F-35 news roundup

[Berkut]

I would be, since they weren't. Flying with a metal radome makes no sense since you'd need to qualify a non metallic. As for loading, the horizontal stabs would see much higher loading under maneuvers than the vertical stabs (pitch vs yaw).

Just seems odd since usually if the more stressful case is composite, the less stressful case is too.

First two have metal nose, after that all of them have composite/radar transparent since radar started to be fitted from third and on. Pretty sure YF-23 had metal nose. And again, since you know engineering seemingly better than sukhoi, email them your concerns about their lack of knowledge on load design: info@sukhoi.ru

It's always baffled me why certain parties have complained about the F-35's "capabilities", something they know very little, if nothing, about (other than, that's how they make their money at the presses, accurate or not, and generally not).

Replace F-35 with any plane but the answer remains the same. Ignorance and arrogance.

[MarkW]

Well, since the vertical stabs are significantly smaller than the horizontal stabs, the maximum loading they can see will be significantly smaller. You don't need a degree in engineering to see that.

I've been politely questioning the accuracy of your claim about what parts are metal and composite because they don't make sense, but apparently was too subtle.

And no, it doesn't have anything to do with western versus eastern design philosophy, since the laws of physics are universal.

[Berkut]

Mark, i answered in T-50 topic in research corner. Enough off-topic in here.

[DutyCat]

"What is that?"

I am assuming that the T might stand for prototype, and when the aircraft goes into serial production, it will receive a traditional SU designation.

"I sincerely doubt you know anything about T-50's electronics."

Of course not. My statement is simply based on what is generally known about Russian electronics/computer software capabilities vs American. My impression is that the American stuff has been a generation beyond the Russian stuff for a long time, and so far as I know, there has been no change in that status. The Russians have tried to make up for it by emphasizing raw power...high power to weight ratios, massive engines, and higher kinetic energy of weapons. Maybe all that has changed, and the T-50 will be a world beater, but given the amount of effort/money that has gone into the F-35's avionics/software development, I would be surprised.

"Is it now? "

I guess. I have heard of no other, but then again my finger is not on the pulse of the Russian aerospace industry.

Edited February 16, 2014 by DutyCat

[Berkut]

Generally speaking i don't disagree with statement that russian electronics lags behind american or for example French standards. But i wouldn't quickly disregard their ability either, just because of that. MiG-25 for instance is a well known example (not reflecting current status in any way of course) of lagging technology and yet achieve rather decent results in all the things it was designed to do. MiG-31's Zaslon radar was easily the most powerful out there until APG-77 (!!!) became online. Su-35S' radar is also not half bad...

And random quiz question, what aircraft holds the record for longest distance air-to-air kill, by far? Or who got BWR capability first, F-16 or MiG-29? ;) Etc. T-50 has a great number of interesting sensors all around the frame, not to mention 5 radars 3 of which do tracking/lock on.

As to earlier fifth generation prototypes, google MiG-1.44/Su-47.

[MarkW]

Enough off-topic in here.

Any time now...

Seriously, I have no idea what your background is or what connections you have to the aerospace industry. But do expect to be challenged when you post something that is either flat out wrong, or doesn't make any sense--especially when dealing with people who do have the right backgrounds.

This is a forum for discussion, and hopefully passing on some knowledge. If discussion is too burdensome, then perhaps you should consider more what you throw out as fact.

[Berkut]

Pretty much anything i state i am ready to support with facts, as i did in T-50 thread. You simply doubting is not anywhere on equal field. You doubted the grey=composites claim but have not supported it with anything, i knew i shouldn't have tried to give you a response as you have made up your mind before asking the questions.

[TaiidanTomcat]

That card isn't working like it use to. The save the F-22 and the hundred thousand or so jobs spread across most of the states didn't work out to well and current refit/upgrade programs like the M1 and Global Hawk programs are both back in the sights of the DOD bean counters.

Its not secret that the US Army has been trying to get out of the upgrade refit program for years-- guess who isn't letting them stop?

