Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Last edited by geogen on Sep 29, 2010 - 06:48 AM; edited 1 time in total

Upon reading Bjørnar Bolsøy's story on Norway's latest political decisions with regards to RNoAF's F-35 acquisition (link: http://www.f-16.net/news_article4208.html ), I've updated my personal views on this particular acquisition plan as such:

The 4 initial training jets to be delivered to Norway or US training base (?) in 2016 sounds logical.

Moreover, the first operational jets potentially to be received in 2018 (and IOC by 2020(?), FOC by 2022?) would also sound legit on paper - i.e. in order to receive actual mature, proven aircraft (if approved and offered at a competitive, fixed price). So I totally support that revision if it eventually works out to be in Norway's best interests et al.

I guess my only 'outside observer' remark on this, would then be that one has to seriously appreciate the truly remarkable F-16s now, continuing to pull their weight until 2020-2022+!!

And while it's hard to look out 8-10 yrs strategically and hence operationally these days... to me at least, Bodø would seem to be a practical 'north-central' site for operations, given it's substantial existing infrastructure already and potential for more fuel-efficient Northern sovereign airspace/water patrols? Perhaps a compromise, future proposal for such a basing could be negotiated with local town leaders to include: restricted 2-day per week training flights, e.g., Tuesday and Wednesday flight takeoffs-landings only? Perhaps then, during the rest of the week... supplemental, future-conceived flight simulators could be employed for all remaining normal flight training sorties? That could further reduce fuel and operational costs without loss to readiness, imho..

Highest respects to RNoAF-

F-16.net Sponsor

Local News (mentioned above): http://www.f-16.net/news_article4208.html

Norway Delays JSF Purchase Posted by Bill Sweetman at 9/28/2010

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

Ignoring a stern warning from Joint Strike Fighter program leaders this summer, Norwegian defense minister Grete Faremo announced earlier today that Norway would delay its acquisition of the F-35A to take account of delays in the systems development and demonstration (SDD) program announced in March.

Norway now plans to acquire no more than four aircraft for delivery in 2016 (contract year 2014), for training purposes, but main-force deliveries will not start until 2018. Previous plans called for 20 deliveries in 2016-17.

Faremo says that the most important issue is to make sure that the F-35 is fully operational before it replaces the F-16 and implies that Norway wants to buy more aircraft at multi-year-production prices. Norway is changing its schedule, she says, to "ensure operational maturity and optimum cost of production on the Norwegian aircraft." (Under previous plans, Norway would be byuing most of its aircraft from low-rate initial production batches.)

The minister also notes that the re-scheduled SDD program "should [put] more emphasis on risk management, cost control, staffing of critical positions, test plans and monitoring by the vendor", and adds that all additional costs due to the delay will be absorbed by the US.

This is probably not what JSF program leaders have been looking for, given Lockheed Martin executive vice-president Tom Burbage's warnings at Farnborough that backsliding partners would incur higher prices: Norway appears to have concluded that the opposite is the case.

Of other early JSF customers, Denmark has deferred its decision and the Netherlands has officially confirmed that cost increases are likely to have a "considerable" effect on its program. In the FY2011-2015 order years - LRIP batches 4 through 8 - well over one-third of JSFs are destined for non-US customers, and program managers have repeatedly said that disruptions to the ramp-up will cause unit cost targets to move out of reach."

geogen wrote:

And while it's hard to look out 8-10 yrs strategically and hence operationally these days... to me at least, Bodø would seem to be a practical 'north-central' site for operations, given it's substantial existing infrastructure already and potential for more fuel-efficient Northern sovereign airspace/water patrols? Perhaps a compromise, future proposal for such a basing could be negotiated with local town leaders to include: restricted 2-day per week training flights, e.g., Tuesday and Wednesday flight takeoffs-landings only? Perhaps then, during the rest of the week... supplemental, future-conceived flight simulators could be employed for all remaining normal flight training sorties? That could further reduce fuel and operational costs without loss to readiness, imho..
Highest respects to RNoAF-

Training may be planned as you suggest, but not hot scrambles and they make no consideration when they leave the runway to avoid noise, which is the nature of a hot scramble. When I was there we usually had one a day, especially on bank or religious holidays. I remember one hot scramble when I lived on the base. I woke up around 5am to an inferno of sound and rushing to the window I saw two fully armed F-16s, banked 90 degrees to the starboard, on full afterburner almost between the barracks, just over the roof tops. It took me several minutes to recover from the shock I experienced.

