F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

Status
Not open for further replies.

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
The first operational JSF for the marines has fallen out of the sky trying to do a short take off and vertical landing.(Sorry i am having a journalist day today)

Marine Corps' F-35B Conducts First Vertical Landing - YouTube
It is interesting to note that beyond the USMC, Singapore, a number of Air Forces are planning to operate the F-35B, namely, UK's Royal Air Force (138 F-35Bs) and Italy's Air Force (15 F-35Bs). The Italians have a base sharing plan for its 30 Navy and Air Force short-takeoff, vertical-landing (STOVL) aircraft, which is set to save on maintenance and support.

Richard Beedall said:
RN in Review: 2012

...The [UK] MoD intends to buy 48 F-35B’s by 2022, including 3 test and evaluation phase aircraft which will probably never be converted to an operational configuration. Delivery of the first production standard aircraft should be in 2014 (although as it won’t be ordered until 2013 as part of LRIP Lot VII, a 2015 delivery date seems more probable), with flying trials on HMS Queen Elizabeth beginning in 2018. The Royal Air Force (RAF) plans to form the first front line JSF squadron - No. 617 Squadron RAF - of 12 aircraft (9 deployable) in 2020/21. Whilst there is speculation that in the longer term there could be two front line F-35B squadrons, each of nine aircraft – one RAF manned and one Fleet Air Arm manned - there is no evidence to back this up.

Given the very small number of carrier capable aircraft likely to be available in face of other competing commitments, the RAF is advocating that the model adopted in the later years of the Invincible class aircraft carriers should be followed. This allows for one operational aircraft carrier, which would embark a “single figure” number of F-35B aircraft (5 or 6 based on historical experience) for a few weeks a few times a year – either for training purposes or for major exercises. However the Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, referred in a speech on 1 November 2012 to 12 F-35B’s being routinely embarked, and he thought that there was “a realistic possibility of both carriers coming into service”, rather than one being sold or going in to extended reserve as SDSR proposed. Operating both carriers will cost an extra £70 million per year (mostly on additional personnel), and it is vital that the RN makes a convincing case in SDSR 2015 as to why these very large and expensive ships are still needed – a case extending far beyond their original ‘carrier strike’ raison d'être...
F-35B performing an AIM 120 Weapon Separation - YouTube

As at 14 March 2013, the number of fighters to be acquired are:
1,763 F-35As — USAF • 340 F-35Bs/80 F-35Cs — USMC • 260 F-35Cs — USN

Level 1 partner (financial stake in JSF program):
138 F-35Bs — UK (US$2.5 billion)

Level 2 partners (financial stake in JSF program):
60 F-35As/30 F-35Bs — Italy (US$1 billion)
85 F-35As — Netherlands (US$800 million)

Level 3 partners (financial stake in JSF program):
100 F-35As — Australia (US$144 million)
100 F-35As — Turkey (US$195 million)
65 F-35As — Canada (US$160 million)
52 F-35As — Norway (US$122 million)
30 F-35As — Denmark (US$110 million)

Security Cooperative Participants:
19 F-35As — Israel
Undergoing evaluation — Singapore (see 'Singapore Poised To Announce Purchase Of 12 F-35Bs').

FMS Customer (with some assembled in Japan):
42 F-35As — Japan
Italy’s original planned order of 131 JSFs was cut back to 90 in February 2012 due to budget cuts. The Air Force had planned to buy around 40 F-35B STOVLs to replace its AMX fighters, while the Navy said it needed at least 22 to keep a full contingent on board the Cavour. Instead, the services are left with 15 STOVLs apiece, while the Air Force will receive 60 conventional F-35As.