From 2012:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/army-to-congress-thanks-but-no-tanks/

From 2013:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/28/army-says-no-to-more-tanks-but-congress-insists/

From (almost) 2014:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/12/10/Money-added-to-defense-budget-to-keep-lima-tank-plant-open.html

2014:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-end-of-the-tank-the-army-says-it-doesnt-need-it-but-industry-wants-to-keep-building-it/2014/01/31/c11e5ee0-60f0-11e3-94ad-004fefa61ee6_story.html

Global hawk:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140126/DEFREG02/301260027/Global-Hawk-Wins-2015-Request-Sources-Say

The CAPES program? Job loss, but LM isn't saying much about that because they'll reshuffle their people much like what happened when the JSF didn't get the 2nd engine.

the F136? The engine made by General Electric?

[Berkut]

Yeah indeed. Army badly doesn't want that M1 upgrade. So yeah, MoD is bean counting, and they want to use those beans on more important programs that are actually needed.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Yeah indeed. Army badly doesn't want that M1 upgrade. So yeah, MoD is bean counting, and they want to use those beans on more important programs that are actually needed.

Here is the issue as highlighted in other threads and shown well by the Abrams upgrades. What has happened is the Military has specifically asked to stop or retire something, in order to free up funds for other more useful projects. And they are not being allowed to do that. The USAF tried to get rid of the A-10 and the interwebz lost its mind, and politicians who I am sure to a man would agree there have to be cuts,difficult and painful cuts but didn't want to cut that And a lot of that has to do with them wanting to protect the A-10 units in their districts and areas of responsibility. Its has little to do with the A-10s decreased utility and specialist nature.

Talking about cuts is not making cuts. And thats the problem. all the shot callers want someone else to make the cuts and someone else to feel the pain. The people in uniform are being told to make cuts, they then suggest cuts, and then are told "no not that, cut something else" then the process begins anew.

I wish it was about making cuts to afford more useful stuff. I would bet on that Abrams line continuing...

[fulcrum1]

Its not secret that the US Army has been trying to get out of the upgrade refit program for years-- guess who isn't letting them stop?

The pork man only has to worry about one year at a time. Where did you hear the Army is getting out refurbishing their junk? Only on certain platforms and those systems will either get it down the road or are planned to get the full axe. Almost all of the Army/USMC equipment has been and will be undergoing the largest upgrade/refit/depot service the DOD's ever done, this started around FY09 for the Army and couple years before that for the Marines. The insider ball I stated was that both programs are still in the sights of the budget hounds, after it was already made perfectly clear that both programs were to stay alive. Every year around this time the DOD preps their budget for the upcoming FY and when parts of it leak, lobbyist start earning the millions they get paid. Uncle Sugga's about to close the pocket book in a way we've never seen before and when that happens on top of the issues that FY16 brings the real pain begins. Benefits, Pensions, BRAC, JSF, Troop Readiness, Carrier Group size, OCONUS obligations, Procurement/Acquisitions, etc are all going to be affected in quantifiable ways. The only way for our military to get back on track is to make the pain happen quick and fast and rebuild the force with whatever the new norm will look like.

[fulcrum1]

the F136? The engine made by General Electric?

That sounds about right, my attention span goes up for things that fly during meetings and briefings. I read later in the news none of the engineers got the axe GE said they were going to get and the only thing it did fail to bring was the promise of new jobs.

[MarkW]

Notice how the cut to retiree's pensions, which lasted all of 2 months, suddenly became a "bill" that had to be paid with something else? The second a cut is made, right or wrong, promise to service members or not, it instantly comes off the bottom line and restoring a terrible budgetary mistake suddenly becomes a "bill" to the taxpayers.

We saw what happened last year when sequestration hit. Investment accounts like the F-35 were NOT hit, but the personnel side of the house took a hammering. There is no reason to think that won't continue as the services are further budget constrained, and essentially boxed in to not cut major programs.

[fulcrum1]

Here is the issue as highlighted in other threads and shown well by the Abrams upgrades. What has happened is the Military has specifically asked to stop or retire something, in order to free up funds for other more useful projects. And they are not being allowed to do that. The USAF tried to get rid of the A-10 and the interwebz lost its mind, and politicians who I am sure to a man would agree there have to be cuts,difficult and painful cuts but didn't want to cut that And a lot of that has to do with them wanting to protect the A-10 units in their districts and areas of responsibility. Its has little to do with the A-10s decreased utility and specialist nature.