The reason Bodø is not a shoe-in is the expected increase in noise signature of the F-35 compared to the F-16. The flight path to Bodø’s runway 25 is over a very populated area, so the choices that is available is to move a number of homes and further sound insulate a bunch more. The cost to do this is significant. The other equally expensive option is to build a new runway to the south of the base, which is mostly ocean today. The picture below shows the current base layout and the proposed layout on the next picture

A new runway would then end up like this:

Be sure to read my update on the Norway story.

Geogen. IOC is moved one year, from late 2018 to late 2019. The MoD says that the training jets will probably be stationed in the U.S.

Some valid thoughts on operations and basing there. It's three good candidates, all with strong and weak points. All three bases were extensively upgraded in the 90s, although Bodø has the largest infrastructure. All will however require large investments to comply with future demands, such as noise regulations.

For high north operations, which is a priority for the government, both Bodø and Evenes are ideal choices. Evenes is about 12 minutes flight time further north from Bodø, which might have some advantages, and is smack in the middle of the major NATO excersise area. However Evenes, which is surrounded by mountains, has some challenges with the operating environment, which would have to be adressed.

Both are close to the Swedish Vidsel training range which offers an excellent training environment with the Swedes and Fins (and in the future NATO, presumably). Presently the Norwegian, Swedish AF and to some extent the Finish AF are conducting weekly training sorties as part of the Cross Border Training initiative. All three air forces can engage in DACT on a regular basis with much larger aircraft formations, which have proved a big success. This form of cooperation will only increase in the future.

However Ørlandet to the south is closer to NATO, so to speak, has access to good training ranges and is well established. If not chosen it's AWACS FOB and USMC MCPP-N depos might have to be relocated which will carry its own price tag.

But if it comes to a one-base solution (God forbid) Bodø is probably the best bet. It's been the primary MAS for a long time and the area hosts major command facilities. Ørlandet is quite far south and would require frequent forward deployments to Bodø or other air stations, tying up resources and budgets.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

Just curious.

I looked at Bodo Airbase on Google Earth. It’s sea level and I imagine anywhere from nicely cool to bitter cold during the year. The runway is 11,000 feet long. Climatology-wise it appears the highest temperatures are in the 60’s F (15 C) during July. Density altitude is not a problem, nor is runway length. I would assume snow removal equipment is always available.

With the F-35’s performance at sea level, I would think they could make mil power takeoffs from that first westerly intersection (or maybe even midfield in the winter) on runway 25 and make all recoveries and landings to runway 07. This would put them over water most of the time. I’m not familiar with what instrument approach capability they have to runway 07, but since it’s also civil airport I would assume they have ILS and are upgrading to GPS RNAV RNP capability which the F-35 will have.

Never been there (I chill easily) so I certainly could be missing something here.

OL

lamoey - good point about the 'hot scrambles'. And if only you had pics of that 5am scramble takeoff to go along with that personal story - thanks! What a scene that would have been, with that incredible Bodo backdrop, one could only imagine Smile

So in thinking about it... maybe future negotiations could be made with all neighbors in question - to at the very least select 'other' normal business days instead, in order to not create a required 'hot scramble' event on Norway's bank and religious holidays??

energo - thanks for the interesting info and reply as always.. With regards to Bodø's required new runway layout as contemplated - which I did take into consideration - perhaps the twice-per-week-only training sorties could mitigate that noise pollution concern? The town's folks could therefore possibly be compensated with a once a year 'thank you' payment (cheaper than building a new runway?), to put up with perhaps a twice-per-week noise volume (not including home defense scramble events of course which would hopefully be minimized in the future)? And p.s., I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking that Swedish AF would be most upset with this news - that the DACT opportunity for Gripen NG to fly against F-3 will be delayed now ... Sad

OL - good comments, humor and education as always.. sounds reasonable.

So Norway no longer considers Block 3 to be an operations-ready standard, doesn't expect IOC before 2019 and is preparing contingency plans for another three-year delay.

Spin that, JSF fans.

underhill wrote:

So Norway no longer considers Block 3 to be an operations-ready standard, doesn't expect IOC before 2019 and is preparing contingency plans for another three-year delay.

Spin that, JSF fans.

That's an interesting interpretation of that article. I see no mention of Norway taking the Block into consideration, with regard to operations ready standards. As for moving the IOC one year, and having contingencies for delays- that's just being cautious. Considering that Norway is getting the A model, I suspect there won't be any issues resulting in those contingency plans being enacted. Additionally, by taking this course of action, they'll likely be able to enjoy a better price, due to the production line being up at that point.

Last edited by lamoey on Sep 30, 2010 - 08:53 PM; edited 1 time in total

It seems the unique Norwegian requirement for drag chute is supposed to be available in block 4, so waiting for block 4 then is logical as block 3 does not meet Norwegian requirements.

