F-35 news roundup

[TaiidanTomcat]

Somehow I can't see the Corp putting a few billion dollars worth of jets at some FARP on the desert, vulnerable to tube or rocket artillery. Makes for nice PR clips (just like they did with the Harrier, showing it flying out of soccer fields, parking lots, clearings in the woods, etc) but at the end of the day, I'll wager their jets will either be flying off of carrier decks or nice big bases with 10,000' runways.

They have actually used them in combat from roadways and the soccer stadium in Kuwait. Which was huge in freeing up big wing tanker assets. I do love though how people make up their mind on this stuff and decide their perception is the reality. Marines understand you may get into the fight and take some hits. It's more than just PR, but good luck convincing anyone --even with actual combat history to fall back on. We already have F-35Bs participating in exercises at Pendleton using smaller expeditionary runways, just like the harrier

This is before we get into the UK using dispersed ops in western Europe and of course the Falklands

Never say never. STOVL in dispersed ops has been used far more often than the A-10s rough field capability.

Denmark selects F-35 to replace F-16 official. 27 so far, hopes are for more in the future.

Edited May 11, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[nspreitler]

Somehow I can't see the Corp putting a few billion dollars worth of jets at some FARP on the desert, vulnerable to tube or rocket artillery. Makes for nice PR clips (just like they did with the Harrier, showing it flying out of soccer fields, parking lots, clearings in the woods, etc) but at the end of the day, I'll wager their jets will either be flying off of carrier decks or nice big bases with 10,000' runways.

Hopefully the odds of using the capability in real world operations are low. That doesn't mean it isn't a capability we should have. We haven't had much of a need for Air Defense (except for SCUDS in Desert Storm) since WWII but it is something we should have. I spent the last several years in Airborne units often on a very short recall time. In reality there has never been a time the Division needed to actually respond to a real world situation in the advertised 18 hours but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to do it.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Hopefully the odds of using the capability in real world operations are low. That doesn't mean it isn't a capability we should have. We haven't had much of a need for Air Defense (except for SCUDS in Desert Storm) since WWII but it is something we should have. I spent the last several years in Airborne units often on a very short recall time. In reality there has never been a time the Division needed to actually respond to a real world situation in the advertised 18 hours but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to do it.

You mean that army PR division ;)

Just a joke

Edited May 11, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[nspreitler]

You mean that army PR division ;)/>/>

Just a joke

We leave the PR to the Marines and SEALs.

It's hard to compete with the branch that fights lava monsters.

Edited May 12, 2016 by nspreitler

[Tony Stark]

Gandalf was a Marine.

[nspreitler]

Gandalf was a Marine.

Maybe, but Bilbo Baggins was obviously a SEAL. He was the one that wrote a book.

Edited May 12, 2016 by nspreitler

[Waco]

Having run an AFOTEC test as a Test Director to meet DOT&E objectives, let me declare from first hand experience, the process is very, very, very politically mired. It is often far from an objective look.

Additionally, from a statistical point of view, the legions of number crushing statisticians will tell you there is very, very, very little to be gained from comparison testing. It quite literally becomes comparing apples to rocks. The system should be tested against the environment and missions for which it was designed to evaluate whether or not it can meet those missions, and what the limitations are in doing so. Comparing another aircraft (which likely was NOT built to the same environment/mission challenges) is a fruitless, wasteful endeavor.

I had the experience of briefing Dr Gilmore several times in person. It was a learning experience. It was not pleasant.

I will add, everybody involved in the process believes very strongly they are doing "the right thing" with their whole heart and soul. They are all coming at the problem from very different points of view, however. I'll also say this much: if you can get a brief past Dr Gilmore, you've done a lot of homework, and very likely have examined the problem from every possible angle, plus a few thousand other viewpoints most folks would never have considered.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Waco

[TaiidanTomcat]

Having run an AFOTEC test as a Test Director to meet DOT&E objectives, let me declare from first hand experience, the process is very, very, very politically mired. It is often far from an objective look.

Additionally, from a statistical point of view, the legions of number crushing statisticians will tell you there is very, very, very little to be gained from comparison testing. It quite literally becomes comparing apples to rocks. The system should be tested against the environment and missions for which it was designed to evaluate whether or not it can meet those missions, and what the limitations are in doing so. Comparing another aircraft (which likely was NOT built to the same environment/mission challenges) is a fruitless, wasteful endeavor.

