Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hmmm. I didn't expect that.

If we want to use the same analysis the other way though, this means the Navy is against the F-18E/F/G now. Am I doing this right? :sunrevolves:/>

I didn't read that the Navy was retiring their SHs in lieu of the F-35 ...

-Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read that the Navy was retiring their SHs in lieu of the F-35 ...

-Gregg

So+you+missed+the+whole+joke.+Well+done+_4d67676f2478e5cdb64b3008e06f51da.jpg

A lot of people were trying to paint every F-18 order as the USN being on the verge of bailing on the F-35, that was never the case but thought it would be a funny reversal to propose the same for a canceled F-18 order.

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/467412/f-35a-conducts-first-live-fire-with-amraam.aspx

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people were trying to paint every F-18 order as the USN being on the verge of bailing on the F-35, that was never the case

Maybe your contacts at the Pentagon led you astray? Or maybe not but out of all the services, I think we can agree that the Navy seems to be the least driven to get on the JSF bandwagon.

From a Reuters article today:

It was not immediately clear why Naval Air Systems Command, or Navair, decided to cancel the notice, which was first posted October 17. The procurement website was updated on Thursday to say the notice had been canceled, but no explanation was provided.

Officials with Navair, which oversees aviation programs such as the F/A-18, could not be reached for comment.

One U.S. official said the episode underscored the Navy's tepid commitment to the single-engine F-35 and the continuing attachment of many naval aviators to the Super Hornet, which has two engines.

"There is a desire at pretty significant levels in the Navy to keep the Super Hornet line alive," said the source, who was not authorized to speak publicly.

If those people at "significant levels" succeed in keeping the SH line alive, do you really think it would not result in a reduction of F-35 orders? Last I heard money was a bit tight these days so I'd be shocked if the USN was able to purchase even more SH's while still maintaining their current funding for the F-35.

If nothing else, it seems like there is a bit of a disconnect between various factions within the Navy.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites
My understanding is the buy is for a mix of both Super Hornets and Growlers ... What the breakdown is, I don't know ... May be mostly EA-18Gs and a few attrition replacement Rhinos ...

The solicitation will always say E/F because a G in the contract world is an F with an airframe change. My understanding from the people that know was that these were to be G's to fill out the expeditionary requirements. But I generally don't know dick so I'm sure you're right.

No clue why it was pulled...my guess would be related to the lack of a budget, planning chaos for FY15 (we're working 3 different budgets), the annual JROC review of requirements...any number of non nefarious reasons.

Spongebob

Edited by Spongebob
Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe your contacts at the Pentagon led you astray? Or maybe not but out of all the services, I think we can agree that the Navy seems to be the least driven to get on the JSF bandwagon.

You may want to re-read my post there, the problem I have was people trying to paint every super hornet purchase as the navy bailing on the F-35 (bailing as in leaving the program). And that was never the case --Short of the F-35 not being able to trap-- The Navy is going to get the F-35. The navy as other posters have mentioned are the least pressed to get it, and are taking their time.

It would be like me not constantly praising my wife meaning im on the verge of divorcing here.

There was a cabal of people on the internet with more ability to blog than think that tried to take every single thing and paint it as the Navy with the hand on the ejection handle and using every press release as an F-35 mood ring with the JSF and realistically cancellation was never the case. I'm not driven to pay taxes, but guess what happens every April 15th? Is the navy wild about the F-35? no. are they ok with it? yes. were they ever on the verge of canceling it? no. Does their warm approval actually matter? not really. as far as the JSF program is concerned. whether they like it or not, they are getting it, The Navy really doesn't have to burn political capital on it either like the USMC is.

If those people at "significant levels" succeed in keeping the SH line alive, do you really think it would not result in a reduction of F-35 orders? Last I heard money was a bit tight these days so I'd be shocked if the USN was able to purchase even more SH's while still maintaining their current funding for the F-35.

I thought we were debating about the navy bailing on the F-35, not the exact number of airframes to be purchased?

