Forum: General F-35 Forum

I think we should keep in mind that Congress could approve more F-35A's and C's. In order to make up for F-35B's cut for further development. Remember, Gates has little say and Congress is free to purchase as many or few as it wants...........

Let's not forget that the USAF is still getting C-17's and the GE F136 contines to be funded. After years of Gates stating he would kill both......

F-16.net Sponsor

Corsair1963 wrote:

I think we should keep in mind that Congress could approve more F-35A's and C's. In order to make up for F-35B's cut for further development. Remember, Gates has little say and Congress is free to purchase as many or few as it wants...........

Let's not forget that the USAF is still getting C-17's and the GE F136 contines to be funded. After years of Gates stating he would kill both......

Congress could approve more F-35's than requested, but for FY 2011, they actually cut the administration's (Gates') requested airframes, citing delays in the program.

I was expecting Gates to mention the F136 would be terminated but i don't think he addressed it at all. Anyone know differently?

Corsair1963 wrote:

Let's not forget that the USAF is still getting C-17's and the GE F136 contines to be funded. After years of Gates stating he would kill both......

It's not for lack of trying on Gates part. GE is a heavy political donor and we have the best Congress money can buy.

stereospace wrote:

Corsair1963 wrote:

Let's not forget that the USAF is still getting C-17's and the GE F136 contines to be funded. After years of Gates stating he would kill both......

It's not for lack of trying on Gates part. GE is a heavy political donor and we have the best Congress money can buy.

Congress: "We need to cut spending and save money, the F-35 program is getting too expensive; can we afford this?"

Also Congress: "We need to fund a second engine for the overly expensive F-35 even though the DoD, nor the services want it..."

They (Congress and/or DoD) keep this up and keep cutting numbers the F-35 WILL cost more than the F-22. It will end up like the 21 B-2s that we purchased after sinking $45B into it's program.

"Why no Mr Chairman of this Congressional investigation, I can't tell you why the 150 F-35s we purchased were $750 Million each.... "

Doh

TEG

spazsinbad wrote:

SDD is now delayed to early 2016, versus mid-2015 as planned in the restructuring of the program early last year.

??
1 year ago, SDD had been delayed to early 2016,

The Amiable Butler Bits on F-35 events lately:

JSF Tests Slips Again, Purchase To Be Slashed Jan 11, 2011 By Amy Butler - Washington

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... adline=JSF Tests Slips Again, Purchase To Be Slashed

"As U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates puts the ailing F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing aircraft on life support and proposes another delay to the single-engine stealthy fighter’s testing, he is also pushing forward a broad savings agenda that will enhance several major aerospace programs.

For industry, the results are mixed. The most dramatic impact is on Lockheed Martin, which must turn around the F-35B within two years or expect its termination. Production would be cut by 124 aircraft through Fiscal 2016, limiting the company’s ability to reduce the near-term per-unit price and entice more international customers....

...The largest programmatic disruption is clearly to the JSF, a U.S.-led effort with eight partner nations. Less than one year after its last major restructuring and a per-unit cost overrun of more than 50%, the F-35 production profile will be cut again in the forthcoming Fiscal 2012 budget request. The additional restructuring is needed to put the Marine Corps’ short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) variant on “probation” owing to “significant testing problems,” Gates says. “These issues may lead to a redesign of the aircraft’s structure and propulsion—changes that could add yet more weight and more cost to an aircraft that has little capacity to absorb more of either.” Defense officials have not clearly said what needs to be done to avoid termination of the Stovl version, but they say that two years is enough time to engineer a fix, if possible, and assess its impact on performance.

Gates says the Marine Corps “made a compelling case” to hold off termination, pending more work. Already, however, the U.K., a primary Stovl partner, backed out of the program, leaving only the Marine Corps and Italy as likely customers. Other potential buyers could include Israel, Japan and Spain.

Despite the cutback in Stovl buys, the Pentagon hopes to increase production orders by 50% each year, based on recommendations from a Manufacturing Review Team that conducted an assessment last year. However, its proposed buys alone would not be enough to achieve that rate; international orders would be needed, as well.

In addition to the six Stovls in Fiscal 2012 and 2013 each, the Pentagon expects to propose buying 19 conventional-takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) versions and seven carrier variants (CV) in Fiscal 2012; 24 CTOLs and 12 CVs in Fiscal 2013; 40 CTOLs and 14 CVs in Fiscal 2014; 50 CTOLs and 19 CVs in Fiscal 2015; and 70 CTOLs and 20 CVs in Fiscal 2016. If approved, Stovl production would include eight aircraft in Fiscal 2014, and 12 and 18 in Fiscal 2015 and 2016, respectively.

The development effort will also slip by nine more months on top of last year’s 13-month slip. Developmental testing was set to end in mid-2015; it will now slip to early 2016. Gates intends to decouple Stovl version testing from progress on the CTOL and CV, which he says are proceeding “satisfactorily.”

These changes mean the Marine Corps’ 2012 initial operational capability date cannot be met. USAF and the Navy planned for the F-35 to reach service in 2016. This is under review.

The development program will require another $4.6 billion, and a total of $13.8 billion to reach completion. This brings the development cost total to $59.4 billion. The original estimate was $38 billion when Lockheed was selected to build the JSF.

