Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2018 F-35 News and Discussion

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • bring_it_on
    2005-year of the RAPTOR!!

    Partners pay their "share in the program" which is agreed by them, and defined during the block-4 negotiations and approvals. They also pay, in some cases all of, costs associated with their specific changes and modifications/upgrades. The final/definitive block-4 modernization strategy was officially sanctioned by Ellen Lord in Mid October and an independent cost estimate is currently ongoing and the partners would know exactly what it forecasts the cost for RDT&E and upgrades (optional) for the effort as it has been approved (not potential capability but the cost of the exact capability that has been approved).

    For the program, given its size and scope, this amount is not very large given how many partners and the total number of aircraft. Come to think of it, you have individual fighters aircraft buyers these days paying billions of dollars for customization and upgrades for a relatively small amount of fighters acquired on a program that hasn't produced a whole lot of aircraft over its lifetime. This in contrast is a program that has lots of partners, FMS customers, current and future deliveries and block-4 when rolled out through the middle of the next decade will keep it relevant into the 2030s before they begin block-5.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

    Comment

    • halloweene
      Rank 5 Registered User

      And perhaps they were not expecting to pay that much as compared to US.
      About the program, my argumentation was not as flawed as that. Many features defined for JORD were nerds dreams, things you'll have only one occasion in your life. Green glow is an example. After looking to a certain night landing on WASP during tests, one cannot say it is not mandatory to eliminate it. And the only tech they found was not predictible at the time. Ergo bad programmation. And luck. (Dunno what they will do about Thales breached patent, stop trying to block Rafale exports?). How many assets are able to join presently a MADL network? 4? How many were expected for 3F? Many capacities scheduled for 3F were put off further block using an event led management instead of capability led. Calculator not powerful enough etc. etc.REsult? lowering prices for present block, but operating costs will rise like hell in order to have a really operational plane (block4).

      What about wrong costs given to NL? https://www.levif.be/actualite/belgi...l-1048007.html

      "important number of errors". How surprising...

      Comment

      • SpudmanWP
        Rank 5 Registered User

        As stated, Partners pay to have their specific systems installed.

        Block 4 will (or likely to) bring new weapons:
        UK Meteor
        Norway JSM
        Turkish SOM-J & HGK
        UK ASRAAM
        UK Brimstone
        UK Spear 1 & 3
        Likely some Israeli weapons & ESM pods, etc.

        New Features like:
        The drag chute
        Possible inclusion of P&D refueling for the A

        All of these things are only for Partner nations so they will bear the cost of development & integration.
        Last edited by SpudmanWP; 8th November 2018, 16:01.
        "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

        Comment

        • bring_it_on
          2005-year of the RAPTOR!!

          And perhaps they were not expecting to pay that much as compared to US.
          That is a useless general statement. How do you know what they were willing to pay and what capability were they demanding? Block-4 complete capability set is classified but it is something that the partners as a group have decided to fund. If any partner does not want to invest in block-4 it can exit the program as it is not a binding spend. That aside, a lot many partners want user specific upgrades to allow domestic weaponry or capability. If that is the case, they will on occasion be burdened with all of that specific cost. One would think that they would have done their cost-benefit analysis and concluded that these upgrades are in their interest.
          Old radar types never die; they just phased array

          Comment

          • SpudmanWP
            Rank 5 Registered User

            It's called the JPO for a reason as each country has members in it at every level. They decide (as a whole) what will be included in each Block upgrade, what it will cost, and who will pay. Do some members carry more weight than others, sure, but that does not take away from the fact that the information related to the process is known by all involved.
            "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

            Comment

            • Ozair
              Rank 5 Registered User

              And perhaps they were not expecting to pay that much as compared to US.
              About the program, my argumentation was not as flawed as that. Many features defined for JORD were nerds dreams, things you'll have only one occasion in your life. Green glow is an example. After looking to a certain night landing on WASP during tests, one cannot say it is not mandatory to eliminate it. And the only tech they found was not predictible at the time. Ergo bad programmation. And luck. (Dunno what they will do about Thales breached patent, stop trying to block Rafale exports?). How many assets are able to join presently a MADL network? 4? How many were expected for 3F? Many capacities scheduled for 3F were put off further block using an event led management instead of capability led. Calculator not powerful enough etc. etc.REsult? lowering prices for present block, but operating costs will rise like hell in order to have a really operational plane (block4).
              There is no logic to that argument at all...