It may also be important to norway to have the Kongsberg produced Air-Sea JSM available but as the table above indicates JSM will be avilable in block 5. Adding this capability is probably mostly software related anyway and we all know how "easy" Rolling Eyes

it is to update software...

http://www.kongsberg.com/en/KDS/Products/Missile%20Systems/JointStrikeMissile.aspx

outlaw162 wrote:

Just curious.

I looked at Bodo Airbase on Google Earth. It’s sea level and I imagine anywhere from nicely cool to bitter cold during the year. The runway is 11,000 feet long. Climatology-wise it appears the highest temperatures are in the 60’s F (15 C) during July. Density altitude is not a problem, nor is runway length. I would assume snow removal equipment is always available.

With the F-35’s performance at sea level, I would think they could make mil power takeoffs from that first westerly intersection (or maybe even midfield in the winter) on runway 25 and make all recoveries and landings to runway 07. This would put them over water most of the time. I’m not familiar with what instrument approach capability they have to runway 07, but since it’s also civil airport I would assume they have ILS and are upgrading to GPS RNAV RNP capability which the F-35 will have.

Never been there (I chill easily) so I certainly could be missing something here.

OL

Bodø is very windy, which obviously limits what direction to approach from. As for the runways capabilities I have seen both C-5's and a SR-71 land on the runway in the 80's, and that was before the western extension, which is clearly visible in the picture.

It is rarely colder than -15C/-5F or hotter than 25C/77F. I have experienced -15C and 30 knots wind on the base and that was more than any of the cold weather clouding we got issued could protect me from...

They obviously have good snow preparedness, and also a giant blow torch that can be run up and down the runway to melt any ice, if needed. In my days they had a modified SAAB 900 (Yes, a SAAB family sedan) with a fifth wheel mounted in the boot/trunk to measure runway friction. There are stories about a pair of F-15's landing at Bodø on a dry runway, then snow all night. The pair got stuck for several days because the pilots had to be replaced as they did not have check-out on icy taxiways and runways.

underhill wrote:

So Norway no longer considers Block 3 to be an operations-ready standard, doesn't expect IOC before 2019 and is preparing contingency plans for another three-year delay.

Spin that, JSF fans.

Crikey, I actually laughed out loud for real reading that which is most unusual! I mean what's there to spin exactly? Are we somehow meant to spin your completely unfounded claims? Cheers for the laugh anyway.

They are not my unfounded claims, but a report from Energo:

http://www.f-16.net/news_article4208.html

"The Initial Operating Capability (IOC) is pushed back one year, from late 2018 to late 2019."

"The fighter evaluation project did account for a schedule delay for up three years, however, and the current F-16 upgrade path will allow the fleet to keep flying until 2018-2023 if needed."

"Thus the first F-35A training jets will be of the Block III standard, but Norway wants the more capable Block IV version for its operational jets."

But I'm glad that you enjoyed a laugh.

I do apolagise, must be where i'm so used to your posts I simply assumed otherwise, my bad.

underhill wrote:

"The Initial Operating Capability (IOC) is pushed back one year, from late 2018 to late 2019."

"The fighter evaluation project did account for a schedule delay for up three years, however, and the current F-16 upgrade path will allow the fleet to keep flying until 2018-2023 if needed."

"Thus the first F-35A training jets will be of the Block III standard, but Norway wants the more capable Block IV version for its operational jets."

So in actuality, the takeaway is that Norway is pushing IOC one year to the right, as they want the Block IV model, and they're prepared for delays should they occur. I fail to see how this is a slam on the F-35, or why any spinning is necessary.

wrightwing wrote:

underhill wrote:

"The Initial Operating Capability (IOC) is pushed back one year, from late 2018 to late 2019."

"The fighter evaluation project did account for a schedule delay for up three years, however, and the current F-16 upgrade path will allow the fleet to keep flying until 2018-2023 if needed."

"Thus the first F-35A training jets will be of the Block III standard, but Norway wants the more capable Block IV version for its operational jets."

So in actuality, the takeaway is that Norway is pushing IOC one year to the right, as they want the Block IV model, and they're prepared for delays should they occur. I fail to see how this is a slam on the F-35, or why any spinning is necessary.

In all fairness it could be argued as a 'slam' in that the earlier LRIP acquisition lots were previously trusted by RNoAF to be a reliable and an acceptable investment... whereas now there might seem to be a greater interest in waiting for a more mature aircraft block being proven, before major commitments to procure a full operational fleet are made?

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

RNoAF F-35 update