F-35 news roundup

[Don]

Unless they traded spots with somebody about 2 years from order to delivery. The plan is to replace the CF-18 starting in earnest at around 2020 I believe.

Thanks for the info TT. But WOW:o...there really isn't a lot of time to dilly-dally in Canada!!! The longer it takes to COMMITT and FINALLY decide on a Hornet replacement the longer the cue might be I would imagine (regardless if its the F-35 or whatever). Those Hornets are already stretched to the max according to former/current RCAF Hornet drivers or handlers around here. I mean DECIDE already...

[82Whitey51]

"Well, that'll about cover the "Slam Canada" flybys."

Not bashing Canada, I am Canadian, family is from P.E.I., just saying they don't need to sweat their defense budget all that much.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Thanks for the info TT. But WOW:o...there really isn't a lot of time to dilly-dally in Canada!!! The longer it takes to COMMITT and FINALLY decide on a Hornet replacement the longer the cue might be I would imagine (regardless if its the F-35 or whatever). Those Hornets are already stretched to the max according to former/current RCAF Hornet drivers or handlers around here. I mean DECIDE already...

:cheers:/>

There is a lot of weird paradoxes. An actual honest to Guinness Competition will take 3-5 years to run. At which point the Super Hornet may not even be an option. in fact with the Kuwaiti super hornet deal looking dead there is a year long gap between the USN purchasing Super Hornets in 2016, and 2018, but not 2017. So there is going to some real fireworks. You can't shut a line down for a year and restart it, and not expect the price and other thing not to go sideways.

[TaiidanTomcat]

"Well, that'll about cover the "Slam Canada" flybys."

[Trigger]

[MarkW]

Keep in mind the long lead contracts are a 3 or so year process.

[TaiidanTomcat]

in other news, Super Hornet hits 77.8 million flyaway according to official Navy FY17 budget Documents. Price is going up-- great timing Canada!

Edited February 24, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[B2Blain]

I am building a Kittyhawk F-35C at this moment. I am going to use Super Hornet external fuel tanks, but I find it strange that they are not as yet operational as far I can tell.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=16709&t=1

I realize that in medium to high threat environments you do not want to carry external fuel tanks, but most combat mission since the initial days of Iraqi Freedom have been carried out in a permissible environment. If these planes are being cleared to carry external bomb load then you would think that external fuel tanks would also be carried since its range isn't that much farther than an F-16 or SH.

But maybe there are bigger fish to fry right now - like getting it to IOC - and combat ready which apparently are not necessarily the same thing.

[-Neu-]

I am building a Kittyhawk F-35C at this moment. I am going to use Super Hornet external fuel tanks, but I find it strange that they are not as yet operational as far I can tell.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=16709&t=1

I realize that in medium to high threat environments you do not want to carry external fuel tanks, but most combat mission since the initial days of Iraqi Freedom have been carried out in a permissible environment. If these planes are being cleared to carry external bomb load then you would think that external fuel tanks would also be carried since its range isn't that much farther than an F-16 or SH.

No, its significantly longer. A F/A-18F with four mk83/GBU-32s (2000lbs) has a rough combat radius of 400NM: the F-35C's with 4000lbs of internal ordnance is 610NM... with 2000 its probably around 650~700nm region.

[11bee]

But maybe there are bigger fish to fry right now - like getting it to IOC - and combat ready which apparently are not necessarily the same thing.

We are there! IOC was declared ages ago.

[TaiidanTomcat]

We are there! IOC was declared ages ago.

It's probably best we don't talk about the current USMC platforms that are combat limited for various reasons, and just pile on the F-35.

The DOT&E have a reputation as some of the world's greatest warriors, they have been at war for 15 years straight, and have been involved in combat avaition for nearly a century, so when they speak those pencil pushing bureaucrat Marines had better listen.

My standards are pretty low I guess, harriers are combat capable, and like to get lost on floats and crash into houses stateside. I'll grant you the F-35B can't do a few things that The "full combat ready" harrier can at the moment, but just the not crashing and killing its own people is pretty good for now along with being able to fight should it be called to do so. A lot of people whining about F-35 limitations that apply to other aircraft while ignoring what the F-35 brings that others cant do.

