, what data can objective observers rely on? Fortunately, the Pentagon comptroller%u2019s shop publishes a more reliable annual series of reports that provides more accurate insight on what an F-35 actually costs.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
The difference in operating cost between the F-16 and F-35 has shrunk in the latest SAR? WHY? Not due to the F-35 operating costs, no. But because the F-16 costs have been inflated beyond the real world numbers. They know what the numbers are very very well, but have inflated them.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
Maybe we should do the reverse too and say if the F-35 could pull 9 sustained Gs like the F-16 can, or could accelerate like the F-16 - that would cost additional for the F-35. But these are all accounting gimmicks, in an attempt to make the F-35 look better from all angles. But it is fraud. The F-16 and the F-35 are different planes and the cost a certain amount to operate. Inflating one to make the other look better is fraud.

The issue is that there are multiple ways to calculate CPFH because there are multiple cost elements that may be included or excluded in the aggregation. Therefore, one CPFH cannot be directly compared to another unless you are aware of how one did the calculation, or both costs were done using the same methodology. Some of the clues about what is and is not included can determined by cross checking the figures.

CPFH cost estimates are not unlike the calculations of "unit costs." Depending on whether we're using a URF, an APUC or a PAUC, one can quote exceptionally different numbers for 'unit cost' that are greatly different, but all are technically correct. Each 'cost' is valid for a certain comparison at a certain time and should not be used out of context or without understanding of the calculations involved. Each cost means something to the person who developed the costing methodology as it is used for their comparison purposes.

In short, CPFH should be taken with a grain of salt (a rather large one at that) because the numbers can be made to look anyway you want. Even ignoring we're talking past and future costs in different times (while you can normalize Year$, you can't truly estimate the effect of upgrades needed to meet emerging mission requirements, vanishing vendors or just part obsolescence) ,there's still the fact that unless the two systems are going to be operated in exactly the same way ALL comparisons are irrelevant. I can for example, fly less hours to meet mission requirements but I still have to do all the maintenance I need to do, Result: my $/FH goes up, but my O&S costs goes down because I'm using less fuel.

Quoting kanban (Reply 47):

Many people have opinions, the ones we agree with that have some background we call experts, those we disagree with regardless of background we question their legitimacy, bias, purpose, manhood, what ever..

However, I will note that Sprey has been wrong (severely wrong) since March 1991 (and even then, before that). Sprey and POGO been flat out wrong on F-15, the M1 Abrams tank, AGM-65, E-3, cruise missiles, Next Generation Bomber, A-10, B-1 and B-2 Bombers, Ballistic Missile Defense, Black Hawk Helicopter, C-130J, MRAP's, Patriot missile, Predator UAV, Stryker IFV, the list goes on.

When an expert is repeatedly wrong in his field of expertise he is no longer a credible expert.

You need to understand that POGO in particular (of which Wheeler and Sprey are associated with) are funded by progressive-liberal groups and individuals, and POGO in particular has for over 30 years, has fought against crucial weapon programs (such as the ones listed above) and for deep, draconian, crippling defense cuts. In fact, the founder of POGO, Dina Rasor, is an overt pacifist who said publicly "I find weapons repulsive" back in 1981:
http://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0114/011458.html

I will furthermore note that POGO was originally founded to oppose the M1 Abrams tank, which it deemed "wasteful" and "unneeded", even though it was absolutely needed and has, since its introduction, proven itself superbly in conventional and irregular conflicts alike.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 845 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6650 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 47):
Many people have opinions,

Sure, and they are entitled to them. But when those opinions are used to justify a statement or are assumed to be fact they are open to examination.

Quoting kanban (Reply 47):
the ones we agree with that have some background we call experts, those we disagree with regardless of background we question their legitimacy, bias, purpose, manhood, what ever..

I read the good and the bad. The difference is one is typically based on facts and the other is based on assumptions. For instance, Sprey has no access to the program but continues to make statements that he cannot support with evidence. He also makes statements that are clearly false, such as Sprey says the airplane has poor range http://digital.vpr.net/post/f-16-architect-calls-f-35-combat-turkey when facts show the F-35 has a greater range than the F-16 and F-18 it will be replacing. So has he simply ignored basic facts about the airplane available online or does he attempt to deceive a naive audience?

Quoting kanban (Reply 47):
there are only a couple things here

So let us look at each of them

Quoting kanban (Reply 47):
A) the program is expensive

Sure, but is it more expensive than three programs to provide the required aircraft for each of the services? The aircraft would require three different development programs, three different production lines and probably two to three different engine development programs.

Quoting kanban (Reply 47):
B) some of the attributes have not been realized

Not sure how you can say this when the aircraft is still in development. It still has over four years of testing and evaluation. Can you name what attributes the aircraft has not met?

Quoting kanban (Reply 47):
C) no planes have crashed

Correct. This is probably attributable to two things. First, the use of modern development systems and tools which provide greater fidelity. Second, an incredibly risk averse development program required by the US government.

Quoting kanban (Reply 47):
D) any deployment in fighting configuration is years away

What is fighting configuration? The development program has already fired an AIM-120, are probably very close to dropping A2G ordinance and the USMC will IOC a jet that will have the above capabilities by the end of 2015.

Quoting kanban (Reply 47):
E) it will probably be superseded with a new design within 10-15 years (although that design's production will be 20 years out).

New designs will come after the F-35, of that there is no doubt. Has anyone on here every said the F-35 will be the pinnacle of combat aircraft and will never be replaced? I would put any new design at 20-25 years from production, especially given the F-22 and F-35 have proven how long development takes for 5th and potentially 6th generation aircraft.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6646 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 50):

What is fighting configuration? The development program has already fired an AIM-120, are probably very close to dropping A2G ordinance and the USMC will IOC a jet that will have the above capabilities by the end of 2015.

Correction: We've already dropped JDAM's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YaJeA8P67cY

So we have demonstrated basic weapons release of a air to air weapon, and a bomb.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3398 posts, RR: 26
Reply 52, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6654 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

OK guys.. they've done some test range drops in a highly controlled environment... . however isn't software still 2 years or more away.. aren't there still helmet issues... They haven't begun testing the new hook ... there is a difference between test program missions and real ones... B) and D) are still out there in the future.. I'm not saying they won't be achieved, Just don't mix test planes and test exercises with sending them into an actual combat mission.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 50):
It still has over four years of testing and evaluation.

That's my point... if you have over 4 years or testing to go, it's not an offensive or defensive weapons system yet.

My points were things that we could agree on... however I not a certain defensiveness in even the basics.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 53, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6640 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 49):
The issue is that there are multiple ways to calculate

Exactly. The TIME author was not complaining about the use and need for these accounting values. He was complaining about the assumptions that were used to calculate them for the F-35. These are 2 separate things.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 49):
You need to understand that POGO in particular (of which Wheeler and Sprey are associated with) are funded by

Trying to discredit the poeple again? What does that have to do with the issues raised regarding the F-35? Do the issues suddenly become any less true? Why don't you stick to the facts regarding the F-35. You yourself make up stories, so you are hardly in a position to criticize others.



Quoting Ozair (Reply 50):
when facts show the F-35 has a greater range than the F-16 and F-18 it will be replacing.

He never said the range was less than any other plane. However, hang stuff off the wings of the F-35 and the range plummets quickly from what I've read. It becomes a gas guzzler. The range even clean has been reduced, along with many other metrics.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 845 posts, RR: 1
Reply 54, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6622 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 52):
OK guys.. they've done some test range drops in a highly controlled environment... . however isn't software still 2 years or more away.. aren't there still helmet issues... They haven't begun testing the new hook ... there is a difference between test program missions and real ones...

Agree on all of those but there are fixes in place that will be tested in the next two years to remedy the current known issues. Isn't that what a development program is for?

