Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,543
Reaction score
3,967
[...] BAE has managed to cut the cost per flying hour of its EW system on the Joint Strike Fighter by more than 50 percent, Jerry Wohletz, vice president of Electronic Combat Solutions, told a small group of reporters yesterday during the annual Navy League Sea Air Space show.

That reduction applies only to the cost of the AN/ASQ-239, not the “total” weapons system, he explained, but still “that’s a substantial savings passed on” to the F-35 Joint Program Office.
[...]
Further, the company over the last four years has bolstered the availability of the EW system to 85 percent — “a significant improvement,” said Betsy Warren, BAE’s director of sustainment for Electronic Combat Solutions.

 

Dragon029

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
853
Reaction score
313
I'm surprised it hasn't already been done !
This is notably in contradiction to what Gen Kelly recently declared here regarding the potential of F-35, as a dedicated aggressor.
Kelly was talking about fielding a large number of 5th gen aggressors. It's been public knowledge that handfuls of F-35s and F-22s have operated on REDFOR during training exercises, but this has always been just jets from Hill AFB, etc spending a few days or maybe a week away from being on BLUFOR. The new dedicated aggressor F-35s in the 64th AGRS are permanently dedicated to emulating J-20s, etc, but even then the 64th AGRS is not a fully F-35 squadron; rather something like half the squadron is flying F-16s, and likewise every other dedicated aggressor squadron across the armed services is only operating 4th gen or earlier jets. Replacing (eg) 50%+ of those with 5th jets is cost prohibitive, hence the talk of using stealthy drones as surrogate REDFOR 5th gens.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
6,661
Reaction score
5,425

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,451
Reaction score
1,532
Website
beyondthesprues.com

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,543
Reaction score
3,967
“They do feel that they have some ways to reduce costs significantly that they’re still exploring. So, that’s encouraging.”

The F-35 still is a “dramatically improved capability” over fourth-generation aircraft, Kendall said. The jet represents a “game-changing tactical air warfare capability. And it is expensive, compared to much earlier systems, which are much simpler and less capable.”

As the fleet expands, the Air Force and other stakeholders need to drive the costs down, he said. Some “real opportunities” include replacing the much-maligned Autonomic Logistics Information System with the Operational Data Integrated Network.

“We can hopefully reduce some manpower through that. We can reduce the cycle times for maintenance and get some savings there as well,” Kendall said.

He added: “There are also some technologies that could go into future upgrades that could reduce some of the operational costs, such as fuel, significantly, but we’re not ready to commit to those at this point.” He nodded when asked if he was referring to a “next-generation engine.”

 

icyplanetnhc (Steve)

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
199
Reaction score
170
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu
This AFM interview covers the same talk by BGen White. It’s interesting to see that there so far hasn’t been a consensus even at high level USAF leadership on the adaptation of AETP to existing airframes.

 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,543
Reaction score
3,967
Red tails get ready for F-35:
Preparations are underway at Dannelly Field in Montgomery as the 187th Fighter Wing awaits the arrival of 20 prestigious F-35 aircrafts.

It became official in April of last year that Dannelly Field would become home base to the F-35A Lightning II. The fighter jet is considered to be the most advanced in the world today.

“It can see things and do things that other aircraft cannot, and again, it’s a game-changer for us,” said 187th Fighter Wing commander Col. Douglas DeMaio.

The 187th Fighter Wing is just one of two bases in the country to be selected as an Air National Guard F-35A Lightening II location. Also selected as a location for the jets was Truax Field in Wisconsin.

 
Last edited:

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,543
Reaction score
3,967
Given that the latest engine issue is a direct result of the pressure on cost, effectively that won't help.

Like it is said in the linked article above:

Unfortunately, there's been an over-focus on cost as opposed to the real measure of merit, and that's value – value in the context of cost-effectiveness," he said.

"A handful of F-35s can accomplish the same mission objectives, or desired effects, as it might take 12, 15, 20, 25 or more other aircraft.

"It's already participated in combat in Afghanistan, with both the United States Marine Corps as well as the United States Air Force [and Israel used it with brio in some of the most contested airspace today on the planet].

"The proof is really in the pudding when it comes to performance, and that is not listening to what some budget analyst in Washington [has to say] … but the man or woman who's been piloting the F-35.

Something we have been saying here for long also.
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
289
Reaction score
280
"A handful of F-35s can accomplish the same mission objectives, or desired effects, as it might take 12, 15, 20, 25 or more other aircraft."

This argument may cut both ways. Sure keeping on buying the F-35 is the better alternative, but if its so effective, why need a 1-1 replacement with legacy fleet.
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
306
Reaction score
191
"A handful of F-35s can accomplish the same mission objectives, or desired effects, as it might take 12, 15, 20, 25 or more other aircraft."

This argument may cut both ways. Sure keeping on buying the F-35 is the better alternative, but if its so effective, why need a 1-1 replacement with legacy fleet.
You still need to be physically there with an asset covering airspace with regards to air combat. The ground threats have also changed and improved since the 90s and are likewise more effective. Any modern fight with a peer adversary is going to last a week or two and I would prefer to have more than just enough that is needed in a simulation.

