Forum: Program and politics

river_otter wrote:

The basic finalized design of the B-2 dates back to 1980... We've learned a lot about stealth operations since designing it

What we've learned about stealth since then, as is demonstrated by the latest drone & next-generation bomber designs/proposals, has continued to confirm that the single flat flying wedge remains the ideal shape for stealth, and that a bomber has no other pressing design needs to force deviation from that ideal like F-22 and F-35 did. Materials have improved, and protection/maintenance of the skin was the big complaint about the original B-2, but a new series being built from scratch can use the fighters' new improved skin from the start, without affecting shape and turning it into a "new plane" that calls for an immense neverending string of tests like what's been dragging the F-35 project on and on and on for years. That gets bigger & longer, and runs over budget by a wider margin, for every new plane that comes out. By building planes from a design that isn't new, you cut that part of the process out because you already did it the first time.

river_otter wrote:

we can be more informed on what to put in and what not to put in

OK, put whatever in it that you want to. It's a big frame, and you'll be excluding the older equivalent parts anyway. Switching to new modern stuff to put in it doesn't mean having to mess around with the frame that we're putting them in and thus setting off down the road of ages and ages of hundreds/thousands of flight tests.

river_otter wrote:

there is no more B-2 assembly line, no more workers experienced in building them, just paper and computer files (how many of the basic manufacturing plans are even in CAD formats that can readily be opened today?). We'd have to re-build the entire assembly plant, same as for a new bomber

The fact that restarting an established design's production could be the same as starting production of a new plane would not be an argument against it, because it just means the alternatives (other than just letting ourselves end up with no bombers like most other countries) are no better in that regard. The idea is not to magically conjure up planes without needing a plant to build them; it's to build planes that will be ready to put to use as soon as they're out of the plant, instead of building one or two prototypes and then waiting for testing for at least a couple of decades (or until the delays and the few extra trillion dollars involved cause the process to get canceled and we end up bomberless anyway).

However, restarting production of an established design could have some advantages over a new one anyway. At least we already know what such a plant would need to have and could save some money by using older production methods where they're cheaper and newer ones where they're more efficient, and some of it must even still exist anyway.

F-16.net Sponsor

Quote:

F-35 Under Fire In Italy

ROME — The Italian government is ushering in a new round of defense cuts in which, for the first time, the fate of Rome’s participation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program will be seriously threatened.'

In Italy, much of the work on the military review remains to be completed. Nevertheless, a sharp reduction in the number of F-35s Italy will buy is virtually certain, military officials say. At least a third of the 131 fighters slated for procurement will likely fall under the budget ax, with some minority parties arguing for an outright program termination.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... In%20Italy

Vipernice wrote:

Quote:

F-35 Under Fire In Italy

ROME — The Italian government is ushering in a new round of defense cuts in which, for the first time, the fate of Rome’s participation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program will be seriously threatened.'

In Italy, much of the work on the military review remains to be completed. Nevertheless, a sharp reduction in the number of F-35s Italy will buy is virtually certain, military officials say. At least a third of the 131 fighters slated for procurement will likely fall under the budget ax, with some minority parties arguing for an outright program termination.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... In%20Italy

Gosh darn it. If only Italy hadn't already gone and laid down funding for long lead items on it's first four F-35 aircraft...

Quote:

Pentagon Contract Announcement

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued January 6, 2011)

United Technologies Corp., Pratt & Whitney Military Engines, East Hartford, Conn., is being awarded a $194,097,296 advance acquisition contract with fixed-price line items for long lead components, parts, and materials required for the delivery of 37 propulsion systems for the Lot VI F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program (18 conventional take-off and landing [CTOL] for the Air Force; six short take-off and vertical landing for the Marine Corps; seven carrier variant for the Navy; four CTOL for the Italian Air Force; two CTOL for the Royal Australian Air Force; and associated spares.

Work will be performed in East Hartford, Conn. (64 percent); Bristol, United Kingdom (25 percent); and Indianapolis, Ind. (11 percent), and is expected to be completed in September 2012.

Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy ($37,137,996; 19.1 percent), the U.S. Marine Corps ($84,683,000; 43.6 percent), the U.S. Air Force ($54,929,988; 28.3 percent), and the governments of Italy ($11,564,208; 6 percent) and Australia ($5,782,104; 3 percent).

This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1).

The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting (N00019-11-C-0082).

-ends-

Conan wrote:

Gosh darn it. If only Italy hadn't already gone and laid down funding for long lead items on it's first four F-35 aircraft...

