Forum: F-35 Lightning II

As always Elp you are more flash than substance.

As you with your obnoxious attitude. Whats new?

Since you hijacked this thread already and injected politics into it we may as well keep on going.

For starters, why do we have to replace F-16s on a 1 for 1 basis? Where is the threat? I would not be surprised if one F-35 replaces two F-16s. There is no bear. The F-35 carries pgms and it is stealthy. Why one for one when the threat is not there and the plane that is replacing it is more than twice as effective?

Here we are in complete agreement. What is the problem? Look at the original USAF F-35 numbers. That indicates a 1-1 replacement. It is only since the last USAF boss Gen Jumper came along that someone questioned the sanity of getting so many F-35s for USAF service. The money stuff up with the last budget of course offers USAF a nice "out on reducing numbers.


B1s, B2, B52s, Tankers for F-16s, F-15s, and F-22s, and F-35s, cruise missiles and Aircraft Carriers. Care to come up with a plausible scenario where we come up short?

Easy, again look at even the current lessor number of F-35s for USAF service. We don't need so much investment in short range jets. B-1 doesn't have the airframe life to last beyond 2020-5. B-52 has the best MC rates of the three. And while B-2s are nice, we need to have also a true replacement for F-15Es for that time frame. An E can drop a weapon almost 1000 miles out without refueling. Investment and R&D into an FB-22 like solution is something in the right direction as a medium range asset. As for the next big bomber, that will be what ever pennies we can scrape up. They are talking about the cheapest solution not necessarily the best one. I hope it is useful. Cruise missiles? We just had 600 JASSMs discovered to not be worth much. You would have to frag a target with 3 or more of these in hopes one worked. So right now we have a hole there that has to be filled by USN Tomahawks. Also I would think you would agree that a hypersonic strike weapon will be something of good use too. Our aircraft carriers don't have much strike range without an assload of USAF tankers. Here again look at Tomahawk from the Carrier Battle Group, about a 1000 mile strike at best. If we go up against a first team player someday and no land bases handy, what we have with the carrier group ( and the 4 converted Ohio class boomers now Tomahawk shooters and the help of other subs ) might be it until ( if ) we get our act together with land basing. Look at the original Afghanistan scenario and imagine if we had to go against a first team instead of dirt farmers.


A you being deliberately stupid or are you really that dimwitted. Where are these indications that it will fail?

Not as dimwitted or sight impaired as yourself to realize that- Congress is doing an excellent job right now and on cruise-climb with future budgets to screw up the program even more with cost blowouts. Block III software has much more code in it than the F-22 and look how long that took to get right. It is a hard enough job already without congress sticking their finger in it and asking Team JSF to swim upstream with with additional weights tied around it's neck every year. Unless you can wave a magic wand and make those things go away somehow.... for starters write a really big check to put the production schedule back on the original plan, cost blowouts risk is now increased. Don't like it? Don't complain to me, complain to your congressman.



Last I looked the armed forces got over 500 billion and this does not include the supplemental budget requests to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan. Military operations and to some extend combat losses are made good using supplemental budget requests which are in ADDITION to the regular 500 billion dollar budget.

A billion just doesn't buy what it used to does it? 500 billion gets sucked up on current budgets faster than you can say "boo". Not to mention that those war supplementals are in part funded on credit. You can also add numerous other things that the military isn't getting from going short in past years. USMC, Army, Army Reserve, and Guard are all short billions of dollars to replace vehicles and ground equipment worn down through normal war use. Pacific war stocks have been raided and sent off to Iraq and Afghanistan, and numerous other things like not enough equipment at home for the Guard to respond to disasters. And of course with the war right now a large chunk of cash is going to increase healthcare and sustainment of troops, and the additional weight of civilian contractors (security and logistics companies in the AORs ) of which under the current way the war is being fought boots on the ground could not be supported.

As for dire straights, lets put blame where blame is due. During the prior to the 90's multi year AC buys where in the 100s. During the 90s the number of AC bought in a single year could be counted on both hands. We are now paying the price for the "Peace Dividend". It has nothing to do with Iraq.