For anyone who still have their head in the sand, time to wake up. This is the new normal in both the military and commercial aviation world. There are no more easy wins, what is getting developed now is done so at huge expense and with schedule delays because that extra 10-20% of performance is what is sought. If we are happy to accept the fuel burn of a 727 or the performance of an F-4 then the development, testing and schedule would be a lot easier, cheaper and quicker.

Quoting kanban (Reply 52):
I'm not saying they won't be achieved, Just don't mix test planes and test exercises with sending them into an actual combat mission.

Agree, but the USMC are the ones that have to accept that risk. Right now it appears they are willing to.

Quoting kanban (Reply 52):

My points were things that we could agree on... however I not a certain defensiveness in even the basics.

If asking you questions about statements you have made, which were rather vague in nature, is considered defensiveness then I guess I am guilty. Saying that, I asked you those questions for a reason....I am genuinely interested in your answers given your aviation background.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 53):
He never said the range was less than any other plane.

So he calls the range of the aircraft short without providing a context for the statement, does that make his statement more credible or less?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 53):
However, hang stuff off the wings of the F-35 and the range plummets quickly from what I've read

Okay, what about it you hang fuel off the wings, does the range plummet? The drag associated with external stores on an F-35 would be very similar to what every other fighter aircraft has. The only difference is the F-35 as the ability to carry internal weapons so it does not need the external stores.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 53):
The range even clean has been reduced, along with many other metrics.

Would you name the many other metrics? The range was reduced for one variant and by 5nm, or less than 1%. http://www.airforcetimes.com/article...defends-reduced-F-35-combat-radius

More than likely the range will be increased again before testing is complete. The reduction was made early on to allow the aircraft to pass an early milestone/audit point in the testing phase.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 55, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6499 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 48):
The waste and corruption and selfish self serving going on within this program, at the expense of other needy government expenditures, is not funny to me.

So what are you doing to stop this besides whine on internet forums? Nothing, like most of internet complainers who think they know better than government officials. Your distaste for the F-35 is pretty pathetic and quoting hack-job journalists like Sprey and Wheeler makes you look desperate. No one cares what they have to say as their usefulness on the topic has long since disappeared.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3398 posts, RR: 26
Reply 56, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6494 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ozair (Reply 54):
I am genuinely interested in your answers given your aviation background.

I mainly look at the manufacturing process.. and while it appears LM have adopted some improved flow processes, however I can't help wondering if building in a single moving line (12 line positions only) running at 51 feet in an 18 to 20 hour work day isn't a little fast and two lines would have been more realistic. The plan is for 240 or so planes per year using a single line ... worker fatigue may become a QA factor. I did not see any andon lights used for controlling flow, so stopping the line appears to be a problem... actually at each move rate increase, starting and stopping the line will be a coordination nightmare.

The sub assembly process still looks like business as usual and high manpower. There are allusions to robotics, however released pictures don't show any detail.

Of concern, with years of testing ahead and normal configuration improvements is how changes are incorporated. I recognize military plane changes are almost completely controlled by block changes, where as commercial is a continuous process incorporated when the parts and tools are ready. However the military process seems to increase the numbers requiring post manufacture rework.. and cost. This also is one concern with so many a/c being produced for test and training.. either they need to be remanufactured at some point to be useable or at least updated to current to serve as trainers.

AS far as program costs, granted each new program is expensive, and in this one I see more waste in the incompleteness before mass production and the costs associated with rework and upgrade (the bread and butter of a/c manufacturers). I also feel we have adopted an insensitivity to high costs under the assumption that they should be high if the technology is good. It's a pervasive mindset. The other expensive mindset is allowing incompletely engineered products into mass production before the bugs are identified. Several of the early design problems appear to be basic engineering modeling oversights.. that's never good.

So I am more a critic of the process than the intended role of the aircraft.. that's something for others to bash heads on.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 57, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6490 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 54):
that extra 10-20% of performance is what is sought.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 54):
the performance of an F-4

All designers try to obtain the maximum potential possible from their designs. The F-35s can't turn any better than F-4s by the way. Funny you bring the F-4 up when making this point.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 54):
The drag associated with external stores on an F-35 would be very similar to what every other fighter aircraft has. The only difference is the F-35 as the ability to carry internal weapons so it does not need the external stores.

I have read credible opinions, as this can't yet be verified, that the range plummets far more on the F-35 than F-16/18 when you hang stuff. Possibility due to the very small wing area and short span which produce a higher induced drag right out of the box, which only worsens beyond the other two planes' induced drag figures as you increase load. It's not a linear thing. The cruise AoA will also shift, etc...But we'll see in a few years.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 54):
More than likely the range will be increased again before testing is complete.

Why do you think that? It was determined in fact that the range was less than calculated and unless there is a technical change, the range won't magically improve either.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 55):
Your distaste for the F-35 is pretty pathetic and quoting hack-job journalists like Sprey and Wheeler makes you look desperate. No one cares what they have to say as their usefulness on the topic has long since disappeared.

Feel better now?


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3398 posts, RR: 26
Reply 58, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6483 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 55):
No one cares what they have to say as their usefulness on the topic has long since disappeared.

While you may discredit them, consider they do represent a divergent opinion which if not understood (different from discarded) can not only contain some truths, but can come back to bite.

Denial as has been shown in this and other related threads smacks of immaturity.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 59, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6447 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 54):
Would you name the many other metrics?

Shortfall metrics:
Sustained Gs
Acceleration
Range
Take off distance
Weight
Unable to catch a wire
Program time and cost slippage that is hard to accept

These metric shortfalls have been declared oked by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, by lowering the Key Performance Parameters from those previously set. Except the wire metric. I am sure they'll insist on that capability, but who knows? Nothing would surprise me on this program. If the Key Performance Parameters keep moving to accommodate any missed metrics, the F-35 will always be ok per the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.

However, foreign buyers are not bound by this nonsense. They see the costs and capabilities clearly. I predict foreign sales will be 30% or less of what is expected now. Time will tell. So far there have been very few actual firm orders from foreign buyers.

And now that Rohani has been elected in an unpredicted landslide election victor as Iran's new president, shows Iran is clearly moderating.

Talk like the one bellow is taking place in almost every country pegged as a potential foreign customer:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/int...F-35_combat_jets.html?cid=35999786



[Edited 2013-06-15 14:25:30]

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 845 posts, RR: 1
Reply 60, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6433 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 56):
and while it appears LM have adopted some improved flow processes, however I can't help wondering if building in a single moving line (12 line positions only) running at 51 feet in an 18 to 20 hour work day isn't a little fast and two lines would have been more realistic.

I don't have a lot of experience in that area so interesting to hear what you're saying.

Quoting kanban (Reply 56):
The plan is for 240 or so planes per year using a single line ... worker fatigue may become a QA factor. I did not see any andon lights used for controlling flow, so stopping the line appears to be a problem... actually at each move rate increase, starting and stopping the line will be a coordination nightmare.

While 240 a year is very high, GD managed it with the F-16 from one line, and all while new block versions were released so the figure is not unobtainable. http://www.f-16.net/fleet-reports_article18.html

Quoting kanban (Reply 56):
I recognize military plane changes are almost completely controlled by block changes, where as commercial is a continuous process incorporated when the parts and tools are ready. However the military process seems to increase the numbers requiring post manufacture rework.. and cost.

I prefer the military process. From a systems engineering perspective it makes far more sense for fleet base-lining, can be planned better and when rework occurs it happens at preplanned intervals. The disadvantages of mixed fleets are worse when you have to undertake military operations compared to simply commercial.

Quoting kanban (Reply 56):
This also is one concern with so many a/c being produced for test and training.. either they need to be remanufactured at some point to be useable or at least updated to current to serve as trainers.

Again this is just a fact for military procurement. The opposite view is that the equipment is often used for longer by the original acquirer so they gain better value for money.

Quoting kanban (Reply 56):
the bread and butter of a/c manufacturers

The US government is a good example of moving away from this linkage. Once the aircraft is purchased it will be repaired, re-worked or upgraded by the lowest bidder. This may usually be the original manufacturer given their knowledge base but it introduces competitiveness into the process.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 57):

All designers try to obtain the maximum potential possible from their designs.