Yeah well a 194 million dollar deposit on long-lead items for a number of jets is quite a different story than a 1/3rd reduction (or more?) on a anticipated JSF fleet. After the Netherlands, Denmark and the UK, Italy would be the 4th partner nation to cut its JSF numbers.

Vipernice wrote:

Conan wrote:

Gosh darn it. If only Italy hadn't already gone and laid down funding for long lead items on it's first four F-35 aircraft...

Yeah well a 194 million dollar deposit on long-lead items for a number of jets is quite a different story than a 1/3rd reduction (or more?) on a anticipated JSF fleet. After the Netherlands, Denmark and the UK, Italy would be the 4th partner nation to cut its JSF numbers.

I guess those Romans aren't reading Ares Blog then eh? They keep signing these contracts without realising how "seriously threatened" their participation in F-35 program is?

Gimme a break. Even if that happens why is it news? It'd be the same thing as happened to the 121 Typhoons it has ordered down from the 165 it initially planned on.

Only ever seems to be a problem when it's F-35 related though...

Conan wrote:

I guess those Romans aren't reading Ares Blog then eh? They keep signing these contracts without realising how "seriously threatened" their participation in F-35 program is?

Gimme a break. Even if that happens why is it news? It'd be the same thing as happened to the 121 Typhoons it has ordered down from the 165 it initially planned on.

Only ever seems to be a problem when it's F-35 related though...

UK/DK/IT/NL planned on getting 414 JSFs.

With Italy also cutting JSF that sum would shrink to about 250 jets. Still without any significant commitment, unlike the Typhoon order.

Keep smiling.

Vipernice wrote:

Conan wrote:

Gosh darn it. If only Italy hadn't already gone and laid down funding for long lead items on it's first four F-35 aircraft...

Yeah well a 194 million dollar deposit on long-lead items for a number of jets is quite a different story than a 1/3rd reduction (or more?) on a anticipated JSF fleet. After the Netherlands, Denmark and the UK, Italy would be the 4th partner nation to cut its JSF numbers.

Concerning the Netherlands you don’t know sir. No one knows, or even could know how many F35’s will be ordered. The next government, who has to order the F35, is the government that will have to decide what a budget for the F35 will be and how many F35’s can be ordered.

All lower mentioned numbers than 85, last years, always have been speculations by non officials or journalists. Numbers are mentioned in the media, but in letters to Parliament by the Min of Defense, never any other number has been mentioned than 85.

Although there exists a number mentioned some years ago. One had in mind to order a first batch of 50 F35’s a few years ago. For instance ex general D. Berlijn and others wanted to order this batch already at that time.

The only official what we know is, a budget of €6.2 billion and a needed raise to €7.6 billion (till so far), when counted with 85 F35.s. Or 20% less with a budget of €6.2 billion.
In that case, 20% less: 17 F35’s or 68 F35’s.

This government put a side a first €4.5 billion for ordering F35’s (as a first batch).
What the eventual “total” needed budget will be is for the next government. Officially the government still counts with 85 F35’s and a needed budget (Last letter parliament).

Although expected lower numbers, no one knows or even could know already what
a actual number will be.
Within some weeks a yearly letter to Parliament about the F35 will be published. May be some more about this will be published?

I don’t expect there will be some information about this. Every question by members of Parliament, how many F35’s and what budget, still has been answered as, we are not in charge and have no authority what budget and how many F35’s will or can be ordered.

Coming years (till a first order) no one can or will know what it’s gonna be concerning the Netherlands. (May be 68? This is also the number of F16’s right now in the RNLAF).

m wrote:

Concerning the Netherlands you don’t know sir. No one knows, or even could know how many F35’s will be ordered.

Yeah, That's why I used the highest likely possible purchase numbers for NL (50 jets as per the latest defence white paper) Also took in the long term Danish defence decision and the latest UK strategic defence review as a source. It could be less or even a couple more but I did say "about 250" in total. When NL joined the JSF program its ambition were 85 and that's what LM would like to tell us.

Vipernice wrote:

m wrote:

Concerning the Netherlands you don’t know sir. No one knows, or even could know how many F35’s will be ordered.

Yeah, That's why I used the highest likely possible purchase numbers for NL (50 jets as per the latest defence white paper) Also took in the long term Danish defence decision and the latest UK strategic defence review as a source. It could be less or even a couple more but I did say "about 250" in total. When NL joined the JSF program its ambition were 85 and that's what LM would like to tell us.