              If your claims were coherent it might be worth taking them seriously but in contrast to having the information explained to you multiple times you simply come across as having sour grapes because the F-35 is winning sales campaigns while the Rafale doesn't.

              What about wrong costs given to NL? https://www.levif.be/actualite/belgi...l-1048007.html
              I don't get it, is there some deep and earth shattering relevation there?

              The Pentagon sent a bad invoice, the Netherlands reviewed, found the errors and stated as such so it was corrected and the Netherlands subsequently paid. The very height of international scandal...

              Comment

              • TomcatViP
                Rank 5 Registered User

                Also, none of the errors involved LM accounting practices but were found in DoD submitted doc. And Dutch is quite difficult to say the least.

                Originally posted by LeVif.be
                Les erreurs se situent principalement dans les calculs effectus par le Pentagone et non dans les factures de Lockheed Martin.

                ----------------------------
                The errors are mainly in the Pentagon calculations and not in Lockheed Martin's bills.
                Last edited by TomcatViP; 11th November 2018, 15:48.

                Comment

                • Flexible
                  Rank 5 Registered User

                  Also, none of the errors involved LM accounting practices but were found in DoD submitted doc
                  That is true. A bit embarrassing though. 88 errors were found.
                  They were found by both the Dutch equivalent and the Norwegian equivalent of the American GoA.
                  Now wait a minute...
                  Norway?
                  Isn't this highly unusual that a foreign country gets access to calculations from DoD about military calculations from a different country?
                  Is that even allowed?
                  Guess so, otherwise they wouldn't have done it.
                  My guess is that the Dutch wanted another party involved to double check the calculations. I don't know.

                  Anyway they caught the errors in time, so no real harm done here.

                  Another thing:
                  Not mentioned here I guess and not in the Dutch media either, but in October this year, the Dutch government ordered ALL remaining F-35's.
                  All of them....

                  So that is a done deal.
                  .

                  Comment

                  • halloweene
                    Rank 5 Registered User

                    There is no logic to that argument at all...

                    If your claims were coherent it might be worth taking them seriously but in contrast to having the information explained to you multiple times you simply come across as having sour grapes because the F-35 is winning sales campaigns while the Rafale doesn't.
                    "Anything to bring into the dbate? Because "you lack logic" is 4th level like argument.

                    Comment

                    • Bayar
                      Rank 5 Registered User

                      The Turkish Navy is to order 16 F-35B's for its first Light Aircraft Carrier/LHD- TCG Anadolu, due to be launched in 2019. See http://www.kokpit.aero/deniz-kuvvetleri-f35b-istiyor

                      Another order for a further batch of 16 F-35B's will be ordered for the launch of Turkey's second Light Aircraft Carrier/LHD: TCG Trakya.

                      Comment

                      • TomcatViP
                        Rank 5 Registered User

                        I guess that Israel will buy some then.

                        So sad France didn't keep the LHD

                        Comment

                        • Ozair
                          Rank 5 Registered User

                          Anything to bring into the dbate? Because "you lack logic" is 4th level like argument.
                          How about instead you provide some evidence for the claims you keep making? Instead of going on about the green glow issue which has been explained on here to you multiple times you could simply accept it has fixed the issue and is a good result. One could actually make the logical conclusion that the test program has done what it was supposed to, identify an issue and come up with a fix that benefits the entire fleet.

                          Or instead of trying to create a scandal out of MADL you could actually use some logic and common sense and understand why MADL is built around 4 ship missions (hint: the basis for Western Air Force fighter combat tactics for the last thirty plus years). You might also come to the conclusion that a MADL link is not limited to 4 jets, as already demonstrated by the program back in 2013, but that the sharing of sensor data is held within that four ship for obvious tactical reasons. Outside that four ship the MADL link can extend to other platforms, who don't need and cannot process the sensor feeds the aircraft is transmitting, but can process the target information the datalink is outputting, such as current naval vessels and B-2s and in the future other air, land and sea based assets including allies.