And the 80% solution is easy to obtain, its the extra 20% that often requires cost or schedule slip and usually the time or cost required to get to 80% in the first place.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 57):
The F-35s can't turn any better than F-4s by the way. Funny you bring the F-4 up when making this point.

We have already discussed at length the misunderstandings that you and others have had regarding F-35 turning rates. If you really want to learn about the differences, there are a number of good books you can read. The following blog also makes some excellent conclusions, with clearly stated assumptions, about a number of different aircraft from facts available. http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 57):
I have read credible opinions, as this can't yet be verified, that the range plummets far more on the F-35 than F-16/18 when you hang stuff.

The changes won't be anywhere near as extreme as you are suggesting. Again the point is rather moot given neither the F-16 or F-18 can complete any of their missions without external stores and even maxed out with external fuel neither aircraft comes within reach of an F-35 on internal only. Would you link the credible opinions so we can all read and evaluate them?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 57):
Why do you think that?

Based on engine tweaks already identified by PW and some minor airframe changes that are likely to occur.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 57):
It was determined in fact that the range was less than calculated

Again, for one of the three variants and by less than 1%. I have no doubt that, if desired, the program can recover a 1% range reduction.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6284 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 56):

I mainly look at the manufacturing process.. and while it appears LM have adopted some improved flow processes, however I can't help wondering if building in a single moving line (12 line positions only) running at 51 feet in an 18 to 20 hour work day isn't a little fast and two lines would have been more realistic. The plan is for 240 or so planes per year using a single line ... worker fatigue may become a QA factor. I did not see any andon lights used for controlling flow, so stopping the line appears to be a problem... actually at each move rate increase, starting and stopping the line will be a coordination nightmare.

The sub assembly process still looks like business as usual and high manpower. There are allusions to robotics, however released pictures don't show any detail.

There also a number of local assembly facilities for certain regions. These facilities, known as Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO), also add to the F-35's production numbers. These faculties are also major overhaul and maintenance centers for regional users.

Italy: I believe Alenia Aeronautica is the partner for Italian and Dutch F-35's, and will be the major overhaul and maintenance facility for F-35's in Europe.

Turkey: They will also have a FACO for Turkish F-35's.

Japan: Japan will also have a FACO for Japanese F-35's will also be the overhaul and maintenance center for USN and USMC F-35's stationed in Japan.

South Korea: I expect South Korea will also get a FACO for South Korean F-35's (if they buy, decision is this month)

The assembly hall in Fort Worth, TX is a mile long for the F-35; it's a big facility. There is extensive use of lasers and automatic joining and alignment equipment at the facility which cuts down on production time. Lockheed Martin has a video describing the facility:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df_MHNkAVrw

There is also a time-lapse video of the center wing assembly area as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2pJlZajYG8

My understanding is that Lockheed Martin is doing very well with managing the assembly process, as they have significantly cut back on the amount of rework necessary during production. The major sources of delay is not from LM; it's from the engine makers; Rolls Royce for example were on average 160 days late on the lift fan for the F-35B according to a recent report, and Pratt also had issues meeting delivery dates in 2012.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 60):

Again, for one of the three variants and by less than 1%. I have no doubt that, if desired, the program can recover a 1% range reduction.

Per the latest SAR; the combat radius estimates are as follows:
F-35A: 603nm (threshold is 590nm, objective is 690nm)
F-35B: 455nm (threshold is 450nm, objective is 550nm)
F-35C: 610nm (threshold is 600nm, objective is 7300nm)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/144280342/...JSF-2012-SAR-May-2013-20130524-pdf
It appears that they have recovered the range reduction, as the initial estimates was 584nm for the F-35A.


User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 62, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6287 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 57):
All designers try to obtain the maximum potential possible from their designs. The F-35s can't turn any better than F-4s by the way. Funny you bring the F-4 up when making this point.

Can we please drop this false trope? The performance of the F35 given the metrics of the test parameters performs much better than any other comparable plane with the same fuel, range, and weapons payload.

The problem is that the test parameters actually are unfairly negative to both the F22 and the F35 because they both have significantly increased internal fuel capacity compared to most other fighter aircraft. The F35 carries internally roughly the same amount of fuel as an F16 with full drop tanks. But the test parameters are set at a set % of internal fuel capacity. This means that the F35 (and likewise the F22) are carrying significantly more payload weight than comparable aircraft in this metric. That significantly increased payload weight has a significant effect on the sustained G performance.

Likewise as the F16 has gained weight and capabilities over its lifetime, its sustained G performance has deteriorated.

The dynamic maneuverability of the F35 is as good as anything the US is currently flying outside of the F22.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You've fallen for the later.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3398 posts, RR: 26
Reply 63, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6230 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 61):
The assembly hall in Fort Worth,

Thanks for the videos.. they help explain a lot.. yes there are more robotics than I had seen in earlier reports. The moving line however isn't moving.. it's a move and stop, move and stop.. (some might call it a surge line) so no mechanic are running alongside trying to perform work.. that's good.

without a real time walk through it's hard to tell just how effective the multi station wing /center section assembly is.. as well as component delivery to installation point.. granted I'm cautious when looking at prepared presentations, the actual workings may or may not be different.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 60):
I prefer the military process.

(block pointing)
Having watched the above videos, it is easy to see why block point changes are preferred here..1) the entire line is too compact to allow upgrades on any single element without affecting the through put. Block pointing basically allows the entire system to stop and be updated (assuming new components are available). 2) I don't know where the engineers are physically located relative to fabrication, installation and test of their systems/components, however with block pointing there is little need for them to be onsite after the 3rd or 4th post block point a/c passes successfully.

Again, these are not criticisms but observations.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 60):
The US government is a good example of moving away from this linkage. Once the aircraft is purchased it will be repaired, re-worked or upgraded by the lowest bidder. This may usually be the original manufacturer given their knowledge base but it introduces competitiveness into the process.

I think for the near future I'll have to disagree, but only as far as I haven't seen consistent supporting data.. I understand it's the goal, however I believe LM still has to bring the low rate production a/c up to final production standards as part of their existing contract.. Now once the final production product is produced meeting all the contract criteria, then the plan you mentioned would take place. However recall how Lockheed fought Boeing winning a C-130 upgrade and resisted providing engineering data?.. If Boeing St. Louis won a F-35 mode or repair contract, we'd see the same fireworks.

I think the only place where there have not been issues were where there would be no technology leakage to a competitor.


User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2730 posts, RR: 2
Reply 64, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6209 times:

Caught an F-35B doing some testing at Fort Worth NAS yesterday.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fonKdoj9pcs


View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 65, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6096 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 62):
The dynamic maneuverability of the F35 is as good as anything the US is currently flying outside of the F22.

We will just have to agree to disagree. Even empty, the F-35 can not achieve a sustained turn anywhere near that of an F-16, nor better acceleration. You simply can not have better kinematic performance when the F-35s wing loading, CLmax and power to weight ratios are all worse compared to other fighters (even empty). That's just physics.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6042 times:

Ozair, Kanban, PB,

Thank you for some excellent, informative posts. This is what makes a forum like A.Net worthwhile.

Ozair, I love that elements of power blog spot. Back in the days of the big F-15 v F-14 debates I spent years buying books off amazon/ebay and trawling through aerodynamic theory to try and get at comparison criteria like they've employed there. Its not easy to get good fighter data in civvie land.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
please stop the personal attacks on anyone who criticizes your pet plane and address the issues raised.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 40):
PB, why do you make stuff up here on A.net?

Cat, kettle, black

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 65):
You simply can not have better kinematic performance when the F-35s wing loading, CLmax and power to weight ratios are all worse compared to other fighters (even empty). That's just physics.