“Supportability is a key issue with two squadrons of 15 and 15 [STOVLs],” Gen. Giuseppe Bernardis, Italian Air Force chief said. “We think 30 is a number that is sustainable, and that is why we are going together. We will have common support and different advanced training.”​
 
Last edited:
It is interesting to note that beyond the USMC, Singapore, a number of Air Forces are planning to operate the F-35B, namely, UK's Royal Air Force and Italy's Air Force. The Italians have a base sharing plan for its 30 Navy and Air Force short-takeoff, vertical-landing (STOVL) aircraft, which is set to save on maintenance and support.
I am curious if other nations may purchase the "B" version.
Spain and India do/did operate Harriers so i would assume they may be looking at a STOVL capability ,to continue into the future.

Brazil could also go down the B version path but this is all speculation on my behalf.

Japan has also purchased long lead items for its first 4 ,F-35A

Japan’s Next Fighters, From F-X Competition F-35 Procurement

It's good to see the JSF family of country's growing ,while more JSF are coming online.I expect to see the "anti JSF", crowd's voices getting louder in the future.

Edit.. Singapore,Japan,Australia US Navy and Marines all sharing information and being nodes in a network is sending a very big message ,that,s for sure.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Journalism used to be an attempt to provide a balanced story. Unfortunately, some of the current reporting on the JSF tries to sell you a point of view that supports a pre-determined meme and we get poor quality journalism that contains known falsehoods to advance the meme.

It's good to see the JSF family of country's growing ,while more JSF are coming online. I expect to see the "anti JSF", crowd's voices getting louder in the future.
To be clear, most of us welcome informed criticism of the JSF program but we do not condone the passing-off of known falsehoods to advance an anti-F-35 meme. The Defence Industry Daily is a good example is of passing-off of known falsehoods dating back to 2008 to continue to advance an anti-F-35 meme. They are still citing and recycling the same discredited sources, like the Air Power Australia and selling the junk science, as truths. The so called 'RAND study' or Pacific Vision has been consistently used by many idiots, like those from Air Power Australia to misrepresent aircraft capability. The names of Air Power Australia idiots are Kopp, Goon, and Chris Miles.
Rand said:
FOR RELEASE
Thursday
September 25, 2008

OFFICE OF MEDIA RELATIONS
703-413-1100 x5117
and 310-451-6913
[email protected]

Statement Regarding Media Coverage of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Andrew Hoehn, Director of RAND Project Air Force, made the following statement today:

“Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.”
These jokers, which now includes the Defence Industry Daily (Feb 10, 2013), because it recycles old, discredited mis-information as new. The following clarifications on Pacific Vision ppt are in order:

(i) It's a ppt of an exercise planning event using planning tools - it has NOTHING - repeat NOTHING to do with tactical detail about planes and their emission footprint - hence extrapolating any tactical results about any plane factored into the simulation is just rubbish.

(ii) The software used in Pacific Vision is Falconview, which is a planning tool and most people from advanced countries are familiar with using software for defence planning. Falconview does not deal with aircraft capability comparisons. For clarity, there is a software that compares the effectiveness of aircraft in air combat BUT IT IS NOT Falconview. Therefore when morons start quoting pointy combat effectiveness based on Falconview, it is based on a complete misunderstanding and comprehension of the software used.

(iii) There are no unclassified RAND reports on JSF combat effectiveness. Lockheed Martin had defended F-35's JSF agility against critics and in the past but these critics just recycle the same meme.​

What can you say to idiots who insist that Pacific Vision tells you about F-35 combat effectiveness in an air to air role? None of the clowns who use Pacific Vision as proof that the F-35 sucks are able to comprehend that the basis of their excited claims were based on junk military science. Pacific Vision has nothing to do with pointy platform effectiveness. It is sad to see clowns that are still trotting it out as proof of life of their own biases and yet it's been demonstrated time and time again that they are technology and systems luddites (see this DT thread where this was explained by GF, a while ago and even other blog posts the effectively discredit the ideas presented in the meme).

Honest people have real concerns about the progress of the JSF program but these concerns do not fit the usual meme. For example, the price tag of the F-35 continues to come down with each jet purchased, but there are many variables influencing the numbers. When the Turkish government delayed buying two airplanes from the seventh production batch to the ninth, the price of the remaining F-35s in the seventh production lot went up US$1 million each (and cited in Air Power 101 for New Members).