White paper? Suppose you mean a US White Paper? In Dutch White Papers you won’t find any mentioned number 50.
No government could have ever mentioned a total number. Only a ruling government, who will order the F35, decides what the budget will be, as well as a total number of 35’s.

In the media or whatever you will read different numbers, but official documents never mention a different number than 85.
Quote in one of the last letters to parliament:

Letter to Parliament, may 25, 2011

Datum: 25 mei 2011
Betreft: Feitelijke vragen inzake de jaarrapportage van het project Vervanging F-16 over het jaar 2010

Quote 1: Met de jaarrapportage van het project Vervanging F-16 over 2010 is de Kamer geïnformeerd over de raming van de exploitatiekosten van de F-35. Deze raming heeft betrekking op de gehele levensduur van 30 jaar en het planningsaantal van 85 toestellen. (Page 12)

Translation (Bing): With the annual reporting of the project is the Replacement F-16 on 2010 Room informed on the estimates of the operating costs of the F-35. This estimate covers the entire life of 30 years and the number of planning of 85 aircraft

Quote 2: Vanaf 2006 tot en met 2010 is voor het project Vervanging F-16 sprake geweest van een onderbouwd projectbudget op basis van het planningsaantal van 85 toestellen. Dit budget is jaarlijks geactualiseerd, waarbij niet is gekozen voor het aanhouden van een projectreserve binnen het projectbudget. Het hanteren van een reserve is niet eenvoudig vanwege de omvang en de looptijd van het project en is pas goed mogelijk na een besluit over de kwantitatieve behoefte. Met de beleidsbrief is gemeld dat in het investeringsoverzicht € 4,5 miljard wordt gereserveerd voor de vervanging van de F-16, in afwachting van besluitvorming door een volgend kabinet over de vervanger van de F-16 en het aantal te verwerven toestellen.

Translation (Bing): From 2006 to 2010 for the F-16 Replacement project has been a substantiated project budget on the basis of the planning number of 85 aircraft. This budget is updated annually, which is not chosen for maintaining a reserve project within the project budget. The handling of a reserve is not easy because of the size and duration of the project and is only possible after a decision on the quantitative needs. With the policy letter is reported that in the investment € 4.5 billion is reserved for the replacement of the F-16, in anticipation of decision-making by a subsequent cabinet about the replacement of the F-16 and the number of appliances to acquire.

http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries ... -2010.html

Less F35’s? The only number or percentage what officially has ever been mentioned: 20% less F35’s, in case no budget raise to €7.6 billion. (20% would mean 17 F35’s, or 68 F35’s)

delvo wrote:

river_otter wrote:

The basic finalized design of the B-2 dates back to 1980... We've learned a lot about stealth operations since designing it

What we've learned about stealth since then, as is demonstrated by the latest drone & next-generation bomber designs/proposals, has continued to confirm that the single flat flying wedge remains the ideal shape for stealth, and that a bomber has no other pressing design needs to force deviation from that ideal like F-22 and F-35 did. Materials have improved, and protection/maintenance of the skin was the big complaint about the original B-2, but a new series being built from scratch can use the fighters' new improved skin from the start, without affecting shape and turning it into a "new plane" that calls for an immense neverending string of tests like what's been dragging the F-35 project on and on and on for years. That gets bigger & longer, and runs over budget by a wider margin, for every new plane that comes out. By building planes from a design that isn't new, you cut that part of the process out because you already did it the first time.

river_otter wrote:

we can be more informed on what to put in and what not to put in

OK, put whatever in it that you want to. It's a big frame, and you'll be excluding the older equivalent parts anyway. Switching to new modern stuff to put in it doesn't mean having to mess around with the frame that we're putting them in and thus setting off down the road of ages and ages of hundreds/thousands of flight tests.

river_otter wrote:

there is no more B-2 assembly line, no more workers experienced in building them, just paper and computer files (how many of the basic manufacturing plans are even in CAD formats that can readily be opened today?). We'd have to re-build the entire assembly plant, same as for a new bomber

The fact that restarting an established design's production could be the same as starting production of a new plane would not be an argument against it, because it just means the alternatives (other than just letting ourselves end up with no bombers like most other countries) are no better in that regard. The idea is not to magically conjure up planes without needing a plant to build them; it's to build planes that will be ready to put to use as soon as they're out of the plant, instead of building one or two prototypes and then waiting for testing for at least a couple of decades (or until the delays and the few extra trillion dollars involved cause the process to get canceled and we end up bomberless anyway).