The only thing an empty fighter is good for is a gate guard but for what its worth:

Stats from wikipedia(I know!!) for source commonality

F-16C
Empty weight = 8,570kg
Wing Area = 27.87m2
empty wing loading = 307.5kg/m2

F-35A
Empty weight = 13,300kg
wing area = 42.7m2
empty wing loading = 311.48kg/m2

F-35C
Empty weight = 15,800kg
wing area = 62.1m2
empty wing loading = 254.43kg/m2

Unfortunately for your argument, weapons will weigh the same for both so as you add the same weight of weapons to each the lighter F-16 will pay a greater penalty in relative wing loading. The amount of fuel required to go the same distance will be a function of SFC in that configuration. The F-35 can carry a warload without drag penalty so your CL argument is going to suffer similarly.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 49):
However, I will note that Sprey has been wrong (severely wrong) since March 1991 (and even then, before that). Sprey and POGO been flat out wrong on F-15, the M1 Abrams tank, AGM-65, E-3, cruise missiles, Next Generation Bomber, A-10, B-1 and B-2 Bombers, Ballistic Missile Defense, Black Hawk Helicopter, C-130J, MRAP's, Patriot missile, Predator UAV, Stryker IFV, the list goes on

As for Pierre Sprey, I'm a big fan of his and have followed his work for years. I think you can strike the A-10 from that list. He considered the A-10 as much his progeny as Boyd felt about the YF-16. Any criticism he may have directed towards the A10 would have been against its employment or the way the USAF probably set up its tactics to fail so that they could get more F-16's instead.
But I agree that he is a guerilla fighter and has long ago learned how to play the media to this end in his constant battles to reign in the Pentagon. He won't care if his arguments wont stand up to in-depth scrutiny, the seeds of doubt will have been planted. His mere presence and his ability to work the systems means that the pentagon have stay that little bit closer to reality. He only needs to be right once, they need to be right everytime.

A bit like our Tommy here.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6020 times:

I will note that LM is scheduled during the Paris Air Show for a media press briefing on the F-35 on June 19th at 12:30 p.m. -- 1:30 p.m for a 45 minute presentation and a 15-minute question and answer session:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/trade-shows/paris.html

This press briefing will be hosted by Steve O’Bryan, vice president, F-35 Program Integration and Business Development. Will be interesting to see what LM says about the status of the F-35.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 876 posts, RR: 11
Reply 68, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5954 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 66):
F-16C
Empty weight = 8,570kg
Wing Area = 27.87m2
empty wing loading = 307.5kg/m2

F-35A
Empty weight = 13,300kg
wing area = 42.7m2
empty wing loading = 311.48kg/m2

F-35C
Empty weight = 15,800kg
wing area = 62.1m2
empty wing loading = 254.43kg/m2

For good measure the T/W ratio for each with the Hornets thrown in for fun.

F-16C
Empty (Dry): 0.94
Empty (Wet): 1.58

F-18C
Empty (Dry): 0.95
Empty (Wet): 1.54

F-18E
Empty (Dry): 0.81
Empty (Wet): 1.37

F-35A
Empty (Dry): 0.95
Empty (Wet): 1.46

F-35C
Empty (Dry): 0.80
Empty (Wet): 1.23

So those are the relative performance metrics really with the F-35 having the ability to carry anywhere from about twice as much (F-16 and F-18C) to 30ish% (F-18E) more internal fuel. Given the wing loadings given above I think that the general statement made by the program office that the F-35 handles in the area relatively between a clean F-18 and clean F-16 seems pretty reasonable on the surface.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 69, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5945 times:

Spudh,

So do you agree with me that the kinematic performance of the F-16 is far better than that of the F-35? You don't say either way. I am not clear where you stand on this from your post.

1. The DoD says loud and clear that on one important metric, sustained turn performance, the F-35 can only sustain around 5Gs, right?
2. We also know the F-16 can sustain far above than 5G in a sustained turn, right?

Agreed?

You can also see from the metrics, including the power to weight ratio why this is. From your own post you can see that the F-35 is a much heavier jet and it is also known that it has a much more powerful engine than the F-16, which consumes more fuel to move the F-35 over the same distance as a F-16, further moving the needle in favor of the F-16 on many metrics when you add the weight of fuel required to fly an equal distance for both.

Being heavier it would also requires more to climb. Being that is a slow accelerating plane, it would also take more fuel to accelerate. No magic here.

The F135 engine has an SFC of 0.886 and 28k LBS of dry thrust, while the F100-229 has 17,900 LBS of dry thrust with an SFC of 0.76 - per Wiki. Bottom line, the F-35 burns more to travel an equal distance and mission than an F-16. Thus the mission fuel required will always be much more for an F-35 for a similar mission than an F-16. By my rough estimate, around 25%-30% more fuel than an F-16. This substantially increases the wing loading of the F-35 over that of an F-16.

Quoting spudh (Reply 66):
Cat, kettle, black

If you are going to accuse me of making stuff up, I think I have a right to ask you specifically what I have made up. So please do tell - or retract that accusation. I have repeatedly pointed out what verifiable lie PB has posted here and he has never apologized for it nor explained why he posted it. I myself may have been wrong at times, but not knowingly, which is the difference between an error and a lie. When I see I am wrong, I say so - and I have repeatedly.

So man up and please point out specifically where you think I lied, thank you.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 70, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5889 times:

Lest we forget: PB want to comment? And spudh, please be specific when you claim that I make stuff up or you are the one making stuff up about me. I would appreciate if you would retract your statement or clarify it. Thank you.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 9):
The X-47B will need major redesign in order for it to see service, namely, inclusion of folding wings for carrier storage among other things. The prototype doesn't have folding wings and this, from what I hear on the grapevine, resulted in the X-47B being a very troublesome aircraft to handle in the hangar the last time it went to sea.
X-47B Folding Wings


Quoting BigJKU (Reply 68):
Given the wing loadings given above I think that the general statement made by the program office that the F-35 handles in the area relatively between a clean F-18 and clean F-16 seems pretty reasonable on the surface.

It's not reasonable when their own meterics show otherwise. You and others here are forgetting the sustained turn and acceleration performances, determined to be far worse than legacy fighters. The F-35 metrics there are far from similar. I really wonder why this can't be acknowledged and is still debated here. The word is not flat you know.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 876 posts, RR: 11
Reply 71, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5868 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 70):
It's not reasonable when their own meterics show otherwise. You and others here are forgetting the sustained turn and acceleration performances, determined to be far worse than legacy fighters. The F-35 metrics there are far from similar. I really wonder why this can't be acknowledged and is still debated here. The word is not flat you know.

Honestly I doubt you will find anyone that wants to debate sustained turn rates with you anymore. It is a very complex subject that is drastically impacted by altitude and load out. About the only reliable way to look at something is to have a complete chart for each aircraft for a variety of configurations and overlay them. The problem is they tend to be fairly hard things to find and to some degree may be classified as it is important tactical information. What speed, what altitude and what loading are being considered make a huge difference in that number.

It is overall a very complicated subject matter that can't really be grasped by talking about the relative G performance without directly comparing the loadings, speeds and altitude.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 72, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5863 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 71):

Honestly I doubt you will find anyone that wants to debate sustained turn rates with you anymore.

Regarding the F-35's sustained turn performance, it's not a mater of discussing what the max sustained G performance is anymore. There is nothing to discuss. It is a matter of either accepting the official conclusion or not accepting it. There is nothing to discuss on that topic. We can agree to disagree - fine by me. But for once, I'll accept the official statement on the F-35 on this metric.

It's not about max Gs, it's about max sustained G performance - two entirely different things.

[Edited 2013-06-17 17:24:33]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5842 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 71):
Honestly I doubt you will find anyone that wants to debate sustained turn rates with you anymore. It is a very complex subject that is drastically impacted by altitude and load out. About the only reliable way to look at something is to have a complete chart for each aircraft for a variety of configurations and overlay them. The problem is they tend to be fairly hard things to find and to some degree may be classified as it is important tactical information. What speed, what altitude and what loading are being considered make a huge difference in that number.