I had the experience of briefing Dr Gilmore several times in person. It was a learning experience. It was not pleasant.

I will add, everybody involved in the process believes very strongly they are doing "the right thing" with their whole heart and soul. They are all coming at the problem from very different points of view, however. I'll also say this much: if you can get a brief past Dr Gilmore, you've done a lot of homework, and very likely have examined the problem from every possible angle, plus a few thousand other viewpoints most folks would never have considered.

thank you for this.

We have been flying A-10s for 40 years now, F-35s for about 10... I don't know what we are supposed to "learn" here exactly. Its clearly a poitical move, and McSilly putting all her eggs into that basket pretty much guarantees its tainted. She could have hedged her bets and said the F-35 winning anything just means the A-10 needs some upgrades, instead she said "this test determines if we retire it" Oops. When the A-10 comes up second does she gracefully bow out? of course not-- she will simply double down that more tests need to be run

Anywho onto Denmark:

Calculated the estimated costs for each aircraft in US dollars.

Procurement cost per aircraft:

F-35: 84 million

Typhoon: 127 million

Super Hornet: 125 million

Sustainment costs per aircraft:

F-35: 136 million

Typhoon: 165 million

Super Hornet: 108 million

Total costs per aircrat:

F-35: 221 million

EF Typhoon: 291 million

Super Hornet: 233 million

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=23009&mode=view

Figure 3.4 Grading the candidate mission effectiveness in relation to mission type and level of mission intensity^

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=23010&t=1

Figur 3.3 shows survivability rating^

Leaked Scenario on Danish blog:

http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/8356

http://www.fmn.dk/eng/allabout/new-fighter/Pages/new-fighter.aspx

http://www.fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Documents/type-selection-denmarks-new-fighter-aircrafts-english-summary5.pdf

executive summary official (english)^

typevalg-af-danmarks-kommende-kampfly-reduceret-vers-20160509-english-translation.pdf

PDF DL whole report in english (via a online translator)^

In other news, Translated from Norwegian article:

Testing of the F-35 in air combat manouvers, article in “Vi Menn” (Norwegian mens magazine, directly translated to “Us Men”

I read this article a little while back and thought it would be a nice contribution to this forum. My initial idea was to translate the text and scan the images, but not without permission. So I sent an email to the author to get his approval. Thankfully he said yes and even gave me the original .pdf of the story. Text (norwegian) and pictures from: Haakon Bonafede. Many thanks!

So now I'm going to translate the text, the pictures are in the .pdf (maybe someone can upload them on here from the .pdf, I'm not that good with computers). I'm also going to write the text that go with the pictures in Norwegian and in English so you can see what pictures they relate to. Sorry for any wrong spelling, I'm doing this without any spell check (just google from time to time), and there might be some technical terms I get wrong. Well, here goes!

F-35 pilot Morten “Dolby” Hanche has been dealt a bad starting point before the air battle begins. He's being hunted by his opponents at he edge of visual range. Far enough away that he must use his planes sensors, but near enough to force the “ninja-technique” necessary to win a WVR (within visual range) fight.

The target is to stay hidden and attack from a concealed position. The other F-35's plays the role of aggressors. They have to mimic potential enemy planes. The sensor package on the planes is so advanced that they have to take measures to limit them. The enemy has gotten a hint as to where Hanche is, but they don't follow him with their sensors.

The “ninja-technique” Hanche chooses is brutal and seems almost wreckless to an outsider, and in stark contrast to the critique that the F-35 can't dogfight.

-When we begin I'm “only” doing 400kts, says Hanche.

-I purposely make a hard turn towards “Red Air” in full afterburner, so hard I loose speed. Such a hard turn can be felt physically, because the high AOA (angle of attack) makes the plane shake somewhat – a bit like driving fast on an old gravel road.

It's still easy to control and it's no problem getting back up to speed. After just a short time the plane is supesonic so that I can fire the missile at about mach 1,2. It's important to have speed and altitude when firing missiles, for the same reason a spear thrower would never try a throw without a run up.

Angular

Far away from home (Norway), in a base in the desert on the outskirts of Phoneix in Arizona, the two first Norwegian F-35 is based. They're not slim and slender like their predecessor the F-16. The shape is angular like a big 4wd car. The belly is bulbous to be able to carry the weapon load internally, and the whole machine looks aggressive like a guard dog even when the tires are tied down between the blocks.