[MarkW]

We are years away from having an operational external fuel tank on this aircraft. The block 4 emphasis was on getting external weapons certified.

Edited February 26, 2016 by MarkW

[11bee]

It's probably best we don't talk about the current USMC platforms that are combat limited for various reasons, and just pile on the F-35.

The DOT&E have a reputation as some of the world's greatest warriors, they have been at war for 15 years straight, and have been involved in combat avaition for nearly a century, so when they speak those pencil pushing bureaucrat Marines had better listen.

My standards are pretty low I guess, harriers are combat capable, and like to get lost on floats and crash into houses stateside. I'll grant you the F-35B can't do a few things that The "full combat ready" harrier can at the moment, but just the not crashing and killing its own people is pretty good for now along with being able to fight should it be called to do so. A lot of people whining about F-35 limitations that apply to other aircraft while ignoring what the F-35 brings that others cant do.

Good points but I'm just not sure we can trust the Marines to take care of something as expensive and complicated as an F-35. Look what they did to their Sh*tter fleet.

http://pilotonline.com/news/military/nation/super-stallion-helicopters-worn-out-after-years-of-war-internal/article_21ac9e27-b678-5f64-ae46-be5c33f65755.html

Maybe a better idea to assign those F-35B's to the Army?

As far as DOT&E being out of touch, are you really insinuating that they are incompetent? Did they raise even a single valid point or is the JSF truly now a fault-free program?

[TaiidanTomcat]

As far as DOT&E being out of touch, are you really insinuating that they are incompetent? Did they raise even a single valid point or is the JSF truly now a fault-free program?

They basically said the Marines needed to do more shipboard testing, and they felt it wasn't IOC until that was done. The Marines said they didn't have the funding to do the tests the DOT&E wanted (maybe take some from DOT&E budget? or would it be wrong to using testing oversight budget for testing?) Marines declared IOC, using their judgement. DOT&E recommendations being ignored by the Marines has lead many people to balk at the whole thing. POGO took the DOT&E report and wrote about it, and the DOT&E report is being used to beat up on the Marines and the Program in general. My point is that maybe people should let the operators operate, despite what unaffordable tests the non-uniform paperclip armada would like to have seen to give them their warm fuzzies.

Its not news that the -53 fleet is jacked up. 15 years of war will do that to you. They were pulling frames from the boneyard and all of HMX-1s -53s went back to the fleet.

only F-35 readiness is really news worthy anyway, what do we care about legacy platforms that are hurting if they are not F-35s? Everyone knows the legacy platforms are cheaper and more reliable

[11bee]

Its not news that the -53 fleet is jacked up. 15 years of war will do that to you. They were pulling frames from the boneyard and all of HMX-1s -53s went back to the fleet.

only F-35 readiness is really news worthy anyway, what do we care about legacy platforms that are hurting if they are not F-35s? Everyone knows the legacy platforms are cheaper and more reliable :rolleyes:/>

I think the point of that article was that the -53 fleet is "jacked up" because the Marines completely mismanaged them. They skimped on the funding to reset those helos after their deployments and now are paying a huge price both in availability numbers and flight hours for their crews. This was contrasted to the approach taken by another service whose heavy lift helo fleet seems to be doing significantly better. Not really relevant to the topic of this thread but I thought it would be a counter-point to a "DOT&E folks know nothing and the Corp has all the answers" comment that was posted above.

It could also be suggested that the legacy platforms are hurting because funding is being diverted to another program.

[TaiidanTomcat]

I think the point of that article was that the -53 fleet is "jacked up" because the Marines completely mismanaged them. They skimped on the funding to reset those helos after their deployments and now are paying a huge price both in availability numbers and flight hours for their crews. This was contrasted to the approach taken by another service whose heavy lift helo fleet seems to be doing significantly better. Not really relevant to the topic of this thread but I thought it would be a counter-point to a "DOT&E folks know nothing and the Corp has all the answers" comment that was posted above.