Indeed. Even the same aircraft loaded differently will affect turn performance. Below is the F-16C's EM diagram:

If you looked at the top of the chart, it states that the F-16 can only do this with nothing hanging off the aircraft per the drag index (no weapons, external tanks, etc), and at a gross vehicle weight of 20,000lbs at maximum afterburner. Given that the empty weight of a F-16C is around 18,900lbs for a Block 30, that's not a lot of fuel to work with. So basically, to get a 9G turn with the highest possible rate of turn, you better hope that you have a tanker close by or the airfield is right below you.

The F-35 is expected as part of its KPP to at least match or beat a clean F-16 and F/A-18 turn performance while loaded with an air to air configuration (I believe it's a pair of AIM-120's and a loaded gun, need to double check) and 60% fuel at 15,000ft at Mach 0.9 on the sustained G metric. That's already a tall order to accomplish, considering that they are comparing a loaded aircraft to a clean aircraft's performance.

I would agree with you that the only way to compare a F-35 to any other fighter out there is to realistically, make the playing field level by having all aircraft loaded in a comparable fashion for the same mission. Don't compare a F-35 that's saddled with a pair of AIM-120's and has 60% gas to a clean F-16 that's almost empty. Compare a F-16 and a F-35 loaded with a pair of AIM-120's and enough fuel to fly 200nm AND then check the turn performance; that's pretty much the only valid comparison to make. Otherwise, it's an apples to oranges comparison.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 72):
It's not about max Gs, it's about max sustained G performance - two entirely different things.

I would argue that Turn Rate is more important; G loads are a roundabout way of comparing turn rate. According to Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach 3rd Edition; by D.P. Raymer, a turn rate superiority of 2 deg/s is considered significant. Anything within the 2 deg/s is comparable, and from the comparisons based upon publicly available information, a loaded F-35A will have a turn rate on a "par" with all but a clean F-15C and F-16.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 876 posts, RR: 11
Reply 74, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5826 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 72):

It's not about max Gs, it's about max sustained G performance - two entirely different things.

Ok, but again that is not the whole picture as people have tried to tell you for a while. At what altitude with what payload and at what speed was it measured? Again, no one disputes that comparing it with a clean F-16A it will fall short. But at this point there is not enough information to really know exactly what it means.

For example here is an F-15 chart that shows the change of sustained turn rate as altitude changes. It is pretty plain that the altitude the F-35 was measured at will have a huge impact on what exactly that number means.

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/7707/f15c2.jpg

And here is a more realistic diagram in an operational sense.

http://defense-update.com/wp-content...ds/2012/09/f18growler_envelope.jpg

When you start messing with the weight of the aircraft in all cases and when you start messing with the aerodynamics by hanging anything on the wings and things start to change drastically as this chart shows. And that is also why you very much need a full EM chart to know exactly what you are talking about. Even then getting an apples to apples comparison is very difficult.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 75, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5806 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 74):
Ok, but again that is not the whole picture as people have tried to tell you for a while. At what altitude with what payload and at what speed was it measured?

Nobody here knows exactly at what parameters, i.e. altitude, weights, speed, etc... the DoD determined the F-35's max sustain turn performance to be 5G. They didn't say what the parameters were. If they did, please state them and link to the statement. Otherwise max means max - the most optimal for the F-35, that is at light weight with almost no gas at it's optimal speed and altitude. Otherwise they wouldn't say MAX - i.e. it can do no better no matter what - it's maximum possible performance on that metric. I think you are over complicating this.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 73):
Don't compare a F-35 that's saddled with a pair of AIM-120's and has 60% gas to a clean F-16 that's almost empty.

Nobody but you is doing that. The 5G max performance is not at that load, as far as I know. It is the best possible parameters to be able to even achieve a 5G sustained turn rate. It is not capable of more performance, no matter what, i.s. MAX, on that metric.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 73):
The F-35 is expected as part of its KPP to at least match or beat a clean F-16 and F/A-18 turn performance while loaded with an air to air configuration

If that's a KPP - it will be missed by a very very wide margin. Yet another missed metric. Thanks for pointing that out.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 876 posts, RR: 11
Reply 76, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5796 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 75):
Nobody here knows exactly at what parameters, i.e. altitude, weights, speed, etc... the DoD determined the F-35's max sustain turn performance to be 5G. They didn't say what the parameters were. If they did, please state them and link to the statement. Otherwise max means max - the most optimal for the F-35, that is at light weight with almost no gas at it's optimal speed and altitude. Otherwise they wouldn't say MAX - i.e. it can do no better no matter what - it's maximum possible performance on that metric. I think you are over complicating this.

The DOD statement was this.

"The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s"

And that is directly from the report that spawned every news article on the subject.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2012/pdf/dod/2012f35jsf.pdf

Nowhere there does it use the term maximum or anything of the sort. Specifications are written for a specific altitude, speed and loading.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5821 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 75):
Nobody but you is doing that. The 5G max performance is not at that load, as far as I know. It is the best possible parameters to be able to even achieve a 5G sustained turn rate. It is not capable of more performance, no matter what, i.s. MAX, on that metric.

No, you are. Look at the F-16C chart I posted; it's for a clean configuration with just over 1,500lb of fuel. A F-16C loaded with 1,500lb of fuel will perform SIGNIFICANTLY differently than a F-16C loaded with say, 5,000lb of fuel and a pair of AIM-120's.

As a quick demonstration I can tell you from the chart I posted of the F-16C, A F-16C at 20,000lbs weight will do roughly 17 deg/s in an instantaneous turn at 15,000lbs and Mach 0.8. There is a smaller chart just above the main EM diagram in the top left that indicates what happens if you increase speed or weight. A F-16C with 4,500lbs of fuel and a pair of AIM-120's will tip the scale at over 24,000lbs. Per the chart, you loose roughly 4 deg/s at that increased weight and fuel.

In addition, what the G performance chart reflect is bank angle. Per another website that talks about it (the Elements of Power blog):

Quote:
For this exercise (and simplicity’s sake), we’ll assume the earth is ‘down’ and the aircraft is right side up (not inverted) and just say n is now greater than 1 (n > 1). For an aircraft with a typical wing-body-tail planform to enter and sustain the turn, the pilot/controller provides input to the control system that deflects the control surfaces to induce and then hold a bank angle, while increasing angle of attack needed to increase lift generated per unit of wing reference area to keep it equal to the load factor times the weight (n x W).

This means for any given set of airspeed, aircraft weight, and density altitude values, the load factor- accounted for in terms of ‘g’s- is a function of bank angle. Specifically, g= 1/cosØ. For example, a 60 degree bank angle (Ø=60), the ‘g’ value would be 1 divided by the cosine of 60, or 1/.5 = '2gs'.


Increase the bank angle, and in a steady level turn the g’s increase as well. As the use of a trigonometric function implies, and the chart below illustrates, the relationship is NOT linear.



From the shape of the curve, we can easily observe that ‘g force’ begins increasing at a faster rate than the bank angle is increasing at around 3gs (if you remember your math, it is the point on the curve where the slope (m) of a line that is tangent to the curve = 1). By the time the typical ‘hot-fighter’ max g rating of 9g’s is reached, the bank angle has increased to about 82.6 degrees.

So what is ‘happening’ in the specific region of the curve where the F-35s ‘Sustained g’ spec change occurred?


The Only Conclusion: Bank Angles.
After that we need to start making 'assumptions'.

It doesn’t look like the airplane is doing anything too ‘different’ (minimal y axis delta) on the curve to get that ‘g’ difference, does it? That’s the first surprise waiting for people who haven’t thought much about ‘Gs’: the difference in bank angle between the two ‘levels of performance’ is about 1.6 degrees bank.