The pilot inspecting the airframe before he climbs up the built in ladder to the cockpit is somewhat of a contrast to the plane. Lieutenant Colonel Martin “Tintin” Tesli is by no means big, but a soberly guy who always has a smile lurking. He got his call sign because his “helmethair” gave him the same hairstyle as the cartoon character.Now he's in charge of the Norwegian unit at Luke AFB. His job is to find out what the F-35 can do in a fight, and teach it to the rest of the RNoAF's pilots as the F-16 is phased out.

The plane is the most sophisticated fighter ever built so far. According to several sources the plane is as visible to radar as a golf ball and impossible to detect from far away. Top speed is mach 1,6 and in addition to it's 25mm machinegun, it can carry radar guided missiles that can shoot down enemy airplanes long before they know someone is in the air with them. Also it can carry two GPS guided 2000 pound bombs in it's weaponbays and 4 laser guided bombs under it's wings if stealth is not needed.

Even so, it's the sensor capability, the ability to analyze all the data and share the information with air and ground units that impresses the most. From the future QRA-base at Evenes planes on standby can fly all the way to Svalbard and back without refueling. They can watch the whole electromagnetic spectrum to get full control of what's going on oveer and on the Norwegian sea without being detected. And use force or relay targeting data to e.g. a frigate if necessary.

The 100th mission

With 25 and 50 hours between them, “Tintin” and his partner “Dolby” is relatively new in the fighters which is Norway's most expensive weapons buy ever. But they are also the country's most experienced. With a background as fighter pilots they are a part of writing the new handbook on tactics for modern air combat based on own experience with the plane. According to them it's superior to the F-16 in every way.

-Everything I miss from the F-16 is for nostalgic reasons. The more I fly, the more privileged I feel, says “Dolby”, who's going up to fly air combat with “Tintin” and two american pilots. Before Christmas he was the first norwegian who flew the F-35, and this is a new milestone with the 100th mission for the first Norwegian F-35.

“Tintin” has arranged it so that this happens as we are visiting. Norwegian, american and australian pilots share the planes as they are available, so this time it's important that he gets the “right” plane. The fact that it's “dolby”'s name on the plane “tintin”'s flying dosn't matter as much.

“We train the World's best F-35 and F-16 fighter pilots” it says modestly on one of the signs at the base entry. On the walls of the brand new squadron building with a deck overlooking a line of parked planes protected from the sun, it says “357 kills and counting”

62nd Fighter Squadron got it's baptism of fire over Europe in 1944, and continued to shoot down enemies in both Korea and Vietnam. Now the 144 F-16 planes on the base is gradually replaced with the same number of F-35's. For RNoAF 2017 will be a milestone when the first F-35s is flown home for operational testing under Norwegian conditions. In 2019 the first planes will take over after the workhorse F-16 at Ørland.

“Tintin” has already patted “Spike” ceremoniously on the head before he gets out on the warm concrete outside the squadron building. The squadron mascot - a bulldog drawn by Walt Disney – is everywhere. On the walls, the shoulder patches and engine covers. The miniature mascot sitting on the counter where the pilots are leaving the building is to make sure they return with undamaged planes. All squadron meetings is started and ended with a forceful “SPIKE!” to keep up with traditions and build unity.

Classified

-No pictures head on without the engine covers on. No pictures of the cockpit, demands the base PR lady. Her task is to protect the top secret parts of the plane against curious eyes. -And don't go closer than five meters, she adds.

The grey machine with Norwegian emblems symbolizes not only a US guarantee of supremacy in the air, it's also our most expensive defence investment ever. For the full package of 52 planes and equipment, the average prize is about a billion Nok per plane.

While “Tintin” fires up the engine and the plane's computer systems, I recall the conversation we had the day before. Morten Hanche, who had the first flight, said he had some thoughts in the beginning about how expensive the plane was. -But you just have to rationalize that away. The plane is so expensive that you can't think about it. If you do you won't dare to fly it, he explains.