However, restarting production of an established design could have some advantages over a new one anyway. At least we already know what such a plant would need to have and could save some money by using older production methods where they're cheaper and newer ones where they're more efficient, and some of it must even still exist anyway.

I'd agree that tailless flying wing/wedge design seems the way to go for the NGB but I also think that the design team should start with a clean sheet of paper to incorporate any advances learned re shaping in the years since the B-2 was designed. There is also some mention of a possible morphing wing design which again would necessarily impact on the overall shape of th aircraft. Who knows what other considerations the design team will have to take into account?

m wrote:

------------

Sure that parliament letter wouldn't talk of any other number than 85 in the planning because that is still the number to offically work with. Actually it's a number long since revealed to be used only for public discussions. There is however by several accounts a number of 50-52 in the planning unless budget changes. Just not something comfortable to put to the public as it means not just fewer jets but also further layoffs and closures.

Yes F-16 fleet down to 68. Replacing them with 50 JSF is clearly doable. With the F-16 fleet at 68 the number of air force pilots continue to drop down even below said number. In additon the 14 American based Dutch F-16s used for training can be replaced with a smaller shared training concept as detailed in the JSF partnership. The process to make room for a small - but costly - JSF fleet continues without any sign of moves in another direction.

The 85 number is already a reduction from the original planning. The fleet number drops down "officially" when it's politically suitable to go public with it.

Vipernice wrote:

------------

.[/quote]

Is it … show me a letter of Defense where you have read the number 50-52?

Mentioning a total number of 50-52 would be out of question for any government, they were and are not in charge to do so. Last governments, as well as this government, all had the same policy about this: that’s up for the government who is gonna order the F35.

Till so far there does not exist any other official mentioned number F35’s than 85, except a lot of speculations. Although this number does not tell, this will or would have been a number F35’s to be ordered. The number itself has always been a method for comparing and counting.
Till 2006 a tentative budget, after 2006 with a certain budget, how many F35’s can be bought.
As written before, till so far, officially €6.2 billion: 20% less F35’s. Or a raise to €7.6 billion when 85 F35’s.

When one uses the €4.5 billion, in that case one could speculate about 50-52.
Either the government does not gave any number of F35’s, this amount will be put a side for investment (probably buying dollars). As stated by the government the actual needed budget will be a case for the next government.
As also stated in 2002/2003, the F35 will be ordered in batches like the F16 was ordered in two batches.

The only number 50 I have ever read is the number 50, a first batch gen. Berlijn did want to order in 2006. And even that number has not officially been mentioned by the government.

The number will be lower than 85? Probably, but no one knows coming next years and are and will be nothing more than speculations.

May be the number will be lower, for in stance 68? There is either a problem when the number would be quite low (too low).
The Dutch are not in the same position as the UK, or to some extend Italy as well. The UK could lower the F35’s without that much repercussions; a special relationship with the US, as well as BAE is a world leader in the Aviation Industry.
Often forgotten, they have problems, but the UK still is a 7th or 8th ranked world economy as well.

The Dutch either are too small, and of no importance, compared with bigger countries like the UK. (The US has also a large population from British origin, as well as a large population from Italian origin)

Economical pressure will be quite easy for the US and could for instance becoming a problem to get maintenance (engines) to the Netherlands (In 40-50 years; expected some $15-20 billion).
Turkey does not seem ordering less F35's, so for instance .... if they want to compete? In that case, if I was an American and in charge, bye bye Dutch.

Although for in stance small countries combined as Norway, Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark are and have become more important than is realized in the US.

o Germany: from 177 to 140 jets
o UK: with bad luck may be 95 Typhoons and F35: 40-50?
Total: 140 (Germany) + 135-145? (UK)= 275-285 jets

EPAF: (without Portugal)
o 60 (Belgium) + 30 (Denmark) + 68 (Netherlands + 40-50? Norway
Total: ±200 F16’s

Compared also population:
o UK (62) + Germany (82) = 144 million
o EPAF countries: 35 million

If they are going to relaunch a design then I say then do the B-1 augmented using a combination of F-22 and F-35 systems. The B-1 is an under-appreciated design that is flexible and potent. There is no reason that the B-1 rebirth couldn't happen far cheaper than re-birthing the B-2 line. And if the B-1 is too big then aim for something along the lines of the F-111. But I'd just as excitedly support a stretch of the F-35 line into some kind of affordable tactical bomber. With so much hinging around the F-35 success there is no reason you get too far off that path.

Italians need money and possibly gunships for possible North Africa unrest not stealth o semistealth fighters

Forum: Program and politics

Hit piece on the F-35 in the Italian Press