F-35 news roundup

[MarkW]

[MarkW]

News: The GEN III "Neckbreaker" has made it's way to Oz.

The article is fairly straightforward, and while it doesn't use "whilst" once, they did misspell a few words.

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/pilots-subject-to-f-35-helmet-weight-rules

[TaiidanTomcat]

:D/>, Someone working for LM saying that they know how the Australian DMO/CASG works better than a former Australian serviceman who used to work there is a bit rich really. That's just the same as me saying I know how that part of the Pentagon works better than someone who does or used to work there. Which would be a blatantly stupid and irrelevant statement.

:cheers:/>,

Ross.

THE official review used by federal Labor to justify its commitment to the multibillion-dollar US Joint Strike Fighter project was just a public relations exercise, according to comments by former defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon in secret talks with his American counterpart.

Mr Fitzgibbon candidly told US Defence Secretary Robert Gates in February 2008 that the Air Combat Capability Review of Australia's future air power he had announced a week earlier was driven by domestic politics and was unlikely to produce any result other than acquisition of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, marketed by Lockheed Martin.

According to US embassy cables obtained by WikiLeaks and provided exclusively to The Age, Mr Fitzgibbon made the admissions at a morning coffee session during the annual Australia-US Ministerial Meeting (AUSMIN) in Canberra.

He explained to Mr Gates that the newly elected Labor government would review the former Howard government's decisions to retire the ageing F-111 bomber fleet, pursue the acquisition of Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) to replace the F-111s and FA-18 fighters, and purchase 24 Super Hornets, as a stopgap until the first F-35s were delivered.

In opposition, Labor had been critical of the Coalition's move to acquire the JSFs and had urged that Australia seek the lifting of a US Congressional export ban in order to acquire the more capable F-22 Raptor, once described by Defence Force chief Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston as ''the most outstanding fighter plane ever built''.

Labor repeatedly warned that likely delays and cost blowouts with the JSFs could compromise capability and Australia could ''end up getting into trouble''.

In January 2008 Mr Fitzgibbon reiterated Labor's intention to ''pursue American politicians for access to the Raptor''.

But the following month, at AUSMIN, Mr Fitzgibbon was quick to assure the US government that such statements had been merely ''political'' and Washington could be confident that the F-35 acquisition would proceed.

The US record of the discussion, approved by Mr Gates, says Mr Fitzgibbon ''expressed his opinion … that the review would likely not result in any decision other than to keep the JSF and continue with the Super Hornet purchase, explaining that the government felt it had to respond to Australian public's concerns that the previous government had not based these decisions on capability requirements but rather on political expediency.

''The Defence Minister stated that 'aircraft acquisition is now a topic of broad public discussion; every man in every hotel (bar) is talking about F-18 Super Hornets,' so the Labor government needs to do a public review,'' the discussion record said.

Mr Fitzgibbon's successor as defence minister, Senator John Faulkner, announced in November 2009 that the government had committed to placing a first order for 14 Joint Strike Fighters at a cost of $3.2 billion, with deliveries to begin in 2014.

The JSF program has since been the subject of development and testing delays, leading Mr Gates last month to express grave concern about skyrocketing costs and announce a big restructure of the program.

During the 2008 AUSMIN meeting, Mr Fitzgibbon sought reassurance that the JSF project was ''on track'', and explained to Mr Gates that Labor's pre-election commitment to pursue the acquisition of the F-22 Raptor would only involve a ''pro forma request''.

''As for the F-22, Minister Fitzgibbon stated he has to ask for political reasons and asked for guidance as to what to do,'' the US embassy reported.

Mr Gates noted that a congressional ban on the export of F-22s was ''unlikely to change anytime soon''.

US Defence Department officials later advised Mr Gates that Mr Fitzgibbon should write to the Pentagon about the F-22 rather than to Congress.

Mr Gates stressed ''the hope that a key decision factor would be for Australia to remain interoperable with the United States, and offered US assistance to the review efforts''. Other US embassy cables highlight Australia's importance as ''a large consumer of US defence hardware and technology'' and identify confirmation of the JSF acquisition as a key objective in the bilateral defence talks.

Immediately after the AUSMIN meeting, Mr Fitzgibbon told a press conference that Australia wanted ''the opportunity to consider the F-22''.

But the US embassy cable makes it clear Mr Gates believed there was little reason to devote much effort to ''a pro forma request regarding possible sale of the F-22 to respond to domestic pressures''.