It's too early to celebrate as it is still under testing (to see if there are more problems) and we'll just have to keep a look-out for news as the programme develops. It's a complex program with ambitous goals with global partners. Nothing about it is simple. But some things that appear on mainstream media on the JSF is just not true - as many reporters fundamentally did not take the trouble to read up.
 
Last edited:

bia9x

New Member
ausairpower.net/VVS/Azovskiy-MAK-UL-Tu-95MS6-MiroslavGyurosi-3S.jpg

This is a Azovskiy L-082 MAK-UL Maws system on the Tu-95

It is similar to the AAQ-37 EODAS F-35. So can see the F-35 is a synthesis of many ideas from Russia, the F-35B is the support from the Yak Group
 
ausairpower.net/VVS/Azovskiy-MAK-UL-Tu-95MS6-MiroslavGyurosi-3S.jpg

This is a Azovskiy L-082 MAK-UL Maws system on the Tu-95

It is similar to the AAQ-37 EODAS F-35. So can see the F-35 is a synthesis of many ideas from Russia, the F-35B is the support from the Yak Group
Well your quoting Air power Australia... that says enough

Russia has some very smart people ,but are you saying the F-35B is being supported by YAK? I don't understand your point
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
ausairpower.net/VVS/Azovskiy-MAK-UL-Tu-95MS6-MiroslavGyurosi-3S.jpg

This is a Azovskiy L-082 MAK-UL Maws system on the Tu-95

It is similar to the AAQ-37 EODAS F-35. So can see the F-35 is a synthesis of many ideas from Russia, the F-35B is the support from the Yak Group
Yes, it was all the Russians, of course it was. They must have done it to ensure the next generation Western fighter was clearly inferior to the SU-35 and T-50, yes?

Please, be serious. Don't reference anything you see on APA as a source, it's a hopelessly compromised, biased, self-interested and outright untruthful collection of pipe dreams, malice and lies. I mean that as genuine advice, for your own good and the good of furthering your understanding of military aviation.

Posts like these really aren't up to the standards we expect on these forums. Do something about it. I realise that might sound overly harsh, and if you wish to find a more permissive posting environment I wouldn't hold it against you, but if you take anything away from this, please, please reconsider using Air Power Australia as a serious source. It can do nothing but harm.
 

jack412

Member
OPSSG, It gets better than that,
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/42891479/Air-Combat-Past-Present-and-Future
I think you will find that repsim and apa through Stillion, a fellow gamer, created the slide show and put the Rand logo on it. apa and repsim said as much in their testimony to gov last year
Stillion had a history of using the Rand logo to promote his personal views, including a Rand letter head with his personal views sent to our gov. as a submission
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
bia9x is trying to state that the core STOVL technology on the JSF jumpers was Yak based

In very early development iterations it was.

It has as much relationship to Yak Forger technology today as an elephant has a biological relationship to a wombat

trying to overstate that early engineering relationship or inferring that JSF developments are russian is just plain nonsense.
 
Journalism used to be an attempt to provide a balanced story. Unfortunately, some of the current reporting on the JSF tries to sell you a point of view that supports a pre-determined meme and we get poor quality journalism that contains known falsehoods to advance the meme.



To be clear, most of us welcome informed criticism of the JSF program but we do not condone the passing-off of known falsehoods to advance an anti-F-35 meme. The Defence Industry Daily is a good example is of passing-off of known falsehoods dating back to 2008 to continue to advance an anti-F-35 meme. They are still citing and recycling the same discredited sources, like the Air Power Australia and selling the junk science, as truths. The so called 'RAND study' or Pacific Vision has been consistently used by many idiots, like those from Air Power Australia to misrepresent aircraft capability. The names of Air Power Australia idiots are Kopp, Goon, and Chris Miles.