But the F-35 is not perfect. While the four pilots that are going up together are doing their checklists, Hanche turns off the engine, exits the plane and fires up the reserve. Probably a bug in the software. But the serious critique of the F-35's dogfighting capabillities has been put to shame lately. Especially the claim that it is inferior to the 4th generation F-16. According to the norwegian pilots, the critique is wrongly based on an evaluation of a single test flight where tactics were being developed. As the plane is designed to deliver weapons at a distance it's not especially developed to dogfight.

-Still, everybody is surprised at how good it manouvers. I hadn't expected it to be so aggressive in dogfights, “Tintin” says.

Superior in dogfights

They elaborate on the experience after one and a half hour of dogfight-training, one on one over White Tank Mountains, the training are west of the base.

The roar of the engines is unmistakable as they return. It's the most powerful engine in any fighter ever and will be noticed well when stationed at Ørland in Norway. “Tintin” is sweating after the maneuvers, and his helmet-hair gets damper when he comes out of the plane into 35 degrees C desert air.

So far the plane is cleared for up to 7g. When the next software update comes alog it will be 9g like the F-16. Even now the F-35 has maneuvering capabilities that makes “Tintin” and “Dolby” rewrite the manual for dogfights. Traditionally, the one with the highest speed has the advantage in dogfights. The F-35 gives the pilots the possibility to maneuver with much higher AOA. In comparison to the F-16 it has much better nose pointing capabilities.

-The ability to point towards my opponent makes me able to deliver a weapon sooner than I'm used to. It forces my opponent to react more defensive and gives me the ability to slow down fast, Hanche says. -Since I can slow down fast I can point my plane at my enemy for longer before the roles are reversed. The backside is that you loose energy, but it's not really a problem. The plane has so much engine power and low drag that the acceleration is awesome. With a F-16 I would have had to dive to gain as much speed after a hard turn.

Hanche has earlier put words to his experience of flying the F-35 in several post on “The combat aircraft blog” Here he describes how the aggressive F-35 gives him the ability to stick to an opponent and keep him in his sights:

“To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent.

In the defensive role the same characteristics are valuable. I can «whip» the airplane around in a reactive maneuver while slowing down. The F-35 can actually slow down quicker than you´d be able to emergency brake your car. This is important because my opponent has to react to me «stopping, or risk ending up in a role-reversal where he flies past me.”

Another trait of the F-35 emerges when in defensive situations. At high AOA the F-16 responds slow when moving the stick sideways to roll the plane. A bit like using the rudder on a large ship I think, not that I know what I'm talking about – I'm not a sailor. In the F-35 I can use the rudder-pedals to steer the nose sideways. At high AOA the F-35 still responds quick compared to the F-16. This gives me the opportunity to point the nose where I want and threaten my opponent. I can do this “pedalturning” impressively fast, even at low speeds. As a defensive capability I can neutralize a situation fast or even reverse the roles.

A negative in training one on one has been that the view out of the cockpit is not as good as on the F-16. The visibility in a F-16 is especially good, better than in any other fighter I've flown. I could turn all the way around in my seat and see the opposite wingtip. In the F-35 I can't do that because the seat blocks some of the view. This made me a bit frustrated after the first flights. I had to learn to move different. Now I move forward in the seat before I lean a bit sideways and turn my head to look back. That way I can look around the sides of the seat. In the F-35 you learn to work around the issue and it's not a real disadvantage once you know how to do it.

The computer helmet

The 41 year old fighter pilot Martin “Tintin” Tesli is true enthusiast. At home he has a T-33 training fighter from the 1950s that he uses in airshows. He loves contrasts, the veteran fighter is fully analog unlike the F-35s “brain” that lighten the workload for the pilot.

But in a way the F-35 talks directly to the pilot. Even in the first flight “Dolby” was surprised by the shaking in the fuselage that varied as he was turning harder, almost like driving a car.. For the pilot this means that he gets a feedback as to how much energy the plane has without looking at the instruments. -It gives a real feeling of flying, more so than in the F-16, says “Tintin”.

Regardless, if you get in a dogfight in the F-35 you've probably done something wrong. The ability to see from far away without being seen changes the game completely. The plane is a surveillance- , bomb- and fighter plane all at once, with the ability to move freely in areas with modern anti air defenses. Where you earlier needed a lot of F-16s you now only need four F-35s to do the same job.

-It's not fair being a F-35 pilot. It's unfair how we can sneak in and finish the job at a long distance, “Dolby” says ironically.