The report of the Australian review team has not been released. But the May 2009 Defence White Paper foreshadowed the purchase of as many as 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/labors-review-of-howards-fighters-decision-a-sham-20110208-1almj.html

[MarkW]

While I don't (and actually never) felt "blatantly stupid and irrelevant" on the topic, I would suggest the Canadian situation is not the same as Oz. Canada can and will take advantage of their physical proximity to the U.S. to cheap out in a way relatively isolated Oz can't.

I don't have a good feel for this one.

[Check Six]

I don't have a good feel for this one.

I agree.

I would say their final decision could be based on nothing more than simple politics.

What will be very interesting is if Canada does pull out, how will the F-35 parts made there be handled?

In Canada's defense (No pun intended) the F-35 is a huge initial investment as well as a brand-spanking new state of the art and untested in the real world design. It would be much easier (IMHO) to convince politicians and the masses of purchasing an entire brand-spanking new fleet of, say, F-15SEs due to its incredibly successful platform as well as using the 'how-many-F-15SEs-can-we-buy-for-the-price-of-F-35s' argument.

[TaiidanTomcat]

I agree.

I would say their final decision could be based on nothing more than simple politics.

What will be very interesting is if Canada does pull out, how will the F-35 parts made there be handled?

In Canada's defense (No pun intended) the F-35 is a huge initial investment as well as a brand-spanking new state of the art and untested in the real world design. It would be much easier (IMHO) to convince politicians and the masses of purchasing an entire brand-spanking new fleet of, say, F-15SEs due to its incredibly successful platform as well as using the 'how-many-F-15SEs-can-we-buy-for-the-price-of-F-35s' argument.

Of course the F-15SE is vaporware, a very large airplane, requires 2 crew to Canada's current single crew, and likely more expensive to buy and operate. One of the reasons the F-15SE was cheaper in Korea was the fact that they were already an F-15 operator. The F-35 is also a lot more advanced. Israel is currently trying to be the only F-35 operator in the Middle East, meanwhile the F-15 is the "consolation prize"

since it isn't my money I am all for a competition that gets all the numbers from all the candidates. For far too long the F-35 in Canada has been the only aircraft where numbers are accurately assessed thanks to the sole sourcing, while competitors can make wild cost claims that don't need to be verified, for example Boeing claiming the Super hornet was 55 million years back and Dassault saying they will pump 12 billion in offsets into Canada

Edited October 27, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat

[MarkW]

If Canada is truly moving towards an air defense capability only, and is abandoning the idea of ever supporting major ground operations or offensive operations in general, then one of the later 4th generation fighters should be able to meet their needs. I think Trudeau has been very clear that he does not want to put Canada in a position of expeditionary activities, which means they would never have to deal with contested airspace and will be serving only in a DCA role. As for Super Hornet vs Super Eagle, that would be Boeing competing against itself. I'm quite sure they would offer Canada whatever deal they need to make to keep the whatever line they want to focus on viable.

Considering the Eagle variants have superior range, and are a superlative air to air missile carrying platform, I don't think Boeing offering the Eagle as an option is that far fetched. Also considering the radar that the Eagle has been outfitted with is ridonkulous, you could easily argue that for Soviet bomber for cruise missile defense without looking silly.

This, of course is all predicated upon Canada relying completely upon the United States to conduct its foreign policy by other means...

[Darren Roberts]

How about if the US simply charges Canada a "defense tax"? Then, Canada doesn't have to have a military at all. :rolleyes:/>

Edited October 27, 2015 by Darren Roberts

[TaiidanTomcat]

Anyone see this?

http://news.investors.com/business/102315-777104-close-air-support-showdown-f35-vs-a10-tests.htm

Need a dedicated thread for this one. Sure to provide months of fun for all ARC'ers.

After the dust has settled, DOD needs to run another series of tests:

F-35 vrs F-14

The ultimate battle. I give my vote to the Tom, if nothing else, just to honor the memory of Goose.

PS - I am in awe of the quick-acting ARC Mods. Nicely done boys!

From one of the old hands that used to A-37, then A-7, then F-16:

The "flyoff" or "test" or whatever.

The USAF dude got it right. You can [Get] any result you wish.

I was at ground zero when we had the controversy about the A-10 and A-7D. The guy across the desk was on the flyoff deal and came back after the rules and tests were dictated ( I was Asst ops and he was OPs O). He said the outcome was certain. The 'hog would come out on top. Fer chrissakes. This was right after Yom Kippur and we saw what the improved SAMs did and even the elite IAF was caught by surprise.

All of us liked that big gun on the 'hog, but we knew we would be kamikaze pilots over the Fulda gap. No good weapon delivery other than WW2 TLBR with the fixed pipper and no navaids other than TACAN. And this was in mid 70's.