Seeing as the USN isn't planning to have their F-35s IOC until around 2018 or so, and a very optimistic projection for the SH production line would be alive until about 2017 with orders at about a dozen at best, I bet it never really becomes an issue. I also bet, that those same "significant levels" people fall lock step in with the F-35 when the choice is F-35s or nothing, or more accurately the more f-35s we have the more carriers we have, plus Joe Naval Avaitor will probably prefer the JSF warts and all over a UCAV.

plus, the F-35 has a lot of what weight behind it, the navy is supposed to get around 200, its not going to get the same number of super bugs even if it tried. So if it wants to subvert its overall numbers in order to get more super hornets, its welcome to it. The Marine Corps will just enjoy flying more capable aircraft from smaller carriers in the mean time.

Its politics, the same politics that play out constantly and adjust accordingly. Remember how just 10 year ago we were told that the Navy loathed retiring the Tomcat and hated with a furious passion the Super Hornet? That same super hornet they can't get enough of now? Where do you think we will be in 2023?

If nothing else, it seems like there is a bit of a disconnect between various factions within the Navy.

This can't be. As we all we all know every service is lock step with what they are told to think and every one is always 100 percent all-in on everything at all times. This is the first I have ever heard of any sort of infighting or difference of opinion whatsoever :deadhorse1:/>

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/10/navy-were-not-buying-more-super-hornets/

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting assessment of the F-35 from a former USAF Chief of Staff (turned Boeing PR guy):

A retired US Air Force chief of staff recommends South Korea acquire Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft in the near-term, saying Lockheed Martin's F-35A Joint Strike Fighter will be a “paper tiger” until the early 2020s when it has updated software.

Retired Gen Ron Fogleman, now a Boeing consultant, told reporters during a 4 October event hosted by the company that South Korea would be best served with a mix of F-15s and F-35s.

He warns that an F-35-only order will leave the country without sufficient combat readiness starting in 2016 and 2017, as the South Korean air force retires McDonnell Douglas F-4 and Northrop F-5 aircraft.

“The F-35 doesn’t have the combat capability today that that F-15 has,” says Fogleman, who is also a chairman of the board of Alliant Techsystems, which makes components for the F-35. “There is a real requirement for near-term combat capability.”

You can buy a stealthy airplane, but if it doesn’t have a lot of combat capability you kind of have a paper tiger,” says Fogleman. “I’m not sure I want to risk my country’s independence... on a paper tiger.”

By comparison, the F-15 is a proven aircraft that excels at carrying heavy payloads at high speeds and across long distances; capabilities critical in a war against North Korea, says Fogleman.

It's a bit heavy handed, insinuating that if the Korean's don't purchase more F-15's they are putting their national survival at stake but the good General does have a valid point about the lack of combat capability of the early software versions (despite all the hype from other services about being "combat ready").

Will this be enough to sway the SK's and keep Boeing's production line alive? Time will tell....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting assessment of the F-35 from a former USAF Chief of Staff (turned Boeing PR guy):

A retired US Air Force chief of staff recommends South Korea acquire Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft in the near-term, saying Lockheed Martin's F-35A Joint Strike Fighter will be a “paper tiger” until the early 2020s when it has updated software.

Retired Gen Ron Fogleman, now a Boeing consultant, told reporters during a 4 October event hosted by the company that South Korea would be best served with a mix of F-15s and F-35s.

He warns that an F-35-only order will leave the country without sufficient combat readiness starting in 2016 and 2017, as the South Korean air force retires McDonnell Douglas F-4 and Northrop F-5 aircraft.

“The F-35 doesn’t have the combat capability today that that F-15 has,” says Fogleman, who is also a chairman of the board of Alliant Techsystems, which makes components for the F-35. “There is a real requirement for near-term combat capability.”

You can buy a stealthy airplane, but if it doesn’t have a lot of combat capability you kind of have a paper tiger,” says Fogleman. “I’m not sure I want to risk my country’s independence... on a paper tiger.”