The advanced autopilot and the good flying qualities of the plane takes some of the adrenaline out of the flying, making it easier for the pilot to do the mission. One of the most important tools is the helmet which has become an integral part of the plane. It's a bit like having a laptop on your head. “Tintin” let us hold the helmet with its kevlar shell, built in night vision and visor which shows all the projected information to the pilot.. If a missile is fired at the plane, a short tone followed by a woman's voice tell that the missile is coming from the side. When “Tintin” rotates his head in that direction, symbols on the visor will tell him the missiles position, speed and direction. This makes it easier to avoid ground threats and survive in a more modern battlespace. He can also fire his own missile while he accelerates away and lets the computer guide the weapon by just looking at the symbol of his opponent.

Six outside cameras also project a 360 degree field on his visor. If he looks down he will see the ground “through” the bottom of his plane. It comes down to the most important ability a pilot has, to prioritize his tasks instinctively. But I belive the generation of gamers will use the plane even better, says Hanche. In peacetime though, the most important thing is to not drop the helmet so it get damaged. The cost of this wonder is about 3,5 million Nok a piece. The cost of training with the F-35 is also higher than the last generation fighter. According to the DoD the cost for USAF to train one hour in the F-35 is about 120 000 Nok. Multiply that with 150 hours a year it comes to about 18 million Nok per pilot per year for training. To get the most cost effective training, the norwegian pilots will use a simulator for 40% of their training in the new simulator-building at the Ørland base once it's finished. The simulators are so good that the F-35 is only single seater, the pilot does his, or hers, first flight alone after about 30 hours in the simulator.

The plan is also that maintenance will be simplified. In peacetime the hangars will work as a drive-thru system where each plane has its own depot. A two man crew is responsible for avionics and engine systems while ALIS wil tell what needs to be changed instead of regular maintenance intervalls, says Major Bjorn Tommy Eigeland. He is the liaison at Lukes responsible for building the maintenance department in Norway. The radar absorbing coating on the hull will complicate maintenance if you have to break it remove panels.

He and his colleagues has bought bikes to travel the roads in the US while they live there. Pilots are not the only ones allowed to have some fun.

Original Norwegian:

16_no_vm_17_de_forste_norske_f-35-pilotene__73562.pdf

PDF DL

[TaiidanTomcat]

[TaiidanTomcat]

Maybe, but Bilbo Baggins was obviously a SEAL. He was the one that wrote a book.

Theres more than one book, with multiple hobbits claiming they were the Baggins who took the Ring, so Definitely a SEAL.

General Bogdan 58 minutes from 2 months ago:

Myth busting and Q & A starts from 25 minutes on

[TaiidanTomcat]

VMA-211s last Harrier flight before transition:

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/463658/vma-211-transitions-f-35#.Vzo7GliDFBc

[TaiidanTomcat]

Montage of the Dutch jets returning home for airshow season. In the meantime two Italian built F-35s flew to the US

[MarkW]

For all of the arm chair geniuses who insist how easy this is, how long has Boeing been doing tankers? How long has Boeing been doing 767 tankers? This was supposed to be the "easy" acquisition program and it's been an absolute nightmare.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/05/27/boeings-kc-46-tanker-miss-major-deadline/85039916/

Try to keep that reality in mind the next time you get your bag of rocks ready for the F-35…

[11bee]

For all of the arm chair geniuses who insist how easy this is, how long has Boeing been doing tankers? How long has Boeing been doing 767 tankers? This was supposed to be the "easy" acquisition program and it's been an absolute nightmare.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/05/27/boeings-kc-46-tanker-miss-major-deadline/85039916/

Try to keep that reality in mind the next time you get your bag of rocks ready for the F-35…

Good point. Last I read, BA has taken $1.5 billion in charges for a mismanaged, delayed program, with more charges to follow. Seems appropriate.

Does anyone know what LMT has occurred for charges on the F-35?

[TaiidanTomcat]

For all of the arm chair geniuses who insist how easy this is, how long has Boeing been doing tankers? How long has Boeing been doing 767 tankers? This was supposed to be the "easy" acquisition program and it's been an absolute nightmare.

http://www.defensene...dline/85039916/

Try to keep that reality in mind the next time you get your bag of rocks ready for the F-35…

It was fine until the Marines wanted it to hover.