[Check Six]

Of course the F-15SE is vaporware, a very large airplane, requires 2 crew to Canada's current single crew, and likely more expensive to buy and operate. One of the reasons the F-15SE was cheaper in Korea was the fact that they were already an F-15 operator. The F-35 is also a lot more advanced. Israel is currently trying to be the only F-35 operator in the Middle East, meanwhile the F-15 is the "consolation prize"

since it isn't my money I am all for a competition that gets all the numbers from all the candidates. For far too long the F-35 in Canada has been the only aircraft where numbers are accurately assessed thanks to the sole sourcing, while competitors can make wild cost claims that don't need to be verified, for example Boeing claiming the Super hornet was 55 million years back and Dassault saying they will pump 12 billion in offsets into Canada

Good points indeed.

With the F-35 being planned to operate over the next 40 years, I would think the initial investment to be an almost drop in the bucket.

For the U.S.Navy the F-35C would be just like the E-2/C-2 platform (which is coming up on its 52nd anniversary) flying over the course of a carriers entire service life!

[MarkW]

Canada in Crisis:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/scrapping-f-35-fighter-jets-may-not-lead-to-big-savings-experts-say/article27012886/

There's math involved...wha?!

Canada is more than a little pregnant in the F-35.

This will affect future business for Canadian companies that won about $750-million in contracts related to the F-35 because Canada was a partner in the program. Canadian firms’ contracts will wind down and they will not be eligible to bid on further work.

A deal to buy a new warplane, whether it be the Boeing Super Hornet or a European rival, will bring industrial benefits for Canada, but as of now there are no guarantees for Canada’s aerospace industry and players that in some cases have spent a decade or 15 years preparing to bid on work related to the F-35s.

I think some of these folks i the decision process may be well intentioned, but they are trying to make buying a dying 4th gen line like buying a 2015 model year car RIGHT NOW. Yeah, the 2015s are just as good as the 2016's, and heavily discounted on the dealer lots. But the analogy falls apart real fast when you look at the operations and logistics tail over 4 decades.

[MarkW]

By the way, this thread is officially passe.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/28/air-force-picks-northrop-grumman-to-build-next-big-bomber/

[Check Six]

By the way, this thread is officially passe.

http://www.foxnews.c...ext-big-bomber/

[Check Six]

Canada in Crisis:

http://www.theglobea...rticle27012886/

There's math involved...wha?!

Canada is more than a little pregnant in the F-35.

I think some of these folks i the decision process may be well intentioned, but they are trying to make buying a dying 4th gen line like buying a 2015 model year car RIGHT NOW. Yeah, the 2015s are just as good as the 2016's, and heavily discounted on the dealer lots. But the analogy falls apart real fast when you look at the operations and logistics tail over 4 decades.

Yeah; Boeing is breathing easier these days because of the recent Growler contract extension.

When that production line finishes in a couple of years Canada will have made their decision on which way they want to go. And the timing will be perfect for building more Super Hornets if they choose that route. I believe it will also be the time for building their JSF if they choose to go that route.

It will be interesting once LM goes 'full-steam-ahead!' and drastically speeds up the F-35's production line.

I'm WAG'ing that when the USS G.R.Ford enters the U.S. Fleet in a couple years, their carrier decks will be filled with F-35Cs. Both going fully operational at the same time.

[Check Six]

It appears that if Canada does officially withdraw from the JSF program, there just might be unintended/unforeseen consequences that even a layperson will see.

Economic impact(s) for one.

Moving parts contracts to countries that buys the JSF. How big a dent it makes to Canada's economy.

[MarkW]

I'm WAG'ing that when the USS G.R.Ford enters the U.S. Fleet in a couple years, their carrier decks will be filled with F-35Cs. Both going fully operational at the same time.

Not possible. The Navy isn't buying enough to fill a carrier deck, and their plans all along have been to operate both platforms side by side on carrier decks through 2035.

[Check Six]

Not possible. The Navy isn't buying enough to fill a carrier deck, and their plans all along have been to operate both platforms side by side on carrier decks through 2035.

Ah; O.K..

I figured the Growler would be around for awhile for sure.

Aren't the current batch of Super Hornets at or about 15 years old now?

Thanks for the clarification.

[Raceaddict]

It appears that if Canada does officially withdraw from the JSF program, there just might be unintended/unforeseen consequences that even a layperson will see.

Economic impact(s) for one.

Moving parts contracts to countries that buys the JSF. How big a dent it makes to Canada's economy.

(Note: Due to NDAs and such, I'm being somewhat vague with details... but the scenarios below are all real.)