                          Or you could just continue with the sour grapes thing...

                          Comment

                          • halloweene
                            Rank 5 Registered User

                            Tell me WHERE it is fixed in forces first. NExt gen helmet isn't there. The logic is that many planned capabilities COULD NOT be expected to be matched at the time jrdd was redacted (eg. The mtiple changes of the helmet, jitter, gree glow, weight etc.) and that is a strong proponent of poor management.

                            However, did you see how Norway F-35 fared in recent exercise? Poor babies were grounded due to wind while others did the work

                            https://www.tu.no/artikler/ett-ar-me...mpflyet/450082

                            And you know what, wind was moderate to strong, no more than 13 Kts side wind. Ridiculous (once more). Will be fixed one day, sure. In the meanwhile, buy popcorns and enjoy the show...

                            http://www.ogimet.com/display_metars...f=59&send=send

                            Comment

                            • bring_it_on
                              2005-year of the RAPTOR!!

                              It is not a surprise that they ran into issues during development, and then turned around and found a solution for it. It is also not surprising that the issue along with many other issues took a while and would have been difficult to execute in the original timeframe. They didn't budget extra time into the program just for fun.

                              The current fix still comes in before the US Navy embarks on its first carrier cruise and possibly even before it declares IOC. This is the risk that you assume when you embark on a high end 5th generation fighter program and the program hedged itself to some extent with the alternative helmet program until such time that management determined that the cost of pursuing the alternate outweighed the risk associated with the baseline.

                              As far as the Norwegian article, it mentions that :

                              Witty tongues who now want to comment that it is hoping that it does not blow too much if there is a war, notice that the wind force was above what the Air Force is willing to operate during peace time. Limit values ​​change in a crisis.
                              Similarly, a planned como ("combined / composite air operations") with fully operational fighters was the day after cancellation for the same reason, too much wind in Bod.
                              It is an internal operator matter and as per their regulations during peacetime and as such not a reflection on the capability of the aircraft.

                              On a separate note,

                              via Twitter:

                              Jeff Martin of Defense News was at Lockheed FW earlier this month and has confirmed that the 91st (and last) Lot-10 F-35 has rolled off the line and will soon head out to the flight test facility prior to customer delivery. (see 3:32 below).

                              https://www.defensenews.com/newslett...f-35-is-built/
                              Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                              Comment

                              • TomcatViP
                                Rank 5 Registered User

                                The mtiple changes of the helmet, jitter, gree glow, weight etc.) and that is a strong proponent of poor management
                                It's called an emerging technology. Without such "poor management" we will not even be flying braced wire fabrics covered airplane. The Wright brothers having been the first poor managers of aviation history.

                                Comment

                                • halloweene
                                  Rank 5 Registered User

                                  It's called an emerging technology. Without such "poor management" we will not even be flying braced wire fabrics covered airplane. The Wright brothers having been the first poor managers of aviation history.
                                  Except Noone could imagine OLED screens could be used before 2020. TRL perspectives were about 5/6, no more. (and you know what? i checked). Therefore it was poor planning, not accepted risk.

                                  Comment

                                  • bring_it_on
                                    2005-year of the RAPTOR!!

                                    This is the same half baked argument you were making earlier. That they chose a particular solution because A) It was mature at the time the decision required to be made, and B ) Because it was also being chosen for other F-35 related applications and was just the logical path to follow does not mean that had they had to make a decision on a fix without the option of moving to OLED, they wouldn't have gone down a different path. Nothing in any statement, evidence, report or other communication points to the fact that they did not follow the regular process of an analysis of alternatives and emerging technologies while narrowing down on a fix. It is the norm to work up multiple ways to solve a problem and then choose the best fit.