The difference looks like this:

Depending on airspeed, the bank angle could translate into a ‘small’ or a ‘large’ difference in turn rate and turn radius. Without knowing for certain what the weight, speed, and altitude is for the ‘performance standard’ at either 5.3g or 4.6g, the difference in bank angle between the two figures is all we can conclusively determine. Everything else depends on the missing data.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 75):
If that's a KPP - it will be missed by a very very wide margin. Yet another missed metric. Thanks for pointing that out.

No one's is indicating that the F-35 is not meeting KPP's; in fact, the opposite:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...-Revealing-F-A-18-Like-Performance

Quote:
Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-Management diagrams, which display an aircraft's energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.

"The E-M diagrams are very similar between the F-35B, F-35C and the F/A-18. There are some subtle differences in maximum turn rates and some slight differences in where corner airspeeds are exactly," Kelly said.


FYI, look at the Supplemental Flight Manual(s) A1-F18AC-NFM-200/210 for the F/A-18A/B/C/D:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61908290/A1-F18AC-NFM-200


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 845 posts, RR: 1
Reply 78, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks ago) and read 5813 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 74):
At what altitude with what payload and at what speed was it measured?

That is the whole point. Tommy's entire argument is based on an assumption, an incorrect one, that the figures released are representative of the entire flight envelope.

An excellent example of this is the F-16. Pointblank has provided the EM diagram for the F-16C numerous times, including above. One for the F-16A at 15K is available here, http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-msOHnX8u22...3CErlI/s1600/F-16Blk15+at+15k.jpg. The F-16A EM diagram, which is at 15K, clearly shows that the aircraft cannot undertake a 9G sustained turn, in fact it is limited to approximately 7G sustained. Does that mean the F-16A cannot fly 9G sustained? No, it means that at altitude where the air is thin the airframe cannot sustain the turn at that G load.

When we look at the F-16C EM diagram, taken at sea level, the F-16C can execute a 9G sustained turn at the point marked C on the y-axis. If you put the F-16C at 15K it will also be limited by altitude, thin air etc and probably conduct a sustained G around the same mark as the F-16A.

The obvious question is at what altitude are the F-35 figures for. The answer is we don’t know. If they are at 30K then all is well. If they are at sea level there is obviously a problem. Given the original requirement was 5.3 it is highly highly highly unlikely that they are at sea level.

That is before we take into consideration the fact all the EM diagrams use max AB as the thrust. In practise how much fuel do these jets have to play with that they can execute max AB sustained turns especially given they often are at 50% internal fuel. The F-16A EM diagram says somewhere around 3486 lbs. Consider the F-16A at 15K sustaining at approx 14 degrees a second, that is 25 seconds around the circle at phenomenal fuel usage. How many circles can he turn at that fuel rate before he drops out of the sky let alone fly home?

I will again state my opinion on the whole sustained G turn reduction. I fully expect this will be increased again once the afterburner heating issue is resolved. If the F-35 can use its full AB thrust for the turn without burning the edges of the stabilizers (and a fix is being done to do this) then expect it will meet all the performance goals required.

Quoting spudh (Reply 66):
Ozair, Kanban, PB,

Thank you for some excellent, informative posts. This is what makes a forum like A.Net worthwhile.

Agree. When we discuss facts and make open and declared assumptions and opinions the forum benefits.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 61):
combat radius estimates

Thanks for the range figures. Good to see the program has recovered the loss.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 70):
Lest we forget: PB want to comment? And spudh, please be specific when you claim that I make stuff up or you are the one making stuff up about me. I would appreciate if you would retract your statement or clarify it. Thank you.

From the same thread that you quoted above in reference to the whole X-47 wing issues

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 26):
This all falls into the same category of your made up stories about the X-47B not having folding wings and the following on stories of what problems that has caused the NAVY. Of course, the X-47B does have folding wings. I ask you stop telling stories based on speculation and passing them off as fact. Thank you.

I was in particular talking about the previous deployment of the X-47B on CVN 75 back in 2012. I am not sure which Air Vehicle was launched from Bush or which one was on Truman, but there were comments made that when X-47B was on Truman, it was difficult to handle due to the wings not folding. Mind you, this information came from someone that was posted on Truman during the deck handling trials back in 2012 on another forum.

Can we please consider that the question was answered in place of this tiresome campaign to discredit what Pointblank said in one thread that he subsequently clarified?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 79, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks ago) and read 5804 times:

BigJKU,
We will have to agree to disagree. It's clear to me that the reduced performance metrics are the maximum possible - not just under certain parameters. The maximum under any set of parameters.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ificant-operational-impact-381683/


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 80, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks ago) and read 5799 times:

PB, at what weight, speed and altitude is the F-35 new sustained 4.6 G? I did not make the comparison....

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 73):
Don't compare a F-35 that's saddled with a pair of AIM-120's and has 60% gas to a clean F-16 that's almost empty.

Since the F-35 parameters are not known and I have clearly stated they are not known, certainly not by me.The DoD stated the metrics are being reduced without stating at what parameters. But perhaps you do know what the parameters are. Do you?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 81, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5794 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 78):
Can we please consider that the question was answered in place of this tiresome campaign to discredit what Pointblank said in one thread that he subsequently clarified?

PB has never said peep about that made up story. Nobody has clarified it. I have asked him a number of times to do just that. Perhaps you can?

This disbelief in what PB did and denying for him what he did and coddling him, goes right along with the disbelief in the stated reduced F-35 performance metrics.

Publishing F-16 charts all day long or talking about bank angles (which nobody knows what they are for the F-35) is entirely besides the point regarding the F-35 sustained G performance metric. As is talking into infinitude about the F-16 performance. We need an F-35 chart, not an F-16 chart. All we know is what the DOD said about the F-35 sustained G performance, which is clear as a bell.

Several here must belong to the flat earth society. But more politely, let's just agree to disagree. Is that so hard?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 82, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5791 times:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 78):
That is the whole point. Tommy's entire argument is based on an assumption, an incorrect one, that the figures released are representative of the entire flight envelope.

I am fine with that interpretation of yours, though I do not concur. If you want to interpret it as meaning the sustained G metric is only reduced at a specific but unstated set of parameters, fine. To me it means the maximum performance metric is reduced. This is plain simple English.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5796 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 80):
PB, at what weight, speed and altitude is the F-35 new sustained 4.6 G? I did not make the comparison....

The Bowman paper indicated Mach 0.8 at 15,000 ft at the original specs of 5 G. with a pair of AIM-120's and 60% fuel.

Obviously, they are making a comparison between the new sustained G load and the old; so we can assume that they are using the same speed, weight, and loadout. However, as I showed in the quote from the Elements of Power site, the difference that is apparent would be a change in the bank angle, which is about 1.6 degrees bank. Thus the following happens (and I quote):

Quote:
Let’s begin this post with an updated version of the table I showed the last time:


I’ve added an ‘F-18C Light’ configuration to the mix because I found enough information graphed in a General Dynamics handbook on Fighter Performance from a 1985 Fighter Weapons Symposium (FWS). The book is a recent find of mine from a used book store very near the old GD, now Lockheed Martin plant: the same Plant 4 where F-35 output is being ramped up and boutique batches of F-16s still issue forth form time to time. From what I can tell, General Dynamics hosted this event and distributed material to operational F-16 squadrons around the world for years.

We’ll take the sustained G numbers from the charts for the aircraft configurations above and then crank out the sustained turn rates and similar numbers for a hypothetical F-35A ‘Bowman’ configuration and operating conditions. We'll use the upper and lower bounds of possible F-35A Sustained G values (between 4.6 to 5.3) to give us a range of possible sustained turn rates for that F-35 configuration/set of conditions/assumptions. The formula is:

Turn Rate =Velocity Squared /(G *tan Ø); where Ø is still, as shown in the previous post, the “bank angle”.