I'm very curious to see how this all pans out. I've been making JSF parts since 2009 and in some pretty significant quantities... over 2000 of some parts of which there are only one per aircraft. Now, I'm very low on the supply chain, so I'm not privy to a lot of details, but I would have to assume that since 2000 JSFs have not been built yet, the parts I'm making are getting put together with other parts, and these completed assemblies are being stored somewhere for the point in time when production ramps up to full speed. If L-M pulled all production out of Canada tomorrow to start somewhere else that would be a pretty significant expense... finding new shops to do the manufacturing, re-tooling, re-certifying, etc. BIG money, and lots of time wasted/lost in getting other places up to speed. (As an aside, it would also mean "Canada" - meaning Canadian mfgs - has already made back most of the money and time that has been invested in their contribution to the JSF.)

Which brings me to the second point: for the parts that are designed by Canadian companies, how much of that design work is proprietary? When L-M sends a request for tender out to a whole bunch of companies, and "Maple Leaf Mfg." wins the contract to design and build "Gizmo v.1.1", does that design belong to L-M, or to "Maple Leaf Mfg."? And what about sole-source procurement? I, for one, am a sole-source supplier for the widgets I make. The fully assembled Gizmo v.1.1 was designed in Canada, but is built here as well as other countries. Those companies in the other countries (other JSF partners) have to buy certain parts from me. My widgets get shipped all over the world to companies making JSF sub-assemblies.

[11bee]

Which brings me to the second point: for the parts that are designed by Canadian companies, how much of that design work is proprietary? When L-M sends a request for tender out to a whole bunch of companies, and "Maple Leaf Mfg." wins the contract to design and build "Gizmo v.1.1", does that design belong to L-M, or to "Maple Leaf Mfg."?

I have no insight into the program but in general, I would be shocked if somewhere in the contract that your company had to sign, there was not language that stated that all rights to the design and any future sales of the "Gizmo" belong solely to LM.

Onto yet another JSF question - Been looking at pics of the F-35, notice that the surface of the aircraft, especially the fuselage, doesn't look very stealthy. Appears to be some significant gaps between some of the panels and even a good number of exposed fasteners. My question is - are the current F-35's in "go to war" configuration or would they need addition treatments such as taping these gaps with RAM, covering fasteners, etc?

[MarkW]

Go to war...Depends on the jets. The Corps jets in the field should be darn close to that status, as this jet was designed to do LO differently. The training jets as well. It would be harder/more expensive to maintain a set of jets in a unique configuration.

[11bee]

Go to war...Depends on the jets. The Corps jets in the field should be darn close to that status, as this jet was designed to do LO differently. The training jets as well. It would be harder/more expensive to maintain a set of jets in a unique configuration.

So... would there be additional treatments required for the jets due to those exposed panel openings / fasteners or does the F-35 truly do stealth differently and these are no longer the major factors they were on earlier jets?

[MarkW]

Truly different. Designed based from the get go based on the nightmare of maintaining the F-117, B-2 and F-22. The goop, putty and tape approach was largely designed out.

The jets you see need very little to go to war.

[-Neu-]

(Note: Due to NDAs and such, I'm being somewhat vague with details... but the scenarios below are all real.)

I'm very curious to see how this all pans out. I've been making JSF parts since 2009 and in some pretty significant quantities... over 2000 of some parts of which there are only one per aircraft. Now, I'm very low on the supply chain, so I'm not privy to a lot of details, but I would have to assume that since 2000 JSFs have not been built yet, the parts I'm making are getting put together with other parts, and these completed assemblies are being stored somewhere for the point in time when production ramps up to full speed. If L-M pulled all production out of Canada tomorrow to start somewhere else that would be a pretty significant expense... finding new shops to do the manufacturing, re-tooling, re-certifying, etc. BIG money, and lots of time wasted/lost in getting other places up to speed. (As an aside, it would also mean "Canada" - meaning Canadian mfgs - has already made back most of the money and time that has been invested in their contribution to the JSF.)

For most parts, no, that's not the case. Its possible that LM or one of the tier two or three subcomponent assemblers bought your parts in anticipation of the work, especially if they calculated the savings from economies of scale of making a one time purchase as being sufficiently large compared to sourcing it year by year. Its also a question of Diminishing Manufacturing Source issues: will your company build this part for the next 20 years? I suspect that this is only a small part of your business, therefore it is quite possible that you might stop producing the part in the future.

However the big manufacturers (Heroux Devtek, Magellan, Avcorp) can't do that. The items they are constructing are complex and have a very high cost. Funds are released one to two years before production, and they can't really afford to start production until they receive funding from the government.