By comparison, the F-15 is a proven aircraft that excels at carrying heavy payloads at high speeds and across long distances; capabilities critical in a war against North Korea, says Fogleman.

It's a bit heavy handed, insinuating that if the Korean's don't purchase more F-15's they are putting their national survival at stake but the good General does have a valid point about the lack of combat capability of the early software versions (despite all the hype from other services about being "combat ready").

Will this be enough to sway the SK's and keep Boeing's production line alive? Time will tell....

IOC is combat ready it is not "hype". when an aircraft reaches IOC it is ready for combat by the standards set, or else is not IOC.

It would mean a lot more if the F-15SE was in production and fully combat capable itself, or if it even existed beyond the mock up stage. His definition of paper tiger is an interesting one with that in mind.

And I wouldn't bash stealth too much as the F-15SE is a ham fisted attempt at it, and an F-15 trying to be stealthy is limited in ordnance to the size of its CFWB pods, and without the additional fuel they would normally have for the extended range advantage.

Boeing needs to buy better shills. He is just upset that Korea is buying Lockheed's paper tiger and not Boeing's paper tiger.

Korea seems to be looking long term If they want to do a split buy its better to get some F-15SAs with some additions, call it the F-15K+ and buy a couple dozen to augment the aircraft they already have.

Buying a couple dozen highly unique, specially developed, limited production run F-15SEs to fill a 4 or 5 year gap is an expensive and exotic way to do business, that doesn't make much sense come 2020. The maintenance on them would be very expensive and they probably wouldn't be worth keeping around very long after F-35 are introduced.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

wrt South Korea, they are about to begin an upgrade program on their Block 52 F-16C/Ds that will make their avionics suite similar to UAE's Block 60s. Includes AESA radar, new mission computer, color MFDs, lots more.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bae-systems-poised-to-commence-south-korea-f-16-upgrades-392320/

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, any comment by someone with "retired" by their rank should be considered 100% marketing for someone.

Second,

IOC is combat ready it is not "hype". when an aircraft reaches IOC it is ready for combat by the standards set, or else is not IOC.

"IOC" doesn't mean dick. "IOC" is a set of criteria established by the program office used as a milestone and a bunch of DoD reviews on whether to continue/not continue the program. DOT&E tests to those points and says "IOC". One would need to look at the IOC criteria to see what capability was actually delivered.

For example, IOC in the past has been to simply have a squadron of aircraft with enough qualified aircrew to operate...no implied combat capability there at all (incidentally...pretty close to the USMC definition of IOC for the F-35). For a further example, Hawkeye 2000 did 2 combat cruises before OpEval was started...so it was somewhere in the middle of the 4th deployment that IOC was reached.

Sponge

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, any comment by someone with "retired" by their rank should be considered 100% marketing for someone.

Second,

"IOC" doesn't mean dick. "IOC" is a set of criteria established by the program office used as a milestone and a bunch of DoD reviews on whether to continue/not continue the program. DOT&E tests to those points and says "IOC". One would need to look at the IOC criteria to see what capability was actually delivered.

For example, IOC in the past has been to simply have a squadron of aircraft with enough qualified aircrew to operate...no implied combat capability there at all (incidentally...pretty close to the USMC definition of IOC for the F-35). For a further example, Hawkeye 2000 did 2 combat cruises before OpEval was started...so it was somewhere in the middle of the 4th deployment that IOC was reached.

Sponge

I thought one of the big rushes with weapons was to get them combat ready by IOC

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, any comment by someone with "retired" by their rank should be considered 100% marketing for someone.

Second,

"IOC" doesn't mean dick. "IOC" is a set of criteria established by the program office used as a milestone and a bunch of DoD reviews on whether to continue/not continue the program.

You clearly don't work in acquisition, or if you do, you have a criminally poor understanding of the roles of the acquirer versus the warfighter.