Note that I include 5.3gs as the upper boundary partly because we do not know how close the F-35 came to meeting that spec, but more because we know the ‘grade’ must be against some weight that includes some fixed aircraft dry weight, and we do not know how ‘light’ or ‘heavy’ the F-35 will be until after the final weight accounting that is sometime in the future. Right now, per the latest DOT&E report, we know as late as December the F-35A was nearly 1% below the projected weight needed to meet performance specs. If it comes in below spec weight, it will have sustained turn performance higher than what is currently ‘predicted’ based upon the spec weight. 
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3vE_d5gqFys/UZq65833uTI/AAAAAAAACW0/d08dPkI5jjQ/s1600/F35_H-Sust-Turn-Rates-3.jpg

We now have the high and low boundaries for the possible raw sustained turn rate for our hypothetical F-35 (To keep things concise, let’s call it the ‘F-35A_H’ from now on in this series) and can compare it to the derived Sustained Turn rates for our selected legacy aircraft configurations:



Don’t Go There
I presume the above is the kind of raw comparison that sets simple minds down the ‘F-35 can’t turn’ path. Don’t go there – you don’t know enough about what matters…yet. The next thing we need to do is highlight the relative importance or unimportance of the differences shown.

Since we are using the boundaries of our F-35A_H performance in covering the range of possible performance, I’m going to present the ‘low’ boundary evaluation first (Remember, among other things, we don’t really ‘know’ the altitude at which this spec change was applied, we are ‘assuming’ for 'learning' purposes only):

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-R8Daps71-Ys/UZhH7KoiIUI/AAAAAAAACVo/xPBF2dXaqmI/s1600/Sustained-Turn-F-35A_H-LOW-vs-The-Rest.jpg

Determining Turn Rate Parity, Superiority and Dominance
The rules used for assignment of comparative parity, superiority, and dominance ranges above and to follow are not mine. Consulting Raymer* (page 105) provided me with my first indication:

An aircraft designed for air-to-air dogfighting must be capable of high turn rate. This parameter dѱ/dt or ѱ, will determine the outcome of the dogfight if the aircraft and pilots are evenly matched otherwise. When air-to-air missiles are in use, the first aircraft to turn towards the other aircraft enough to launch a missile will probably win. In a guns-only dogfight, the aircraft with the higher turn rate will be able to maneuver behind the other. A turn rate superiority of 2 deg/s is considered significant.

*Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach 3rd Edition; D.P. Raymer;AIAA Education Series; 1999.

I had originally intended to use the ‘2 deg/s’ standard to evaluate which aircraft had ‘significant’ advantage over others when, in reviewing my ‘Fighter Performance’ handbook, I found an expansion on Raymer’s observations:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-e-czKOfU9es/UZhJGpmAjkI/AAAAAAAACV0/f8P0zmKnu5g/s1600/head-on-engage-sust-turn.jpg

I can’t find the basis for the yardstick stated by Raymer and expanded upon in the FWS handbook, but I imagine it has to do with the typical engagement segment duration where a sustained turn difference would typically yield a ‘significant’ or even ‘dominant’ advantage.

Using the same methodology for our upper bound F-35A_H (High) configuration we find the F-35 fares quite a bit better in the comparison:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0cOzC-mNIFs/UZhK8eHJTII/AAAAAAAACWE/5Gw8cWBzD8U/s1600/Sustained-Turn-F-35A_H-HIGH-vs-The-Rest.jpg

So in closing Part 2, we see that the possible range of the 'Bowman' F-35A_H's Sustained G performance is broad enough that if the actual F-35 performance is just a little better than the new Sustained G spec value, it will yield turn rates on a "par" with all but the F-15C and F-16A. If the actual performance is closer to the 'old' spec, the F-35A_H configuration we have modeled comes much closer to "parity" with our F-15C and F-16A configurations.
"What If"? (Parts 3 and 4)
These comparisons are rather static and one-dimensional and the relationships can change dramatically with changes to the armament and fuel carried. It is instructive to note the very large difference in F-18C sustained turn-rate performance based on the variation in weight (which is why I included the 'F-18C Light' data in the first place). Now consider the 'Bowman Configuration' assumption of 60% fuel on board for the F-35 also means that the F-35A_H's fuel load, as a fraction of the total weight, appears to be significantly larger than any of the other aircraft we are comparing. This hints that there may be equally 'realistic' if not more realistic F-35A configurations with far higher sustained turn capability than is attainable at the 'Bowman' weights.

I think it will be worthwhile (and fun) to look at things from a ‘1 v 1’ perspective with the two extremes of possible comparisons in our selected group: F-35A_H vs. the F-4E, and F-35A_H vs. the F-16A, and exploring the 'what ifs' of having slightly different configurations in our comparisons. I anticipate (but won't know until I get there) that I will be illustrating the F-4E at very light weights is not to be trifled with, and that the F-35A, when using comparable fuel weights, based upon equivalent fuel needs will be seen to have solidly 'respectable' sustained turn performance in comparison to other modern aircraft.


[Edited 2013-06-17 23:20:48]

User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 84, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5782 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 69):
So do you agree with me that the kinematic performance of the F-16 is far better than that of the F-35? You don't say either way. I am not clear where you stand on this from your post.

1. The DoD says loud and clear that on one important metric, sustained turn performance, the F-35 can only sustain around 5Gs, right?
2. We also know the F-16 can sustain far above than 5G in a sustained turn, right?

Except you have proven again and again that you don't know the basis nor the importance of the metric. I'll say it once again, the metrics used to calculate sustained turn Gs for the F35 and F22 are very detrimental to them. They both end up in configuration based on the metrics that far far exceed the capabilties of previous planes at the same test configuration because the configurations are based on a % of internal fuel volume and not range nor capability. The F16 and F15 configured to their max turn G performance are not at all combat capable. OTOH, and F35 configured to the max turn performance metrics is capable of doing a 300+ NM combat mission. The F16 at a 9G config can do on the order of a 50 NM combat mission.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 70):
It's not reasonable when their own meterics show otherwise. You and others here are forgetting the sustained turn and acceleration performances, determined to be far worse than legacy fighters. The F-35 metrics there are far from similar. I really wonder why this can't be acknowledged and is still debated here. The word is not flat you know.

And you are either forgetting the configurations behind the metrics or simply don't know them nor even the importance of the metrics. A 5G configured F35 is a much much more capable platform than a 9G configured F16, as in the F35 can actually perform a combat mission in that loadout while the F16 cannot.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 72):
Regarding the F-35's sustained turn performance, it's not a mater of discussing what the max sustained G performance is anymore. There is nothing to discuss. It is a matter of either accepting the official conclusion or not accepting it. There is nothing to discuss on that topic. We can agree to disagree - fine by me. But for once, I'll accept the official statement on the F-35 on this metric.

Except there is actually a lot to discuss for people who are actually interested in actual performance of an aircraft and not just forum warrioring about an aircraft. The reality is that the configurations used to generate the metrics are not even close to comparable between the F35 and the F16.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 85, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5784 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 83):
The Bowman paper indicated Mach 0.8 at 15,000 ft at the original specs of 5 G. with a pair of AIM-120's and 60% fuel.


I asked if you knew, Bowman is a student paper from 2008.

In reality your information relies on the blog post here http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/...and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html - which states:

For the purposes of our exercise therefore, let us ASSUME (and we all know how that word parses) that the flight conditions and the aircraft configuration for the Sustained G spec is as follows:

FYI, the "Bowman paper", which the blogger also relies on, as many here, is actually a student paper In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements, written in 2008 and clearly says:

The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US government or the Department of Defense.

Basically the F-35 fan society all traces it's roots back to a student paper from 2008 and takes it as gospel.

OK, I think I need to leave this F-35 fan society since an old student paper from 2008 is passed as fact and supplants official recent statements from 2012 and even more recent to Congress. Where I am accused of making stuff up that is unspecified and PB doesn't make stuff up and coddled, even though he's been clearly caught lying.

No wonder when we talked about costs for the F-35, PB refused to acknowledge the recent acquisition figures did not include the engine, since data from 2011 is too recent and probably contradicts what the student wrote years prior.