These jokers, which now includes the Defence Industry Daily (Feb 10, 2013), because it recycles old, discredited mis-information as new. The following clarifications on Pacific Vision ppt are in order:

(i) It's a ppt of an exercise planning event using planning tools - it has NOTHING - repeat NOTHING to do with tactical detail about planes and their emission footprint - hence extrapolating any tactical results about any plane factored into the simulation is just rubbish.

(ii) The software used in Pacific Vision is Falconview, which is a planning tool and most people from advanced countries are familiar with using software for defence planning. Falconview does not deal with aircraft capability comparisons. For clarity, there is a software that compares the effectiveness of aircraft in air combat BUT IT IS NOT Falconview. Therefore when morons start quoting pointy combat effectiveness based on Falconview, it is based on a complete misunderstanding and comprehension of the software used.

(iii) There are no unclassified RAND reports on JSF combat effectiveness. Lockheed Martin had defended F-35's JSF agility against critics and in the past but these critics just recycle the same meme.​

What can you say to idiots who insist that Pacific Vision tells you about F-35 combat effectiveness in an air to air role? None of the clowns who use Pacific Vision as proof that the F-35 sucks are able to comprehend that the basis of their excited claims were based on junk military science. Pacific Vision has nothing to do with pointy platform effectiveness. It is sad to see clowns that are still trotting it out as proof of life of their own biases and yet it's been demonstrated time and time again that they are technology and systems luddites (see this DT thread where this was explained by GF, a while ago and even other blog posts the effectively discredit the ideas presented in the meme).

Honest people have real concerns about the progress of the JSF program but these concerns do not fit the usual meme. For example, the price tag of the F-35 continues to come down with each jet purchased, but there are many variables influencing the numbers. When the Turkish government delayed buying two airplanes from the seventh production batch to the ninth, the price of the remaining F-35s in the seventh production lot went up US$1 million each (and cited in Air Power 101 for New Members).

It's too early to celebrate as it is still under testing (to see if there are more problems) and we'll just have to keep a look-out for news as the programme develops. It's a complex program with ambitous goals with global partners. Nothing about it is simple. But some things that appear on mainstream media on the JSF is just not true - as many reporters fundamentally did not take the trouble to read up.
Very well stated, and honest, something the detractors seem to lack, at 56 this business has been a passion of mine, and we have seen philosophies come and go, but the basics of air-power while remaining, have to evolve with the technology, and these airframes and avionics suites are simply incredible, the astounding, to the AFB anyway, developement is the incredible advantage that situational awareness will bring to every future engagement, if you know where he is, and he doesn't know where you are, well nothings guaranteed in love or war, but those who would throw a gen 4 into highly contested airspace???

At the same time, we should be encouraged that fielding gen 5 aircraft is far more difficult than our adversaries have imagined, and to be frank they are having a very difficult time, trying to "put it all together". The F-35 is a far more capable aircraft, in spite of the difficulties, than I ever imagined, and I am happy to see it proliferate not only in our Air Forces, but those of our partners....AFB
 

Vivendi

Member
Depends, would you be satisfied with Canada buying 65% of the capability of F-35 at near 95% of the price?

Super Hornet is a very useful plane today. What is it going to be like in 30 years time?
Where does the "at near 95% of the price" come from?

If the SH gets a decent MLU it will IMO be useful also 30 years from now. Of course not as capable as a true 5. gen platform, but still useful.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Where does the "at near 95% of the price" come from?