I know. The DOT&E has never made a mistake like that in the same way I've never thrown an interception in the NFL yet Tom Brady has.

Clearly I know more than Tom.

The 53 decision was like many decisions made for the global war on terror, "we need it now, we will worry about it later". Then later comes. Not unlike the great A-10 debate we need it now right? Who cares about later teh ground troopz!! Later will come for that too

You may also want to look into the difference between the 47 fleet and 53 fleet as usual there are differences beyond who is just flying them. But it's fun to draw conclusions first and look into it later. 47s are still in production, and have one fewer engine to mess with, so that helps. Can we talk about how the army retires the Kiowa warrior and then draw the conclusion that it was to keep the 47 fleet going?

In short DOT&E is the Monday morning QB, And naturally that's popular for other Monday morning QBs. Hopefully Th3 DOT&E can fix the -53s and combat deploy soon

Edited February 27, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[Trigger]

Can we talk about how the army retires the Kiowa warrior and then draw the conclusion that it was to keep the 47 fleet going?

When you have the budget to run through three failed programs in 30 years (RAH-66, ARH-70, OH-58F) to replace the OH-58D, it's easy to talk $#!† about everyone else's business.

[Alan in Yorktown]

I am building a Kittyhawk F-35C at this moment. I am going to use Super Hornet external fuel tanks, but I find it strange that they are not as yet operational as far I can tell.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=16709&t=1

I realize that in medium to high threat environments you do not want to carry external fuel tanks, but most combat mission since the initial days of Iraqi Freedom have been carried out in a permissible environment. If these planes are being cleared to carry external bomb load then you would think that external fuel tanks would also be carried since its range isn't that much farther than an F-16 or SH.

But maybe there are bigger fish to fry right now - like getting it to IOC - and combat ready which apparently are not necessarily the same thing.

Back in 07-09 when I was at ACC HQ there was some debate within the staff the usefulness of external tanks on the F-35. It was a trade-off between increased drag w/ tanks vs the extra range with them. IIRC with tanks you only extended range by about 75 miles. Also stealth considerations - If you want to fly in stealth mode, you don't want external tanks & pylons. I suppose they can both be jettisoned, but there is a lot of plumbing & wiring involved.

[Trigger]

I suppose they can both be jettisoned, but there is a lot of plumbing & wiring involved.

[Alan in Yorktown]

Cool photo. Thinking of stealth, maybe we can revive the WW2-era paper external tanks. Probably be a lot cheaper

[fulcrum1]

it

I think the point of that article was that the -53 fleet is "jacked up" because the Marines completely mismanaged them. They skimped on the funding to reset those helos after their deployments and now are paying a huge price both in availability numbers and flight hours for their crews. This was contrasted to the approach taken by another service whose heavy lift helo fleet seems to be doing significantly better. Not really relevant to the topic of this thread but I thought it would be a counter-point to a "DOT&E folks know nothing and the Corp has all the answers" comment that was posted above.

It could also be suggested that the legacy platforms are hurting because funding is being diverted to another program.

Were they mismanaged or did they roll the dice (assumed risk) on the new model being currently operational? In areas needed for heavy lift such as the closure of Helmand in '14 they utilized the Air Force, Army, and contractors to accomplish mission where they could not. The problem that plagues all services is the inability of the Defense complex to produce a major program on time within budget regardless of where one places blame. The F-35 first flew a decade ago and is years from being able to conduct a combat operation, the Army cannot even procure a pistol let alone a helicopter, and the Navy....just google Zumwalt or LCS.

[fulcrum1]

The 53 decision was like many decisions made for the global war on terror, "we need it now, we will worry about it later". Then later comes. Not unlike the great A-10 debate we need it now right? Who cares about later teh ground troopz!! Later will come for that too

It was not and with the exception of a few major programs such as the mrap and U-2 there never was a "we need it now, we will worry about it later" mentality when both wars were in full swing.