Am I doing this right?

Good point. Last I read, BA has taken $1.5 billion in charges for a mismanaged, delayed program, with more charges to follow. Seems appropriate.

Does anyone know what LMT has occurred for charges on the F-35?

Not all problems on the F-35 are the fault of LM. I know its hard to believe, but the government can be the root cause of many acquisition problems-- which seems hard to believe since all military procurement was always on time and on budget before the crazy train JSF program.

More on the Tanker (I was actually going to post some of this in the airline thread where we are already throwing rocks)

Boeing understands the challenge of building 21st century systems and has done so in both Osprey and P-8, and we have extensively reported on both systems. The challenge of the evolving military aviation enterprise is one where Boeing can play a key role, but not by marketing yesterday’s aircraft as tomorrow’s solution.

And if one looks back at what Boeing claimed in 2008 about their new tanker and the Airbus tanker which the USAF selected, the claims being made today in Denmark would be taken with a grain of salt.

When Boeing was able to leverage the GAO protest to get a second chance and won on the basis of a very thin margin on cost the second time around. However, independent of claims and a delineable schedule made about the Boeing tanker it must be noted that several allied air forces are flying the US rejected 21st century Airbus tankers while the USAF is still waiting for even one new Boeing tanker.

When the USAF selected the Airbus tanker it was deemed the best product and best value and down selected in early 2008, and Airbus projected having several in operation within the first five years of the downselect. Given that this has happened, but not for the USAF but for allied Air Forces, the actual first selection of the projection of the Airbus tanker by USAF decision makers has been proven correct.

Sadly for the US current defense capabilities, the reversal of decision makers in selecting Boeing and their projections has now proven to be wrong. In spite of claims that they were ready to go and could provide a new tanker rapidly to the USAF when selected in 2011, it is now 2016.

And we got this update in a Wall Street Journal article in 2015:

Former Boeing executives and engineers say the tanker’s troubles stem partly from changes to Boeing’s defense business in recent years that diminished valuable know-how. It had delivered refueling aircraft to Japanese and Italian militaries between 2008 and 2012 from a Boeing facility in Wichita, Kan. Those projects ran years late and significantly over-budget. They didn’t do a great job, but they sure learned a lot,” said a retired senior Boeing executive.

Boeing officials hoped those lessons would help avoid similar pitfalls on the KC-46. But Boeing decided to close the Wichita operations in 2012 amid Pentagon belt-tightening and moved the remaining tanker work to the Seattle area, where it builds commercial jets.

Some Wichita tanker managers and engineers moved to Seattle, but others left, retired to or went elsewhere in Boeing. Boeing lost some of its “tribal knowledge” that could have helped the KC-46, another former executive said, and it also changed fuel-system suppliers.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-tanker-faces-key-flight-testboeing-tanker-faces-a-key-flight-test-1442964371

....To add to the aftermath of the reversal the state of Alabama felt the wrath of Boeing supporters because Mobile, Alabama would have been the site where the new Airbus tankers would have been built.

For example, the Governor of the state of Washington wrote to Defense Secretary Gates claiming that the superior workforce in her state would build a better tanker.

....A proposed Air Force aerial refueling tanker from Boeing will be less risky than the one from a competing team of Northrop Grumman and EADS, Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire wrote in a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates Thursday.

“As the Air Force moves forward with a new request for proposals, I urge you to look closely at the criteria of risk and speed to delivery,” she wrote. “In doing so, I believe we will see that the Boeing proposal will contain much less risk and will also deliver a proven, highly capable tanker to the Air Force quickly and efficiently.”

Boeing’s tanker “will be built in a factory with proven technology, an expert workforce and a long history of delivering products of the highest quality to its customers in a timely fashion,” Gregoire wrote. “In stark contrast to the existing, state-of-the-art facility that Boeing operates, (the) EADS-Northrop (tanker) would be finished in a yet-to-be-built site.”

Building a factory, and recruiting and training a workforce invite “considerable and unacceptable levels of risk to the Air Force tanker program, including further delay.”

This was in spite of the fact that the state of Alabama was already home to much advanced industry and a solid supporter for the US military, including Boeing facilities in Huntsville.

http://www.sldforum.com/2016/05/boeing-in-denmark-the-new-alabama/

Edited May 31, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[11bee]

Not all problems on the F-35 are the fault of LM. I know its hard to believe, but the government can be the root cause of many acquisition problems-- which seems hard to believe since all military procurement was always on time and on budget before the crazy train JSF program.