Lockheed Martin officials say that the software development program, which fell under scrutiny last year, “has been re-baselined to align with well-recognized industry standards for cost development and testing.” During last year’s restructuring, the Pentagon added funding for more attention to the software work.

“The changes . . . define a path to manage risk, provide funding and focus, and ensure the program’s success,” says Lockheed CEO Bob Stevens. “We recognize our role and responsibility to deliver extraordinary fighters in three variants. We’re committed to doing that, and we’re confident that we’ll succeed, including delivering the Stovl variant.”

Last year, Gates withheld more than $600 million in potential award fees because of the company’s problems delivering and testing the aircraft, and the Pentagon remains skeptical of Lockheed’s management practices...."

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

Congress: "We need to cut spending and save money, the F-35 program is getting too expensive; can we afford this?"

Also Congress: "We need to fund a second engine for the overly expensive F-35 even though the DoD, nor the services want it..."

They (Congress and/or DoD) keep this up and keep cutting numbers the F-35 WILL cost more than the F-22. It will end up like the 21 B-2s that we purchased after sinking $45B into it's program.

"Why no Mr Chairman of this Congressional investigation, I can't tell you why the 150 F-35s we purchased were $750 Million each.... "

Doh

TEG

This

munny wrote:

At this point one can't help but wonder whether the A and C would have been designed differently if the B didn't exist.

There's the rub. If the STOVL gets the chop, then what was the point of all those design compromises forced on the USAF and Navy? They may have had a plane that was at least capable of supercruise. I'm still rooting for the B model though. It has the potential to add a lot of capability to American and Allied ships that would otherwise be limited to Harriers. It's not gonna fly off of dirt patches in the woods, but it will still have a lot more basing options than any other 5th generation fighter in development.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

munny wrote:

At this point one can't help but wonder whether the A and C would have been designed differently if the B didn't exist.

There's the rub. If the STOVL gets the chop, then what was the point of all those design compromises forced on the USAF and Navy? They may have had a plane that was at least capable of supercruise. I'm still rooting for the B model though. It has the potential to add a lot of capability to American and Allied ships that would otherwise be limited to Harriers. It's not gonna fly off of dirt patches in the woods, but it will still have a lot more basing options than any other 5th generation fighter in development.

If by supercruise, you mean M1.5 or greater, then you may have a point. It's entirely likely that the F-35 can exceed M1 on dry thrust though.

wrightwing wrote:

If by supercruise, you mean M1.5 or greater, then you may have a point. It's entirely likely that the F-35 can exceed M1 on dry thrust though.

I've heard that rumor, but I'm not convinced yet. The F135 as I understand is a higher bypass version of the F119. That means that while the thrust might be higher, the air going through the engine isn't necessarily going fast enough for supercruise. It's like driving around in 3rd gear. You have more power and acceleration, but you don't top out very high.

In any case, we'll just have to wait and see.

Last edited by spazsinbad on Nov 14, 2011 - 06:54 PM; edited 3 times in total

This entry is relevant if one jumps back to first page of this thread here for context:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... r-asc.html [SCROLL DOWN]
_________________________

Chu Lai VietNam VMA 225 A4 Skyhawk 1965 Carl Video Part 0B (15 minutes)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ilBZjpl2Lk

"Uploaded by VMA225 on Sep 6, 2011
Follow The Marines From Marine Attack Squadron ( VMA ) 225 as they Fly Through the Western Pacific and Viet Nam 1964 - 1965. Watch the Vagabonds as They Fight and Party Their Way To Glory."
&
COMMENTS:
"@cavok02: The runway was supposed to be 7,000 ft. At the beginning, the Summer of 1965, it rarely was. Mostly it was about 4,000 ft. The runway kept settling and the Seabees would tear one half of the runway up and we would fly from the other half of the runway. We rotated back to CONUS in Oct. 65 and by that time the runway was 7,000 ft. In 1966, they built a pernament Concrete Runway, which isï»¿ in use today. The JP 5 came in by Civilian Ship.

VMA225 2 months ago
@cavok02: There was a water bouy out about 300 ft. in the South China Sea. The Civilian Ships would anchor and pump the fuel into the land. The pilots flew 2 sorties each day. One in the morning and the second sortie after lunch. In some cases the pilots flew a third sortie at night. The missions were general targets thatï»¿ were called in by spotter aircraft. We lost 5 aircraft that were damaged. Mostly accidents. The aircraft had to be shipped up to Nippi in Japan for overhaul.

VMA225 2 months ago
@cavok02: 4 of these aircraft losses were A4C's and 1 aircraft loss was a A4E. Two A4C's were damaged by Ground Fire. We did not lose any pilots. Although we did lose 2 Avionics Marines who were captured and are still listed as MIA's. Also we lost another ground Marine who was med evac to the Army Burn Center in Texas because of a fuel pits fire. After we left Chu Lai for CONUS, there were Pilot Losses out of Chu Lai."

Common Spaz, shouldn't ^this^ go on the cold war topic?

double post - oops (original post did not show up here?) Now it does?

Last edited by spazsinbad on Nov 14, 2011 - 06:55 PM; edited 1 time in total

Problem solved - go back to last entry above. Thanks.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

F-35B On Probation, New Bomber To Go Forward