Agree. However much of that has not been changed too much... when the peace dividend morons started....in the 90s they put all the troops on a higher foreign deployment ops tempo than what we had during the cold war.... with far less troops.... by the time 911 kicked off, we already had a shortage of troops/manpower that were very tired.... our ops tempo has not stopped since the end of the cold war. And don't get me started on spare parts. Just ask some of the maintainers here on the forum. And a GD F-16 is relatively easy and cheap to support, when the canary in the coal mine F-16 has supply chain problems you have big trouble. We have a bunch of people up top that don't want to hear that things cost more. War by PowerPoint.



See above. Also Raptors ain't cheap.

A lot of the R&D cost for Raptor is taken care of now, it is mostly a block upgrade path. JSF will never be "cheap" and has yet to prove itself that it is. I will wait and see on that. Raptor at the current numbers isn't going to break us. Add to that it brings more to the fight when knocking down a stiff IADS, cruise missile defence ( battlespace mobility ).... is in production now with known risks. ANd if someone really wants to play the money game, 750 Raptors in 2006 dollars would be about 59-60 mil a piece airframe cost. I'll take the Raptor, extending the Beagles we have and do legacy jets, big bombers, A-10 and J-UCAS-D when that proves itself. Again I am talking USAF not anyone else.


Since when is it not.

You might find this interesting. I call it spin and have enough body bags available to pick up after this gold plated abortion...

---
Service downplays bulletin

WITH IRAQ MISSION LOOMING, MARINES EYE V-22 MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS

_______________________________________________

Date: July 16, 2007


Marine Corps officials are tackling a handful of key V-22 Osprey maintenance problems as they prepare to deploy the tiltrotor to Iraq this fall, according to an internal service bulletin obtained by Inside the Navy.


The problems affect various parts of the V-22, including the ice-protection system, the flight-control computer and the air-cycle machine that is important for flying in hot climates. The June bulletin, which sums up discussions held in April, says it is “imperative” for officials to fully understand and resolve the issues.


“Failure to bring these issues to closure quickly will run the risk of significantly impacting aircraft material condition, reducing readiness, increasing supply costs, and degrading the aircraft’s ability to support the full scope of operational missions and taskings once in theater,” says the bulletin.


Marine Corps spokesman Maj. Eric Dent downplayed the message, noting every Marine aircraft program monitors maintenance items and factors that degrade readiness.


“There are no new issues here, and most have already been discussed publicly in various forums,” Dent said. “More importantly, there are mitigation and improvement plans in place for all of these issues.”


The V-22 remains on schedule to deploy to Iraq in September, Dent said.


Looking back over a nine-month period, the message says “Block B” V-22s -- the version headed to Iraq -- have been on average 79.3 percent “mission capable” and 62.1 percent “full mission capable.” That is better than older “Block A” V-22s, which were on average 47.8 percent “mission capable” and 34.9 percent “full mission capable.” But readiness rates for the new V-22s will likely decrease in Iraq, the message notes.


“Based on the historical data available, there is a reason for concern with regard to aircraft readiness and availability as our Block B aircraft begin to reach the flight hour thresholds we have on our Block A aircraft, thresholds we will reach more quickly with the addition of sustained high tempo operations in [Operation Iraqi Freedom],” the message says.


The ice-protection system, the top concern listed, has faced “numerous problems/discrepancies,” the message says. The fragility of this system has led to many problems -- with wiring as well as parts that wear out too soon or fail. These problems have been hard to troubleshoot, the message says.


There have also been problems with the flight-control computer and swashplate actuators, which are supposed to help the pilot control rotor movements. Most of the computer problems are likely caused by electrical faults, the bulletin says. The swashplate problems are due to leaky seals, worn out parts and moisture intrusion.


Air-cycle machines in V-22s have often failed because the ingestion of dirt and debris caused bearings to fail prematurely, the bulletin says. There are plans for a new, improved filter that Bell-Boeing would introduce in September 2008, the message says. In the long term, design changes could be needed, too. A team of experts is developing tactics, techniques and procedures to help safeguard the V-22 from dust and sand particles in Iraq, program officials said last month at the Paris Air Show.