Talking about cuts is not making cuts. And thats the problem. all the shot callers want someone else to make the cuts and someone else to feel the pain. The people in uniform are being told to make cuts, they then suggest cuts, and then are told "no not that, cut something else" then the process begins anew.

I wish it was about making cuts to afford more useful stuff. :bandhead2:/> I would bet on that Abrams line continuing...

The Abrams line was never getting the cut, instead, the funding to upgrade and refit the tanks was being pushed to CY17 and the newer M1A3 will still roll out sometime after the realignment and all the budget kinks were worked out around 2020.

As for the A-10, the Sequestration will hasten its end, but the AF spin machine should have waited until after retrograde ops were done in Afghanistan this summer. Bad PR move on their part.

[TaiidanTomcat]

That sounds about right, my attention span goes up for things that fly during meetings and briefings. I read later in the news none of the engineers got the axe GE said they were going to get and the only thing it did fail to bring was the promise of new jobs.

That does kind of nullify your point though

[11bee]

The only way for our military to get back on track is to make the pain happen quick and fast and rebuild the force with whatever the new norm will look like.

The only problem is that the military doesn't quite seem to know what it wants the new norm to look like. Should it be able to fight two major conflicts at the same time or just one big one and send some troops to act as speed bumps to the other. Or just give up that concept entirely. Does it really need to possess more strategic nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined or could it gut it's aresnal of nukes and strategic delivery systems and just retain enough to keep the MAD concept viable? Should the Army (and to a lesser extent the Marines) be prepared to fight a major conventional war or just Afghanistan 2.0? Do we have any compelling reason to have ground troops and tactical aircraft stationed in Europe? Do we need a major naval presence in the Atlantic?

It seems like the military is struggling to define it's relevance. Until it figures things out, it looks like it's just cutting away with no real thought to the consequences. That's why I tend to laugh when I hear about how we are going to have thousands of F-35's buzzing around. The country is pretty much out of cash. The worst of the cuts haven't even started and if anyone thinks the F-35 will get through this unscathed, I think they are dreaming. The program is too big and too far along to kill entirely but it's also too big not to take some significant hits.

Edited February 16, 2014 by 11bee

[fulcrum1]

How so?

[Crazy Snap Captain]

How so?

As an economist with a very large multinational corporation, my job often requires me to look at where we can save cash. The first thing you do is look at the big ticket capital items. As soon as you even look at the big ticket items, stakeholders of said items get their back up and speak of the impending doom that will occur if even a single cent is taken out. More often than not they are asking for more cash to increase scope for unforeseen factors. But here is the truth of the matter:

Everyone is looking after their own interests and personal empire building is scorched into human DNA. There's fat in every project. The bigger the project, the bigger the fat content. I've investigated countless projects and done the verification of number and the one constant is sandbagging. There's an old Greek saying that translated states - Every pig looks after their own snout. Same with humans. Only problem is, there's a butcher out looking for the fattest pig.

Cuts need to be made. The US is running out of cash. Whether it's in numbers or operational scope/capability, the F-35 will feel it as it's such a massive spend item.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Crazy Snap Captain

[fulcrum1]

The only problem is that the military doesn't quite seem to know what it wants the new norm to look like.

There are very smart people who have been working on just that for the past several years to avoid what happened after every single major war since WWII.

Should it be able to fight two major conflicts at the same time or just one big one and send some troops to act as speed bumps to the other. Or just give up that concept entirely. Does it really need to possess more strategic nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined or could it gut it's aresnal of nukes and strategic delivery systems and just retain enough to keep the MAD concept viable? Should the Army (and to a lesser extent the Marines) be prepared to fight a major conventional war or just Afghanistan 2.0? Do we have any compelling reason to have ground troops and tactical aircraft stationed in Europe? Do we need a major naval presence in the Atlantic?

Just in the last two years I have heard someone bring up every issue you just mentioned. How's it going to work it out? I don't know, really depends on who we get in '16. In any case, wherever we're told to go or do we'll be taking the best equipped and most lethal military, ever.

It seems like the military is struggling to define it's relevance. Until it figures things out, it looks like it's just cutting away with no real thought to the consequences.