The program office does NOT set IOC. It is set by the operational requirements community, who fall under CJCSI 3170, versus the acquisition community who operate under DoD 5000.2. DoD reviews largely look after the acquisition activities, as the warfighter community basically sits back a and waits for the product to be developed before they decide if it meets the need or not.

All that said, yes, IOC means dick because it will be reset and redefined for political reasons and whims in a New York second. Look at the B-1B "IOC" in March of '84 because Reagan said IOC would be in March of '84. JSF has done much better, tying to a capability rather than a date, but the continual slide to the right is pretty embarrassing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, any comment by someone with "retired" by their rank should be considered 100% marketing for someone.

Agreed 100% but since he also sits on the board of a key JSF subcontractor as well as working for BA, I figured the biases cancelled each other out and he could now be taken at face value (instead of simply being written off as just another money-grubbing marketing hack).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought one of the big rushes with weapons was to get them combat ready by IOC

As has been discussed multiple times, the definition of IOC varies for each program. Many pundits have suggested that the IOC definition for the F-35 has intentionally been lowered by certain services for PR reasons. IOC (by the Marines' standard) means that they can cobble enough aircraft together to fly basic training missions. No expectation of getting anywhere near a war zone.

Does the F-35 meet it's IOC requirements? Apparently yes. Does that mean it could be dropping bombs tomorrow (or next year)? No chance. Even when it finally reaches that basic milestone, it would be in a very limited role. Fogleman might be a PR hack but when he said it would be early next decade before the F-35 is truly ready to go to war, he wasn't lying. Of course that assumes no further slippages on the final software version.

I'd suggest that many of the current F-35 pilots will have retired before their aircraft are truly combat ready.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So rather than speculate...

Marine Corps F-35B IOC shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 10-16 aircraft, and US Marines are trained, manned, and equipped 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. Based on the current F-35 JPO schedule, the F-35B will reach the IOC milestone between July 2015 (Objective) and December 2015 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience changes or delays, this estimate will be revised appropriately.
IOC (by the Marines' standard) means that they can cobble enough aircraft together to fly basic training missions. No expectation of getting anywhere near a war zone.

So, CAS, OCA/DCA, AI, MAGTAF support and deployment, etc. are "basic training missions"? While they really won't be deployed in a war zone, by the above they could. Just like F-22s are dropping bombs and shooting down MiGs today... :rolleyes:/>

As for Fogleman, he absolutely just another money-grubbing marketing hack. And a smart guy. He knows the JSF business is solid, not going away. So why not drum up some Boeing business too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fogleman might be a PR hack but when he said it would be early next decade before the F-35 is truly ready to go to war, he wasn't lying.

The Ten years thing in this case is specific to Korea, I believe.

Not to fight another definition war, but a limited F-35 will still be capable, and for the USMC combat capable and more so than a harrier. Will it be 10 years before everything is 100 percent integrated, all weapons cleared to use, and new features like additional AMRAAMs etc? yes. but in a few years the USMC is going to be willing to use it in combat, whether its perfectly 100 percent of all bells and all whistles ready or not.

Marine Corps F-35B IOC shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 10-16 aircraft, and US Marines are trained, manned, and equipped 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. Based on the current F-35 JPO schedule, the F-35B will reach the IOC milestone between July 2015 (Objective) and December 2015 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience changes or delays, this estimate will be revised appropriately.

This is what I was thinking with IOC, thank you.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

but in a few years the USMC is going to be willing to use it in combat, whether its perfectly 100 percent of all bells and all whistles ready or not.

You are probably correct (as long as the next opponent is the Taliban or some similar bunch).

Fingers crossed...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are probably correct (as long as the next opponent is the Taliban or some similar bunch).

Fingers crossed...

equipped 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.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually they just did this less than 3 weeks ago for MAGTF. I was surprised they even played in the game much less did anything usefull. The next year has VMFA-121 flying their butts of up to amd including training VMFA-501. Things are looking up for the F-35 IOC wise as they continue to train. We also noe have 14 of our 16 jets for 121.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You clearly don't work in acquisition, or if you do, you have a criminally poor understanding of the roles of the acquirer versus the warfighter.