The air-cycle machine problem “will negatively impact ability to fly in hot climates, and may negatively impact avionics system cooling creating further readiness degradation,” the message says.


If spare parts are available in adequate quantities, this should not be a long-term, major problem, but it would hurt aircraft readiness and availability because V-22s would need to be on the ground to have parts replaced, the message says. “If not properly managed, this could very well be the item that has the greatest potential to adversely affect operational capabilities while deployed forward,” the bulletin says.


The message also cites reliability issues with the aircraft’s infrared suppressor, problems with the pitch-control-link bearings and difficulties with the Engine Air Particle Separator (EAPS). A possible upgrade for the EAPS, which is designed to filter out dirt and debris, is “at least one year away,” the message says.


Overall, the V-22 is doing well, Dent said.


“We have seen continuous improvement in reliability and performance of the aircraft,” he said.


The bulletin says there are “adequate solutions” for two separate problems with the nose gear and fuel leaks. Dent said nose-landing-gear modifications have been delivered to the fleet and will be installed prior to deployment, if they have not been already. Also, Dent said a fix for fuel leaks has already been installed on several Marine Corps V-22s and will be on all of the Marine squadron’s aircraft prior to deployment.


Bell Helicopter Textron and Boeing make the V-22. Bell spokesman Bob Leder referred questions to program officials. -- Christopher J. Castelli






© 2007 Inside Washington Publishers

----

Again though, I wouldn't worry too much. F-35 is probably not going away. My point is that the program has added stress to it due to congress goofing things up. You can relax TH.

Dont think the question is that anyone will attack Australia because as stated theres a long distance involved. In my view either any trouble will prompt the Australians to be the ones having to go far away from its mainland, and this country lacks means of fighter craft projection like carriers.

Dont think the question is that anyone will attack Australia because as stated theres a long distance involved. In my view either any trouble will prompt the Australians to be the ones having to go far away from its mainland, and this country lacks means of fighter craft projection like carriers. With the retirement of the F-111 (lets face it theres no replacement for it anywhere) the aussies efectively loose all long range reach. I dont think every carrier force in the region is large enough to pose a threat to Australia either. A single light carrier task force would be too small since most navies in the the indic/pacific region do not posess enough means to form a large carrier battle group capable of fending off the entire Australian navy and airforce in its own watters. I dont see the purpose to attack australia directly either. The plot will be more likely to be strategic and idiologic and the proliferation of carriers to countries like malaysia and thailand, or South Korea are there mainly as deterrents and not necessarily as heavy means for sustained wars. Carriers make primary and rather juicy targets. A Single much cheaper AIP sub could sink the one carrier and that would spell check mate for that navy.

However at this time JASSM doesn't work.

F-111 has always been a all weather aircraft

the F-111 is going to require less tanking resources

A big part of what kills F-111 upgrades in Australian service

There are a long list of weapons still to be qualified on the Super

Not true. Currently it does not meet reliability criteria of 75%. LM is currently at 59%, 39 successes and 25 failures. LM and the air force are developing an improvement plan and will resume flight tests this fall. Nothing ground shaking for a new cruise missile using new technology.


Please look at the whole JASSM program. They have had a long time to get it right. A long time. It was suddenly qualified for full production after failures. It wasn't until recently that some general didn't want his name associated with a bad product, had a sample from all four production lots pulled from existing munitions storage in units and had them fired for 100 percent failure. That is pretty bad. Having to frag a target with 2 or 3 golden BBs using a weapon that was supposed to be low cost, isn't low cost. If the Tiger Team fails, Tomahawk IV looks aweful tasty. A more expensive round but it usually goes bang the first time.



Using older electronics whose reliability and maintainability are becoming a problem.


If you leave it the way it is. The revamped F-111 Air 6000 proposal was a whole different ball game with a lot of legacy avionics replaced.