Every cut has a consequence and a sea of field grades and SGMs stuck in rooms working on it day after day, and none of them are laughing because in the end its going to affect Joe and its all in the back of our minds. The relevance is easy to define by the shear amount we're being used which has been more than ever.

[82Whitey51]

60 Min just ran this story:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-60-minutes/

[TaiidanTomcat]

The only problem is that the military doesn't quite seem to know what it wants the new norm to look like. Should it be able to fight two major conflicts at the same time or just one big one and send some troops to act as speed bumps to the other. Or just give up that concept entirely

.

The Military feels differently. The USMC for better or worst has thrown itself whole hog back to its roots of wearing snazzy uniforms and floating around on ships. And thats just for services/branches of service that went whole hog on the GWoT. For others not a whole lot changed.

Does it really need to possess more strategic nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined or could it gut it's aresnal of nukes and strategic delivery systems and just retain enough to keep the MAD concept viable?

The MAD concept died with disco. (some will argue even well before that) so no.

Should the Army (and to a lesser extent the Marines) be prepared to fight a major conventional war or just Afghanistan 2.0?

The Marines have been small war experts from way back, the Army for 50 years focused on giant division and corps level clashes for decades and it will probably get back to that ASAP. I'm hoping we avoid afghanistan 2.0s for at least 20 years. I don't think anyone in the service the last 10 years is aching for another one of those.

The 1970's playbook was all about focusing in europe. The pacific pivot should give an idea about what the plan is now.

Do we have any compelling reason to have ground troops and tactical aircraft stationed in Europe?

yes

Do we need a major naval presence in the Atlantic?

Yes.

It seems like the military is struggling to define it's relevance. Until it figures things out, it looks like it's just cutting away with no real thought to the consequences.

On the contrary, the USAF and other services have made some seriously deep considerations to trade offs and cost vs benefit. As I said, those recommendations have been largely ignored by DC Civilian authorities in charge. Which might be why you have the impression its all horribly mismanaged, aimless, and without much fore thought...

That's why I tend to laugh when I hear about how we are going to have thousands of F-35's buzzing around.

We have thousands of airplanes flying around now. even with cuts I don't think you realize just how many fighter class aircraft the US possesses. Across 3 services its not that crazy

the F-35 line will go on for decades. The economy may not actually suck forever. The problem with LRIP aircraft is that they cost more than FRP aircraft. getting through the LRIP phase to get to the FRP price is the real challenge. Once it get to FRP the JSF will be an easy seller.

The country is pretty much out of cash. The worst of the cuts haven't even started and if anyone thinks the F-35 will get through this unscathed, I think they are dreaming.

I think long term when it gets into service and the savings start to get realized, and it starts to make life easier all around, and the cost comes down to was is expected, and it starts to become a lot cheaper to operate than a bunch of sickly teen fighters, that yes it will continue to get orders. Things looked fairly grim in the 1970s for the F-16, 3000 was hopelessly optomistic... how did that work out anyway?

The program is too big and too far along to kill entirely but it's also too big not to take some significant hits.

Its a long, long game. Buys may be reduced and then made up later on there may be lean years and fat years depending on budgets. More countries will order them as time goes on beyond those that are already signed on. Batches of the F-35Bs may be ordered by the many countries that have F-35As planned, and light carriers in their future. The list goes on. It may actually seem like total insanity but even the numbers projected now, I feel will be surpassed over time, not reduced. when you have a line that goes on for 2 or 3 decades, the possibilities increase.

BTWs, since this thread started in 2010, does the JSF have more countries signed on or fewer?

The F-35 is going to be successful for all the reasons you lay out actually. do you think it makes BRAC easier when you centralize training and support in a few bases instead of many? Do you think it saves on maint. cost when everyone can take advantage of a large supply chain? Fewer logistics bases and personnel? The USMC is predicting 5,000 fewer Marines and officers thanks to necking down. So fewer mouths to feed as troop numbers get cut.

not to sound like an LM spokesperson but at one point the F-35 actually becomes the cheaper option. The smaller need for money, manpower, and logistics, will make it more attractive, not less.