Agreed. But again, unless every technical and schedule issue with the JSF is on Uncle Sam, I was just asking many billions has LMT incurred in charges?

On the tanker, it seems pretty fitting. Pretty apparent that Boeing would have promised the AF anything to win that contract. Whatever they had to get hit with in penalties will be worth it. They'll make it up on subsequent contracts and at the same time, they have kept arch-rival Airbus from establishing a foothold in this market. Aside from Airbus, the only other folks that lose are the poor guys and girls stuck flying KC-135's. They'll have to wait a bit longer for new rides.

Edited May 31, 2016 by 11bee

[TaiidanTomcat]

Agreed. But again, unless every technical and schedule issue with the JSF is on Uncle Sam, I was just asking many billions has LMT incurred in charges?

There was a aircraft magazine a few years back that detailed the mistakes that LM paid for vs what the government paid for and LM ate some losses. Pratt is paying for the engine fix for example. A lot of it has to do with the contract types and penalties.

You also have to discern what is an "honest mistake" when cutting edge tech and new things are tried, vs an actual preventable mistake. F-35 is ambitious, there are going to be issues. People said this thing was impossible. It's possible but its not easy either.

The government doesn't seem to be going after lockheed over The F-35 the way they are getting boeing on the tankers.

Speaking of boeing, denmark has outlined why the super hornet lost to the F-35. I'll post about it later. Denmark used USN numbers for lifespan which upset boeing because they are saying the USN under valued them

Edited June 1, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[Fellow Hobbyist]

There was a aircraft magazine a few years back that detailed the mistakes that LM paid for vs what the government paid for and LM ate some losses. Pratt is paying for the engine fix for example. A lot of it has to do with the contract types and penalties.

You also have to discern what is an "honest mistake" when cutting edge tech and new things are tried, vs an actual preventable mistake. F-35 is ambitious, there are going to be issues. People said this thing was impossible. It's possible but its not easy either.

The government doesn't seem to be going after lockheed over The F-35 the way they are getting boeing on the tankers.

Speaking of boeing, denmark has outlined why the super hornet lost to the F-35. I'll post about it later. Denmark used USN numbers for lifespan which upset boeing because they are saying the USN under valued them

It may be the attempt to avoid a repeat of what has been experienced in the F-35 program's past that prompted the penalty to be levied against Boeing.

[Tony Stark]

F-35's already participated in Green Flag. This July, it'll make its first appearance at Red Flag.

Nellis AFB to host Red Flag 16-3 July 11–29, 2016

NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. – Southern Nevada residents may notice increased military aircraft activity as the Air Force conducts Red Flag 16-3 from July 11 through 29.

Red Flag is a realistic combat training exercise involving the air, space and cyberforces of the United States and its allies. The exercise is hosted north of Las Vegas on the Nevada Test and Training Range — the U.S. Air Force’s premier military training area with more than 15,000 square miles of airspace and 2.9 million acres of land. With 1,900 possible targets, realistic threat systems and an opposing enemy force that cannot be replicated anywhere else in the world, Nellis AFB and the NTTR are the home of a simulated battlefield, providing combat air forces with the ability to train to fight together in a peacetime environment, and to survive and win together.

The 414th Combat Training Squadron is responsible for executing Red Flag. The exercise is one out of a series of advanced training programs administered at Nellis AFB and on the NTTR by organizations assigned to the U.S. Air Force Warfare Center.

More than 115 aircraft are scheduled to depart Nellis twice a day and aircraft may remain in the air for up to five hours. Flying times are scheduled to accommodate other flying missions at Nellis AFB and provide Red Flag participants with valuable training in planning and executing a wide variety of combat missions.

The exercise will include U.S. forces with aircraft from:

• 1st Fighter Wing, 27th Fighter Squadron, F-22A, Langley AFB, Virginia.
  
• 20th Fighter Wing, 79th Fighter Squadron, F-16CJ, Shaw AFB, South Carolina.
  
• Carrier Air Wing 14, Electronic Attack Squadron-139, EA-18G, NAS Whidbey Island, Washington.
  