But the escorts won't. With Hornets and JSF you self escort and you can even have tankers fly secondary escort. Much more flexible for around the same number of fueling assets.


Excellent points. However buddy tanking off of a Super ( 29000lb of gas total) while very very useful, isn't going to push a large strike very far. In the case of the USN SH tanking, just like the aircraft it replaces, more of a top off after launch and top off for marshall/recovery. In the case of the USN for big strikes like OEF (Afghanistan), large frame tankers were there.


Is the fact that the airframes are getting long in the tooth from all the high speed low level work they have done.


Read the real tests and not what Defence fearmongered. Airframe life could be pushed well beyond 2010. Dead issue now of course, and get rid of F-111 for whatever reason you want to, however, managing airframe life wasn't a valid reason as Dr. Nelson and some of his crew wrongly claimed.



Such as?

As I already stated. SLAM-ER is just getting qualified. JASSM ( never a USN weap but of interest to the RAAF didn't start captive carry til circa December 2006 ). Again not too big a deal. Especially as today's work with the Navy in the M.E. is mostly JDAM, and Paveway. Good enough. The war and tight budgets more than anything else to get small amounts of money for weapons qualifications and not much to do with the aircraft itself.

Good points. However at this time JASSM doesn't work. So that will have to prove itself big time. The program is on life support with a death watch and papers ready to sign to pull the plug if the tiger team doesn't pull a rabbit out of their hat with the latest reprieve.

F-111 is not a clear weather only aircraft. Just the PGMs currently in use with it. F-111 has always been a all weather aircraft vs fixed known targets with radar bombing low and fast and including offset radar bombing. Including high speed pitch up and toss of dumb iron. The only thing here of course is what ground fire risk increase you face doing that and of course the old paradigm of dumb bombing even with that method being a sorties per target method vs PGMs targets per sortie.

While a dead issue now, the other thing about F-111 use is with limited Aus tankers in a package of mixed aircraft, the F-111 is going to require less tanking resources. Legacy Hornet is a tanker dependant jet big time for real range holding weapons. There isn't any "myth" about F-111 range which with various useful weapons is over 1000 miles. Any way you cut it Super is going to use multiple tankers on a long range strike. What some in Australia think the F-111 was/is compared to what one of the F-111 squadrons that retired in USAF service with all the trimmings, glass cockpit appliances, and 90% MC rates are two different animals. We got rid of it because we had F-15Es and B-1s moving into the conventional world to pick up the slack in a post cold war money crunch.

A big part of what kills F-111 upgrades in Australian service is a known near broken relationship between Defence and Defence vendors. The long trail of procedural failures on complex upgrade stuff there is well known.

So, in some ways, the best thing to do is go with simple logistics solutions like new Super Hornet, C-17, etc etc with near outsourced logistical contracts as unless something dramatic happens, the Defence/Defence vendor relationship is never going to be fixed.

Fixing the Defence/Defence vendor relationship should be of prime importance (re: Dr. Nelson's letter on "self reliance"). As the blame the Defence vendor game by Defence is getting old. That is the big reason any advanced F-111 upgrades- (new jammers, laser pods, classic hornet radar put in the nose, glass cockpit, software work, testing etc )... can never happen.

Defence is I am sure watching the JASSM failure issue with great interest. The evaluation paper work they had on the competitors from the original decision should be warmed up, reviewed, and kept available in case the last effort to save JASSM goes way bad. JSOW and JSOW-ER will be handy to and at least with JSOW you know it goes bang and hits a target. All isn't lost though. The next variant of HARM being worked on now is faster and much longer range and will be set up to hit fixed land targets and not just emitters. So Defence looking at this new weapon for some future use would be wise. SLAM-ER is going to be qualified on the Super this year in the USN. There are a long list of weapons still to be qualified on the Super but lack of funding has made that slow more than anything else and not tech issues. Practical long range hyper-sonic PGMs, air or sea launched aren't that far off in the future. It is "I can touch you but you can't touch me" weapons like this that will give the Super what it needs to really be useful for Australia.