I remember telling one of my buddies who was hesitant about the osprey "At one point its going to be safer just because the safety of the -46 is going to get worse and worse as it gets older. at one point those curves are going to meet and pass each other in opposite directions"

to break it down real simple like, the other airplanes will get more expensive to use, and the JSF will get cheaper to use. At one point those to curves meet and pass each other in opposite directions.

Edited February 17, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat

[11bee]

.

The MAD concept died with disco. (some will argue even well before that) so no.

The Marines have been small war experts from way back, the Army for 50 years focused on giant division and corps level clashes for decades and it will probably get back to that ASAP. I'm hoping we avoid afghanistan 2.0s for at least 20 years. I don't think anyone in the service the last 10 years is aching for another one of those.

The 1970's playbook was all about focusing in europe. The pacific pivot should give an idea about what the plan is now.

yes

not to sound like an LM spokesperson

Just a few comments -

MAD died out but do we not still have the same basic policy? We've got more nukes than everyone else combined so don't launch at us or we'll turn your homeland to glass. My question was - do we need that many ultra-expensive weapons systems or can they be parred down significantly? Why do we need the nuclear triad anymore? Could we not eliminate ICBM's and depend on bombers and Trident subs to keep the world properly terrified of our nuclear might?

If the army gets back to it's roots (corp sized mech / armor clashes), what purpose is that going to service when we re-orient to the Pacific? Not exactly the same terrain as the Fulda Gap. Unless we plan on invading China, it seems that the "Pacific pivot" would require mostly light / airmobile infantry (kinda like the Marines).

Out of idle curiosity, why do you feel that we should be spending money we don't have on forward basing of ground troops and tactical jets in Europe? Why not keep a few "bare-bases" that could be used if we ever had another threat to Europe. Keep our airlift assets in place but pull combat forces out. Or at minimum, if they are really serving some useful purpose, have our allies kick in more money to keep them in place.

I'm sure if we asked the UK, Germany and/or Italy to pay a truly significant amount for the privilege of having US troops stationed in their countries, they would probably tell us to hit the road (after they stopped laughing).

As far as sounding like an LM spokesperson... I've often suggested that you would have a great career in PR / sales with that fine organization.

[TaiidanTomcat]

MAD died out but do we not still have the same basic policy?

No not at all. For obvious reasons should the worst happen its not in the US's best interests and world opinion for the US to turn a country into glass. We still take knocks for hiroshima and nagasaki and that was during the worlds biggest war ever. if a certain mideast or southeast asian nation hit us or an allie with such a weapon, restraint would be expected.

We've got more nukes than everyone else combined so don't launch at us or we'll turn your homeland to glass. My question was - do we need that many ultra-expensive weapons systems or can they be parred down significantly? Why do we need the nuclear triad anymore? Could we not eliminate ICBM's and depend on bombers and Trident subs to keep the world properly terrified of our nuclear might?

The nuclear stuff is a long story. Its basically been well neglected given the current priorities, and I am more than willing to bet that the cost of dismantling nukes far outweighs the cost of just keeping them around. I talked to an Engineer who said there was about a 10 year back up of dismantled weapons to get through as it is.

Its a big political subject as well.

If the army gets back to it's roots (corp sized mech / armor clashes), what purpose is that going to service when we re-orient to the Pacific?

Korea will probably be the new Germany.

Not exactly the same terrain as the Fulda Gap. Unless we plan on invading China, it seems that the "Pacific pivot" would require mostly light / airmobile infantry (kinda like the Marines).

Time to cut the army.

Out of idle curiosity, why do you feel that we should be spending money we don't have on forward basing of ground troops and tactical jets in Europe? Why not keep a few "bare-bases" that could be used if we ever had another threat to Europe. Keep our airlift assets in place but pull combat forces out. Or at minimum, if they are really serving some useful purpose, have our allies kick in more money to keep them in place.

We have spent an awful lot of money on military infrastructure in europe. Europe is still a vital hub for all of our middle east shenanigans. We have new NATO countries joining along with NATO commitments. Not even 15 years ago we were attacking Serbia from European bases, less than 3 years ago we were attacking Libya. NATO like it or not is still worth investing in. Lastly, and this is a hard lesson. If you are going to put troops somewhere abroad, you better give them the firepower they need to protect themselves. If you don't want to pay that bill, then don't send them.