Here I thought people here were actually interested in discussion, how wrong I was. That was my mistake.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 86, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5786 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 84):
A 5G configured F35 is a much much more capable platform than a 9G configured F16, as in the F35 can actually perform a combat mission in that loadout while the F16 cannot.

1. You do not know what the exact F-35 parameters are, unless you go along with Bowman from 2008
2. Even if you did, you are making a huge error. You would need to compare the F-16 loaded out to the point where it's performance is also limited to 4.6Gs sustained. Weird.

And most importantly, we are talking about the F-35's performance, not the F-16's, remember? The more you try to deflect onto the F-16, the less you make sense. Those posts belong on an F-16 thread.

[Edited 2013-06-18 00:22:56]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1681 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5670 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 85):
In reality your information relies on the blog post here http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/...and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html - which states:

Even I said 'assuming'. I clearly also stated that I made an assumption.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 85):
FYI, the "Bowman paper", which the blogger also relies on, as many here, is actually a student paper In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements, written in 2008 and clearly says:

The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US government or the Department of Defense.

Basically the F-35 fan society all traces it's roots back to a student paper from 2008 and takes it as gospel.

And he cites a source for his figures, that if you look, indicates that he was using the Joint Strike Fighter Operational Requirements Document from the JSF Office as his source. If you write a paper for academia (ESPECIALLY one that gets published), and if you use information or an idea from someone else, you must cite the source from where you got the data.

Also, if a thesis is published, it goes through a review panel where the author will be called in to orally defend his work. I remember my Master thesis where I had to do this.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 88, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5583 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 69):
So man up and please point out specifically where you think I lied, thank you


Interesting choice of phrase from someone bravely sitting at a keyboard thousands of miles away from me.

I wasn't actually referring to you lying about stuff rather that its more than a bit hypocritical of you to accuse PointBlank of using personal attacks against people to undermine the validity of their opinion when you do exactly that to him.

I'm glad that you have clarified that you don't equate making untrue statements to lying as long as you didn't know what you were talking about because it saves me pulling out a lot of quotes back through various threads to take you up on your challenge.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 69):
The F135 engine has an SFC of 0.886 and 28k LBS of dry thrust, while the F100-229 has 17,900 LBS of dry thrust with an SFC of 0.76 - per Wiki.


I'm not sure where you've gotten your figure for the SFC for the F135 engine as I don't think official figures have been released but I genuinely doubt its accuracy. The best source I've been able to dig up for miltary SFC's is this:

http://www.jet-engine.net/miltfspec.html

It doesn't have figures for the F119 or F135 but its hard to imagine that the efficiency of these latest generation engines being significantly less than their predecessors. It may be that they are both set up for supercruise so that SFC is too blunt a metric to do like for like operational comparisons with non supercruising engines.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 69):
You can also see from the metrics, including the power to weight ratio why this is. From your own post you can see that the F-35 is a much heavier jet and it is also known that it has a much more powerful engine than the F-16, which consumes more fuel to move the F-35 over the same distance as a F-16, further moving the needle in favor of the F-16 on many metrics when you add the weight of fuel required to fly an equal distance for both.

Lets take a look at a mission where we give each of them an equal weapon load with enough fuel to do the mission. Say 1,250kg of weapons and give the F-16 3,000kg of fuel. Using your own assumed fuel efficiency figures we need to give the F-35 30% more fuel for the same mission so 3,900kg. Lets look at some figures:

F-16C Empty weight = 8,570kg
Wing Area = 27.87m2
Thrust = 127kN
empty wing loading = 307.5kg/m2
empty T/W ratio = 1.48
Mission weight = 12,820kg (3000kg fuel + 1,250kg weapons)
Mission wing loading = 460kg/m2
Mission T/W ratio = 0.99


F-35A Empty weight = 13,300kg
wing area = 42.7m2
Thrust = 191kN
empty wing loading = 311.48kg/m2
empty T/W ratio = 1.44
mission weight = 18,450kg (3,900kg fuel + 1,250kg weapons)
Mission wing loading = 432kg/m2
Mission T/W ratio = 1.035

The F-35 can afford to carry 4,740kg of fuel and still match the F-16C mission T/W ratio of 0.99. In fact when you consider that 2 AIM 9's weigh 170kg the F-35 will maintain a T/W and wing loading advantage over the F-16 almost down to bingo fuel state, And remember the F-35 is carrying a full sensor suite. To do an honest comparison you have to strap on ECM pods and targetting pods to the F-16 to come close to the mission capability of F-35 which will all add weight and drag to the F-16 closing any fuel efficiency advantage it may have had over the F-35. In its clean configuration the F-35 will most likely have less drag than the F-16 with 3 or 4 pylons hanging off it.

With a lower T/W ratio, a higher wing loading and probably higher drag I'm failing to see this clear cut kinematic superiority you are claiming for the F-16. Admittedly I've used wikipedia as a source so I may turn out to be wrong, in which case I apologise in advance lest you think I am lying to you.

So, in summary if you want to compare meaningless sales brochure bumf the F-16C may appear to have certain performance advantages over the F-35 but its certainly not clear cut if any apparent paper advantages translate into real life advantages.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 89, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 5535 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 88):
Interesting choice of phrase from someone bravely sitting at a keyboard thousands of miles away from me.

Pot calling the kettle black? You have accuse me of lying, comparing my actions to PB'a. But there is a huge difference between myself and PB. Namely, I have pointed out the lies of PB for all to see and neither you nor he have.

Quoting spudh (Reply 88):

I wasn't actually referring to you lying about stuff rather that its more than a bit hypocritical of you to accuse PointBlank

Appology accepted. I did accuse PB of lying and noted it for all to see. The difference is that PB tears into people's credibility without even discussing what it is they said or commenting on their quote, while I quoted the actual PB lie while calling him a liar. He's been caught with his own words. It's a huge difference - I am not doing what he is doing.

Quoting spudh (Reply 88):
Mission wing loading = 432kg/m2

You may be right on that. Body lift, strakes, fuselage shape, extended leading edges and overall L/D coefficients matter as well. So why can the F-16 fly rings around the F-35 in a sustained G turn? Nobody here can say the F-35 can turn with an F-16, because the DoD has already said it's performance is only 4.6 sustained Gs. An F-4 has a lower wing loading than an F-16, so that does not appear to be the main factor.

So perhaps do a little exercise. If you want to assume the 4.6 sustained G max of the F-35 is with 60% fuel and 2 A2A missiles, rather than clean - then load up an F-16 in a similar way and look at what the sustained turn performance of the F-16 is under those loads. If it's more than 4.6G's, then there is your proof the F-35 can't turn like an F-16. The charts are there to look it up.


User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8968 posts, RR: 76
Reply 90, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5487 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Thread will be locked now as it is drifting into name calling, accusations etc.


It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Rolls-Royce Owned Spitfire - Any News? posted Fri Apr 19 2013 09:11:45 by a380heavy
Historical F-16 News Investigation posted Sat Apr 13 2013 14:26:14 by Ozair
F-22 Down In Florida Per ABC News. posted Thu Nov 15 2012 15:44:41 by SLCPilot
Latest News From Turkish Mil-Av posted Thu Aug 18 2011 13:40:10 by TK787
Super Duper Breaking News: AF1 Aborts Landing posted Wed May 18 2011 09:41:20 by blueflyer
Snowy Vulcan Makes The News posted Tue Jan 12 2010 11:34:40 by GPHOTO
Russia's Sukhoi PAK-FA - Any News? posted Wed Oct 7 2009 06:06:06 by Boeing4ever
News About The Usaf And The A380 posted Wed Jan 28 2009 04:12:02 by Na
Any New News On YAL-1A? posted Sat Feb 23 2008 02:46:21 by KC135TopBoom
Airforce 2 757 Newport News, Va posted Fri Nov 9 2007 20:11:26 by Adman737