If the SH gets a decent MLU it will IMO be useful also 30 years from now. Of course not as capable as a true 5. gen platform, but still useful.
It will continue to be useful as a support platform in sanatised airspace.unfortunately,with out a sufficient force of 5th Gen or better aircraft there won't be any sanitised airspace for it to operate in. The same that will apply to tankers, transports and ISR platforms.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
OPSSG, It gets better than that,
Air Combat Past, Present and Future

I think you will find that repsim and apa through Stillion, a fellow gamer, created the slide show and put the Rand logo on it. apa and repsim said as much in their testimony to gov last year

Stillion had a history of using the Rand logo to promote his personal views, including a Rand letter head with his personal views sent to our gov. as a submission
Many thanks for the update and we have also updated in topic 5 of Airpower 101 for New Members (see post on Clipping the Wings of Misinformation) by including debunked examples from Winslow Wheeler, POGO and David Axe (where it is shown, how these lies get converted by shoddy journalism to advance a meme that contains known falsehoods).

Where does the "at near 95% of the price" come from?
After you add the EW, targeting pods and other extras as capability gap fillers, a new SH acquisition cost by the Canadians is not low. And the acquisition costs is typically around 20-30% of the total platform cost.

Then you also need to factor in the cost of the upkeep of a more complex strike package that the RCAF or the RAAF needs, if either of them uses the SH to face tomorrow's threat (i.e. 20 to 30 years from now), as noteworthy middle powers (and in the case of Australia, with assets forward deployed in South East Asia and also as a member of the FPDA). If you look at the total raise and train cost of the force structure needed (and don't factor in the cost to sustain the force needed), it can be much higher to be threat relevant. Keeping the SH threat relevant, needs a bigger raise, train and sustain footprint for a middle power.
 
Last edited:

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Where does the "at near 95% of the price" come from?

If the SH gets a decent MLU it will IMO be useful also 30 years from now. Of course not as capable as a true 5. gen platform, but still useful.
By comparing the package costs for Israel and Japanese FMS requests for F-35 to the most recent (Super Hornet only) FMS request for Super Hornet, namely that of Brazil.

The caveat on that figure, is that all of these requests (apart from weapons) include all the elements needed to deliver capability. No-one buys only an aircraft. They buy mission equipment, simulators, ground equipment, publications, support and so on.

So comparing the overall package costs on a per plane basis, you see that for similar packages F-35A costs $200m per aircraft, Super Hornet costs $194m per aircraft.

The difference is actually less than 5%, but thought I'd be generous...

No package is ever going to be precisely the same, so rounding the figure off isn't unreasonable and doing so is favouring the Super Hornet, not the F-35.

The cost of capability is to me, what is important. Not the sticker price on an individual platform and the capability price difference is very little between F-35 and Super Hornet.

It seems you don't get what you pay for, when you actually take a look at these two types...
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Right now, the JSF program office is trying to get a finalised a fixed price from LM for LRIPs 6 and 7 in the later part of 2013 (for a firm final buy price for F-35s for these two lots), which gets assembled/built into aircraft than can be delivered. This is part of their ongoing contract negotiations.

At the same time in Feb 2013, long lead components for the low-rate initial production Lot 8 has been awarded, with 19 F-35As for USAF ($155 million), 6 F-35Bs for the USMC ($85 million) and 4 F-35Cs for the USN ($27 million). Also included in lot 8 are 4 F-35Bs for the UK ($45 million) and 2 F-35A-model fighters for Norway ($21 million). Work on the contract for long lead components is expected to be completed by February 2014. And a firm final buy price for Lot 8 F-35s will be determined only in 2014 (for later delivery). Japan is supposed to have an order for 4 F-35s under lot 8 (but there is no firm official announcement, on their production lot spend on long lead components, as yet). Japan, plans to buy 42 F-35s, with the first 4 planes scheduled for delivery by March 2017 (see link to Reuters, which indicates that from first contract to delivery is at least 5 years).

There is a queue system for F-35 production slots. On Oct 7, 2010, Israeli Ministry of Defense Director General (Maj. Gen. Ret.) Udi Shani signed the Letter of Offer and Acceptance for the procurement of the F-35 aircraft. On June 29, 2012 Japan formally signed a Letter of Offer and Acceptance to procure its initial order of four F-35A CTOLs and simulators. So Israel and Japan (in 2010 and in 2012, respectively), who have ordered their F-35s before Singapore are still waiting for their production slots for their first few F-35s at Lots 8 to 9 and beyond.