• Carrier Air Wing 14, Electronic Attack Squadron-209, EA-18G, NAS Whidbey Island, Washington
  
• 2nd Bomb Wing, 96th Bomb Squadron, B-52, Barksdale AFB, Louisiana
  
• 113th Wing, 121st Fighter Squadron, F-16, Andrews AFB, Maryland.
  
• 177th Fighter Wing, 119th Fighter Squadron, F-16, Atlantic City, New Jersey.
  
• 31st Fighter Wing, 555th Fighter Squadron, F-16, Aviano Air Base, Italy
  
• 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121, F-35B, MCAS Yuma, Arizona.
  
• 432nd Wing, 42nd Attack Squadron, MQ-9, Creech AFB, Nevada.
  
• 552nd Air Control Wing, 964th Airborne Air Control Squadron, E-3, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma.
  
• 116 ACW, 12 ACCS, E-8, Robins AFB, Georgia.
  
• 55th Wing, 343rd/38th Reconnaissance Squadron, RC-135V/W, Offutt AFB, Nebraska.
  
• 9th Reconnaissance Wing, 12th Reconnaissance Squadron, RQ-4, Beale AFB, California.
  
• 9th Reconnaissance Wing, 99th Reconnaissance Squadron, U-2, Beale AFB, California.
  
• 9th Reconnaissance Wing, 348th Reconnaissance Squadron, RQ-4, Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota
  
• 23rd Wing, 41st Rescue Squadron, HH-60, Moody AFB, Georgia.
  
• 23rd Wing, 55th Rescue Squadron, HH-60, Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona.
  
• 23rd Wing, 66th Rescue Squadron, HH-60, Nellis AFB, Nevada.
  
• 23rd Wing, 79th Rescue Squadron, HC-130, Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona.
  
• 57th Wing, 422nd Test & Evaluation Squadron, F-16, Nellis AFB, Nevada.
  
• 92nd Air Refueling Wing, KC-135, Fairchild AFB, Washington.
  
• 22nd Air Refueling Wing, KC-135, McConnell AFB, Kansas.
  
• 437th Airlift Wing, C-17, Charleston, South Carolina.
  
• 57th Wing, 64th Aggressor Squadron, F-16C, Nellis AFB, Nevada.
  

[MarkW]

My point about Boeing is also that a bad contractor was selected through gross buffoonery and incompetence by the AF acquisition folks. Boeing was allowed to protest not on a mere technicality, but because of terrible work done by the boys and girls in blue.

In the rush to spend all that "hur dur kill Osama grunt grunt" money, we dumped billions into programs that went nowhere. There was plenty of shoddy work to go around.

[sweier]

Similar to what the RAAF has done? Or an opportunity when the "evaluation" is conducted to stay with the F-18?

http://www.canada.com/news/national/liberals+planning+super+hornet+fighter+jets+before+making+final/11966132/story.html

S

[Tony Stark]

Similar to what the RAAF has done?

That'll be part of the narrative. This will be a temporary solution that becomes a permanent one.

Or an opportunity when the "evaluation" is conducted to stay with the F-18?

Winner winner chicken dinner.

[TaiidanTomcat]

[MarkW]

My baby finally getting off the production line.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/The-F-35-is-about-to-transform-Israels-air-capabilities-457186

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/06/20/new-israeli-defense-minister-meets-with-carter-on-f-35-buy/

[DutyCat]

I have no dog in this fight, but it would appear the more people operate this aircraft the more people want it.

I think clearly the writing is on the wall that the aircraft will deliver what was promised, if more expensively. The other good news is the cost per unit is going down as the production rate goes up and assembly learning curve shallows out. At the end of the day, the detractors are going to look foolish, and if Canada, now having hit the reset button on the program, buys SuperHornets, they may regret it.

The SuperHornet is a good jet, but that program is winding down and it is time to move on. I find it funny that the same sort of folks who talked about how the SuperHornet was such a piece of crap and a waste of money, are now calling it a better option than the brand new state of the art stealth capable netcentric cooperative engagement DAS equipped F-35. IIRC, they thought the original Hornet sucked too, and it turned out okay. I think the only fighter I can think of in my lifetime that has got away pretty much squeaky clean is the F-16, and now that I think about it, it had a few minor development problems too.

Edited June 21, 2016 by DutyCat