[Trigger]

Cool photo. Thinking of stealth, maybe we can revive the WW2-era paper external tanks. Probably be a lot cheaper :touche:/>

Sure. Right up until you hit 3G, and the tanks disintegrate. Hit the burners at the right time, and it'll make the F-111's torching look like a Black Cat firecracker!

[Gordon Shumway]

Not bashing Canada, I am Canadian, family is from P.E.I., just saying they don't need to sweat their defense budget all that much.

Well lets look at things.

1: First I'm all for a country like Canada carrying its own weight in a defence budget to equip and maintain a qualified standing military, army, navy and air force in the defence of our sovereign territory as well as being able to contribute if deemed necessary by our government of the day in any expeditionary way for and with our trusted allies. More or less, Canada has and does maintain said commitments. Canada can send forces globally and have and can work with the USA and any other trusted allies. Many state Canada to have among the best small military on Earth.

2: The USA chooses to spend $600+Billion on its military (more than the next 20 countries combined). It does not need to do so to protect itself and generally its interests in its allies. BTW some of its said to be allies ARE NOT SO! IMO short of typically NATO and SEATO allies none others are truly allies, but are military/economic business partners to the USA. Their favour can drift in the political/diplomatic wind. The USA chooses to have military bases in 180+ countries. It generally chooses to wage war/conflict when it pleases.

3: The potential main enemies to the USA though they are not as of today and likely will not be a true threat to the USA and its allies remain to be notably Russia and China. Neither of them spend as much nor do they need to as the USA does on military. They are smart enough to know that they really only have to spend a combined amount of about 1/3rd that of the USA does on military to keep the USA in check. The USA spends 3 times more to keep them in check, again its own free choice. It's seen as good for business. Never as good in financial returns as civil business investments, but the M.I.C owns much of Congress and often the Executive Branch. It is the way it's been since WWII and it's not likely to change anytime soon.

4: Russia and China are the two closest military, strategic, diplomatic and political rivals to the USA. They spend a lot on military too, but just enough to keep the USA kind of rattled. BTW the USA loves it as it makes spending $600+B on DoD easier. Russia and China also spend the amounts they do to keep their M.I.C. viable for foreign sales as well. They have the ability just as the USA does of global reach conventionally and more so nuclear and that is enough!

5: US allies such as other NATO, SEATO allies spend the amount that they do (BTW, just enough) to first defend their sovereignty (land, sea and air, but not really political and economic as most/all have more or less sold these two out to greater global financial/corporate interests) and next to have some valid diplomatic/political weight on regional and global affairs especially among the bigger powers such as first and foremost the USA and next China and Russia. This said I believe that much of Europe is basically an economic, social, political basket case and is in a state of affairs in terms of general turmoil, social/economic flux and grievances between each state equal in aspects to where it was in 1937-38.

6: Finally back to Canada. 35 Million souls, 2nd largest physical country on Earth and we do what needs to be done to protect our land, air and sea sovereignty. We too have generally sold out our political, social and economic sovereignty long ago. "C'est la vie". Though we will likely never be invaded by a foreign power, but if attacked the USA will by commonsense come to our aid by its desires to keep its interests in us viable to it. The price for the USA to not do such is much higher.

Well that is my 2 Canuck cents! :D Others here can take it or leave it. My points were made clear enough. B) I salute our men and women in Canadian uniform.

Peace out to our nation's friends. B)

[TaiidanTomcat]

Back in 07-09 when I was at ACC HQ there was some debate within the staff the usefulness of external tanks on the F-35. It was a trade-off between increased drag w/ tanks vs the extra range with them. IIRC with tanks you only extended range by about 75 miles. Also stealth considerations - If you want to fly in stealth mode, you don't want external tanks & pylons. I suppose they can both be jettisoned, but there is a lot of plumbing & wiring involved.

The Israelis are supposed to be working on some EFTs as you mention the drag is an issue, we will see what they come up with, but you are correct. Could be some long skinny toothpick looking things?