Singapore will be even further behind and I suspect around lots 10 to 12 and beyond (given the lack of information, not sure when Singapore will have an assigned production slot for our first few F-35s in the 2015 or 2016 production slots).

“The big decision for me on F-35 will be the decision on the FY 2015 budget: Do we ramp up or not?” Frank Kendall, Undersecretary for Acquisition told reporters on 12 March 2013 at a defense conference in Washington. The Defense Department plans increases to 44 planes in fiscal 2015 and 66 in fiscal 2016, according to figures included last year in its long-range budget plan. A new plan for fiscal 2014 to 2018 will be released next month. “Overall, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is moving in the right direction after a long, expensive and arduous learning period,” the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in a report this month. “Going forward, ensuring affordability -- the ability to acquire the aircraft in quantity” that keeps the per-plane price down -- “is of paramount concern,” the GAO said.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
IIRC isn't LRIP 8 the last one to be classified as LR?

Can't recall where I read this so my apologies, but it said that it would then transition to FRP-1 after then?

To be honest, much of the info I try find about the different lots is sketchy at best.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
IIRC isn't LRIP 8 the last one to be classified as LR?

Can't recall where I read this so my apologies, but it said that it would then transition to FRP-1 after then?

To be honest, much of the info I try find about the different lots is sketchy at best.
I think you are correct and I'm sure another member will correct us, if we are wrong.

I did not want to call the lot after LRIP Lot 8, as FRP- 1 (because it would really confuse most lay readers - as the numbers would start from 1 again). So for simplicity, I called it Lot 9, with no reference to LR.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Excellent.

Although I believe the distinction between LRIP-8 and FRP-1 is an important one, economies of scale will come into greater effect and things like unit price will decrease by a big chunk won't they?

There's too much referencing of the F35's cost using LRIP production which - i think - isn't a fair representation to the real cost of the aircraft.

I just think that people need to learn about the differences between LRIP/FRP so they can better understand the program
 

King Wally

Active Member
I just think that people need to learn about the differences between LRIP/FRP so they can better understand the program
/me raises hand as a candidate

Im guessing those stand for Limited rate production and full rate production? Like the difference between the testing models and the full rate off the production line units?
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
/me raises hand as a candidate

Im guessing those stand for Limited rate production and full rate production? Like the difference between the testing models and the full rate off the production line units?
Bingo. The reported "cost" of the F-35 has been a massive red herring so far. Most everyone has been comparing the cost of limited production run F-35's to full production run type XX and the disingenuous ones invariably do "package costs" v individual airframes costs.

Wait til the F-35 production line hits full steam in a couple of years and we'll see the cheapest, most advanced fighter currently in production.

It's why the Euro-Canards and Boeing are trying so hard to stitch up orders now.

When it's in full rate production and there's 200 F-35's coming off the production line per year, how is ANY manufacturer going to compete on price with that?
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
/me raises hand as a candidate

Im guessing those stand for Limited rate production and full rate production? Like the difference between the testing models and the full rate off the production line units?
That's right

LRIP - Low Rate Initial Production
FRP - Full Rate Production

The difference being the obvious one, FRP will produce more aircraft per batch than LRIP resulting in lower unit costs.

My understanding is that LRIP is slower by necessity so that the producers can develop and test production cycles which work effectively when production ramps up, it also allows the oppertunity if flaws in the design, fabrication or part manufactuing processes are found then they can be corrected without resulting in a large number of airframes with the problem. Like the problem with a fuel hose recently, it was found, tracked back to a manufacturing defect and now the part is performing as it should.

The issue is people now equating the production numbers & cost of the airframes coming out right now and the last few years in LRIP to the final costs with FRP when there will be significant unit cost reductions.

But like I said, that's from my understanding, so i could have the wrong end of the stick.

EDIT: See ADMk2's reply
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top