Which brings me to the second point: for the parts that are designed by Canadian companies, how much of that design work is proprietary? When L-M sends a request for tender out to a whole bunch of companies, and "Maple Leaf Mfg." wins the contract to design and build "Gizmo v.1.1", does that design belong to L-M, or to "Maple Leaf Mfg."? And what about sole-source procurement? I, for one, am a sole-source supplier for the widgets I make. The fully assembled Gizmo v.1.1 was designed in Canada, but is built here as well as other countries. Those companies in the other countries (other JSF partners) have to buy certain parts from me. My widgets get shipped all over the world to companies making JSF sub-assemblies.

Well, I believe LM actually owns the rights, but even if it didn't, proprietorship is useless. The gizmo is built to an extremely strict design set out by LM: much of the engineering work is already completed: thus there can be no deviations and therefore . I'll check on the IP ownership when I have some time.

Edited October 29, 2015 by -Neu-

[MarkW]

With any part, it depends. Is it a dual use component or something specifically and only for the F-35? BaE build some major structural pieces like the aft fuselage which pretty much only go on the rear of that jet. Other companies build piece-part items, like fasteners, fiber optic cable or wire which are not necessarily F-35 specific. Almost all the electronic sub assemblies are F-35 unique, including the back plane and individual cards. The processors are all unique, but the bits on the board may not be. For the stuff absolutely needed to build the jet--major assemblies, bulkheads, etc LM went with big companies who aren't going anywhere. For piece part stuff where DMS is expected, they can afford to go with companies that are more "replaceable".

LM has been doing a terrible job at managing DMS, for the most part waiting for it to become a crisis before dealing with it. The standard practice would be to buy parts as needed for a lot until DMS becomes a threat, then make a decision on lifetime buy, or form-fit-function replacement.

LM has been using DMS as an opportunity to improve the design, reduce weight, cost or all of the above. If Canada punts, then they could simply walk away at the end of your existing supply order and go to another partner for the same widget functionality.

There is no such thing as plagiarizing in the aerospace industry. LM has the drawings and have the specs for every part on the jet. They can walk away from any small supplier with relative ease.

[Gordon Shumway]

We will await what the new Federal Govt. will do concerning our next combat jet. If F-35 is the be all, and not just for providing 25-30-35 years of RCAF service but also with LM better to best industrial spin offs for Canada, well if the price can be swallowed the new govt. will have to put it on the top pedestal regardless of what they have said when in opposition and campaigning. DnD and Industry Canada bureaucrats along with LM an any other competitors will each try to sell their wares. PM Trudeau will have to be open minded to turn away from the politics of electioneering and towards what may be best for the RCAF and Canadian aerospace industry. If in the end it is F-35 well he will probably have DnD buy it.

Of course the other competitors will sell their aircraft and spin offs to us as well. Look, none of these choices are JUNK! They are all capable combat planes that will and are serving in other airforces for decades to come. Of course not taking F-35 means that Boeing probably has the best next shot in F-18E/F Super Hornet, maybe F-15 SE. Boeing would probably be the easiest to grant industrial spin offs to Canadian industry, many who probably are and would be on board as sub contractors to F-35 anyways. I'm not making any choice here but noting that Super Hornet would be the easiest alternative to F-35 and quickest to get into service choice for the RCAF.

This said if one believes Dassault, the promises they make for us taking Rafale are big ones too. But "Frenchy" jet does not as easy fit into Canada's joint role of aerospace defence of North America as a "Yankee" jet can. But Rafale has and does inter operate with coalition forces in combat zones, so it would not be totally alien.

Eurofighter Typhoon is a great 21st century combat jet but it ain't cheap either and my gut tells me the industrial spin offs will be much fewer as the consortium building it is kind of entrenched in its bureaucracy and like to sell finished jets abroad. Thus its foreign sales are not stunning.

SAAB Gripen NG, is a great and IMO best looking (lil) 21st century jet, but industrial spin offs will probably be fewer too and not as long term. From what I read it does look to be able to integrate well in coalition campaigns, but it too is a single engine jet (if that is a concern for some) but one with an excellent jet engine. It may be the cheapest one, to buy outright, who knows? But a decision is more than just an off the rack purchase.

WHO THE 'BLEEP' KNOWS! The new Federal Government, DnD and Industry Canada will work through all the selling with the facts, story spinning, half truths and lies that come from selling. Combine such with the list of industrial spin offs, to then said decision for the RCAF will see them get new combat jets hopefully sooner than later. Other than that at a place like this forum it's all just 'WATER COOLER TALK'

STAY TUNED! B)

Edited October 29, 2015 by Gordon Shumway