I can only imagine the kind of heat that those "damn beancounters" would get if we pulled all combat forces away from a base to save money and then it suffered an attack that caused mass casualties and destruction.

I'm sure if we asked the UK, Germany and/or Italy to pay a truly significant amount for the privilege of having US troops stationed in their countries, they would probably tell us to hit the road (after they stopped laughing).

Its a symbiotic relationship, its not all one sided.

As far as sounding like an LM spokesperson... I've often suggested that you would have a great career in PR / sales with that fine organization.

Its just reality, when it comes time to cut, they will cut the older sickly planes that were bound to replaced anyway, and try and get as many of the new planes as possible.

The absolute worst mistake anyone could make, is to think that the F-35 line is going to be like the F-22 line. Open for a couple hundred planes then dunzo. Its not going to be like that. You are going to have 3 services and multiple countries pulling from their budgets for decades. It won't be a "well we got out 400, shut it down bob" operation. You are welcome to try and prove me wrong, but as I said more countries are signing on, not fewer. Stopping F-35 production prematurely does not stop the demand for the F-35 to replace the teen series. More countries will sign on as well, they just don't want to put up with any of the BS right now. Spain will probably jump in around the mid to late 2020's. In all honesty did you think the Osprey would ever reach 200? 300? 400 units in its dark days? Think it would ever get to service at all? Think when it got to service it would be so expensive to operate it would be impossible to use? Go take a look at the earlier pages in this thread especially the F-35B. no chance right?

The JSF is an incredible contradiction. Its the plane that "no one wants" that more people pile onto buy. "its a terrible aircraft" that the pilots love. I have been hearing for years its on the verge of cancellation, yet it remains. It will never be built, yet the numbers increase by the year. Now its going to be bought just in much smaller numbers. Sure. why not?

Welcome back to the navel gazing 1990s, briefly interrupted by a 13 year war on terror. Its not the military's job to throw up their hands and go "cut it all no moar moneiez!!" Its their job to make the most of the budgets they have and will have in the future. They are going to try and cut the old to make room for the new. And if it means retiring whole fleets, then that is what they will do. The JSF will probably be extremely well protected though. Not everything is going to be cut equally. Some things will be untouched, others will be cut completely. New assets will be well protected. especially a Tri service asset. This won't be the USN grumbling about the USAFs new bomber

[11bee]

The nuclear stuff is a long story. Its basically been well neglected given the current priorities, and I am more than willing to bet that the cost of dismantling nukes far outweighs the cost of just keeping them around. I talked to an Engineer who said there was about a 10 year back up of dismantled weapons to get through as it is.

Korea will probably be the new Germany.

Time to cut the army.

So we also have a critical need to upgrade all of our neglected strategic systems? Glad money is still free flowing, that sounds terribly expensive.

There is a backup to decommission nuclear warheads but do you really think that the cost to scrap the entire ICBM force outweighs the savings? Plus it's only a matter of time before one of those poor "Missileers" goes postal. We'd be doing them all a favor.

S Korea is the new Germany but the problem is that you can't fit a full US Army corps over there (and even if you could, the South Koreans would not want them). Plus, as I noted, a good portion of the country is not exactly ideal mech terrain.

So maybe it is time to drastically cut the Army. One has to give credit where it is due. The Marines are much more savy and will never be subject to truly deep cuts, despite the fact that many believe their amphibious mission to be obsolete. The cold war is over, Afghanistan will thankfully be done in the near future and it seems like the Army has just now realized that their "core competencies" don't seem to have much relevance post-2014.

[MarkW]

As much as I love off topic pontificating...there is actually news:

Pentagon to trim plans for F-35 jet order

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pentagon-to-trim-plans-for-f-35-jet-order/2014/02/16/2310f400-974c-11e3-8461-8a24c7bf0653_story.html

Although the budget request will be down from the 42 fighters the Defense Department had projected it would buy next year, it’s an increase from the 29 the Pentagon requested and Congress approved for the current fiscal year.

In Soviet Russia, F-35 cuts YOU!! Even when it takes a hit, it still came out 5 jets up. That's and exchange ratio that proves F-35 Air Dominance!