The program office does NOT set IOC. It is set by the operational requirements community, who fall under CJCSI 3170, versus the acquisition community who operate under DoD 5000.2. DoD reviews largely look after the acquisition activities, as the warfighter community basically sits back a and waits for the product to be developed before they decide if it meets the need or not.

All that said, yes, IOC means dick because it will be reset and redefined for political reasons and whims in a New York second. Look at the B-1B "IOC" in March of '84 because Reagan said IOC would be in March of '84. JSF has done much better, tying to a capability rather than a date, but the continual slide to the right is pretty embarrassing.

Mark, thx for jumping my butt there...so let me restate.. in my program, our sponsors came to us and said we want x capability, but we have x amount of money and we need to field something by x date...what can we get on that date? After consulting with our industry partners and other stakeholders such at the (both D and O) test community, we said "we can get you Y on that date" and thus IOC was defined in the requirements documents (which, btw, we wrote in the program office and handed to the sponsors). From my experience the warfighter (hate that term, btw) representatives and the program office essentially function as one team, talk daily, when called to Congress it seems the program side does all of the talking recently and they (RO's) go with us when we talk to the AT&L folks as opposed to them sitting from afar hoping we get it right. So, yes, I was wrong and will be returning to DAU to remediate myself.

That said, my point is still valid that "IOC" by itself does not imply the article will be "combat capable" (what ever that is).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually they just did this less than 3 weeks ago for MAGTF. I was surprised they even played in the game much less did anything usefull. The next year has VMFA-121 flying their butts of up to amd including training VMFA-501. Things are looking up for the F-35 IOC wise as they continue to train. We also noe have 14 of our 16 jets for 121.

-211 is up next...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, thx for jumping my butt there...so let me restate.. in my program, our sponsors came to us and said we want x capability, but we have x amount of money and we need to field something by x date...what can we get on that date? After consulting with our industry partners and other stakeholders such at the (both D and O) test community, we said "we can get you Y on that date" and thus IOC was defined in the requirements documents (which, btw, we wrote in the program office and handed to the sponsors). From my experience the warfighter (hate that term, btw) representatives and the program office essentially function as one team, talk daily, when called to Congress it seems the program side does all of the talking recently and they (RO's) go with us when we talk to the AT&L folks as opposed to them sitting from afar hoping we get it right. So, yes, I was wrong and will be returning to DAU to remediate myself.

That said, my point is still valid that "IOC" by itself does not imply the article will be "combat capable" (what ever that is).

Thank goodness you clarified that. I was afraid the next thing you'd say was operational requirements are really written by contractors who wave glossy brochures of the next impossible toy in front of the 0-4/0-5 zipper suits and tell them "sure, we can deliver that!"

IOC doesn't mean combat capable, huh, smart guy?

MARIETTA, Ga., December 15, 2005 -- Lockheed Martin’s [NYSE: LMT] F-22A Raptor, the world’s only 5th generation fighter aircraft, surpassed a monumental milestone today when the United States Air Force declared that the Raptor has reached initial operational capability.

General Ronald E. Keys, Commander of Air Combat Command, made the historic announcement at Langley Air Force Base, Va., from a Raptor hangar near his headquarters. “The F-22A fulfills a long quest to bring 5th generation capabilities of stealth, supercruise, and precision to the warfighter today and for decades to come,” said General Keys in an Air Force news release. “If we go to war tomorrow, the Raptor will go with us.”

What about all those Raptor combat sorties over Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya? Some would argue it turned the tide in all three of those conflicts.

Or that I'm cynically making stuff up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You clearly don't work in acquisition, or if you do, you have a criminally poor understanding of the roles of the acquirer versus the warfighter.

Watch your spurs there... Sponge's response to you in a later post if pretty spot on (and representative of a lot of ghost writing at the PM level that turns into acquisition guidance for a program...no matter what set of OSD or DoD guidance in use).

Collin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...