                                    Had OLED not been mature enough at this point of time, or its military application not suitable, they would have had to solve the problem some other way and nothing as I said before points to the fact that there was ONLY ONE solution that they could exercise.

                                    Anf TRL/MRL levels at program inception only imply to known technology use cases not unanticipated requirements that emerge later. You don't have the "captain obvious" hindsight or a crystal ball where you can completely and with 100% certainty work out areas where you will fail to meet a certain requirement and then game out all possible solutions that could be leveraged to develop a fix and then using a crystal-ball try to determine what maturity those fixes would be in at a unspecified notional future date.

                                    Good for you that you did your homework this time and dug up the "then state" of OLED TR. What you left out of your research was a check to see whether OLED was anywhere in the Material Solution at its inception (entry into EMD). If it wasn't then where it stood vis-a-vis TRL or MRL has absolutely no bearing just as where High Energy Laser TR stood in 2000 have no bearing on the program entering EMD. Only thing that matters really is that the program and the OEM chose a particular path to overcome a discovery during devTest and that this path or technology was at a TRL and MRL which was acceptable for the solution being proposed as the fix. If it wasn't they would have had to find another way to solve the issue using technology or processes that were reasonably mature enough. There was a reason why the program kept a competitor in the frame as long as it determined that technical hurdles on the helmet were significant and only let go of it once it was reasonably assured that the technology and solutions were in hand to mitigate risk on it.
                                    Last edited by bring_it_on; 13th November 2018, 12:39.
                                    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                    Comment

                                    • halloweene
                                      Rank 5 Registered User

                                      My argument may be half baked, but yours is also. There is no clue that another solution but oled could be fond. Anyway, the histrory of the helmet is just an example. Sorry, i do not believe the risk assessment studies were properly led. Neither some like the calculation pwoser needed.
                                      In the meanwhile, other planes did the work while F-35 was grounded. Frankly! 16 Kts side wind, one can handle that with a Cessna T172... (with troubles,yes).

                                      Comment

                                      • bring_it_on
                                        2005-year of the RAPTOR!!

                                        My argument may be half baked, but yours is also. There is no clue that another solution but oled could be fond
                                        That is a big flaw in your argument. The way you approach is a problem is you develop a series of potential fixes/paths or approaches and then follow the one that is the most suitable. There is absolutely no indication that they did not approach this issue the standard way. Of course Joe Public does not need to be given a list of 10 things that RC/ES or the JPO considered before they focused on one or two but in the absence it is rather stupid to assume that they ABSOLUTELY HAD JUST ONE PATH and they chose to go down that path. You just focused on that, assumed that to be the case, and went on a rant. The underlying premise is flawed. There is no evidence to believe that there was only one solution possible to fix the helmet and in the absence of it there was no way to get the capability. That is a BIG BOLD claim and there is absolutely no evidence to back it up.

                                        I'm sure down the road someone will write a paper on this and we'll perhaps know more.

                                        Sorry, i do not believe the risk assessment studies were properly led.
                                        Right, and this assumes that in your master analysis you have utilized all available resources and have reviewed documents of these so called "risk assessment studies"

                                        In the meanwhile, other planes did the work while F-35 was grounded.
                                        In the article the Norwegian official is saying that it was Norway's internal peacetime restriction in which case it is their decision to make. Who the hell cares what someone else thinks about it? If a Nation X wants to impose a wind restriction on its fighters during peacetime that is up to them. Just as some other nations put restrictions on other things.

                                        Frankly! 16 Kts side wind, one can handle that with a Cessna T172... (with troubles,yes).
                                        Sure but "handling" it is not the point is it? It is a peacetime restriction not because the aircraft cannot "handle it" or that Norwegian Air Force can't perform in those conditions. It is simply what they want during peacetime. Trying to project that as some sort of capability shortcoming (comparison to a Cesna) smacks of desperation really.
                                        Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                                        Comment

                                        • SolarWarden
                                          Rank 5 Registered User

                                          Lulz. The life of an F-35 hater.... F-35 grounded because of a breeze definitely has something to do with its capability or lack of.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X