Sure a f22 can defeat 6 migs but it can replicate itself to be everywhere at once. And so it is with the F-35.
 

icyplanetnhc (Steve)

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
199
Reaction score
170
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,543
Reaction score
3,967
Deep dive (once again) into the everlasting next generation fighter for Canada.

A minor correction tough: Switzerland, which had a very similar acquisition profile recently, found that the F-35A was the cheapest of two of the three in-line for Canada.

Obviously this doesn't sideline the chances of the E-Gripen (doesn't it look more sexy that way?) but understanding the NORAD criteria, the odds are thin.
IMOHO, Trudeau II (or is that III already?) should transform his own biased take on the subject by selecting a combined fleet of Grip and 35, what would give him an honorable exit strategy from that debacle. If long term statistics are favorable, History will see him as a procurement genius or, if not, just forget that fact.

The odds also are that De-Havilland and Saab could work in partnership in the next medium regional jet or prop, opening opportunities for both.


 
Last edited:

EwenS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
283
Reaction score
480
The odds also are that De-Havilland and Saab could work in partnership in the next medium regional jet or prop, opening opportunities for both.



Your informaation about Canadian Aircraft companies is a bit out of date.

It was Bombardier that was, and still is, working with Saab. Its aviation activities are now limited to the bizjet market with Learjet, Challenger and Global ranges. It is their bizjet Global range that is now the basis of Saab's Globaleye AEW&C system. But it has ditched most of its other aviation projects in an attempt to restore its finances. So:-

The Q400 project and rights to the De Havilland name and trademarks are now owned by Longview Aviation Capital. This was added to the DHC1-7 portfolio it already held through its Viking Air subsidiary from 2006 and consolidated under the De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited banner. That was in 2018/19. It seems that production has now stopped due to a lack of orders, and if it restarts it will be in a new location.

The C Series small airliner project became the Airbus A220 in 2018 when Airbus rescued it by taking a stake. Since Feb 2020 that is owned Airbus 75%, Quebec Govt 25%. There are production lines both in Canada and in Alabama.

The Bombardier CRJ, which grew out of the bizjet line back in the late 1980s, was sold off in 2019/20 to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and production in Canada has now ceased. I've not heard what MHI's palns are for the future.

So I very much doubt that Bombardier will be getting involved in the "medium regional jet or prop" market for a long time if at all.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,543
Reaction score
3,967
@EwenS : Thanks for the correction. I was more referring to a Q400 successor, hence me naming De Havilland.
 
Last edited:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,473
Reaction score
3,358
"A handful of F-35s can accomplish the same mission objectives, or desired effects, as it might take 12, 15, 20, 25 or more other aircraft."

This argument may cut both ways. Sure keeping on buying the F-35 is the better alternative, but if its so effective, why need a 1-1 replacement with legacy fleet.
You still need to be physically there with an asset covering airspace with regards to air combat. The ground threats have also changed and improved since the 90s and are likewise more effective. Any modern fight with a peer adversary is going to last a week or two and I would prefer to have more than just enough that is needed in a simulation.

Sure a f22 can defeat 6 migs but it can replicate itself to be everywhere at once. And so it is with the F-35.
Your el-cheapo fighter won't do you any good if all it does is show up to get shot down.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
4,543
Reaction score
3,967
Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 242 declares initial operational capability for the F-35B aircraft on Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan, on Sept. 9, 2021.
A 10 month only conversion!
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
631
Reaction score
432
"A handful of F-35s can accomplish the same mission objectives, or desired effects, as it might take 12, 15, 20, 25 or more other aircraft."

This argument may cut both ways. Sure keeping on buying the F-35 is the better alternative, but if its so effective, why need a 1-1 replacement with legacy fleet.
You still need to be physically there with an asset covering airspace with regards to air combat. The ground threats have also changed and improved since the 90s and are likewise more effective. Any modern fight with a peer adversary is going to last a week or two and I would prefer to have more than just enough that is needed in a simulation.

Sure a f22 can defeat 6 migs but it can replicate itself to be everywhere at once. And so it is with the F-35.
Your el-cheapo fighter won't do you any good if all it does is show up to get shot down.
if in a real war you could make them unmanned, you could play some great mind games with the enemy.....

How many aircraft is Canada looking for?
 

kitnut617

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
473
Reaction score
248
"A handful of F-35s can accomplish the same mission objectives, or desired effects, as it might take 12, 15, 20, 25 or more other aircraft."

This argument may cut both ways. Sure keeping on buying the F-35 is the better alternative, but if its so effective, why need a 1-1 replacement with legacy fleet.
You still need to be physically there with an asset covering airspace with regards to air combat. The ground threats have also changed and improved since the 90s and are likewise more effective. Any modern fight with a peer adversary is going to last a week or two and I would prefer to have more than just enough that is needed in a simulation.

Sure a f22 can defeat 6 migs but it can replicate itself to be everywhere at once. And so it is with the F-35.
Your el-cheapo fighter won't do you any good if all it does is show up to get shot down.
if in a real war you could make them unmanned, you could play some great mind games with the enemy.....

How many aircraft is Canada looking for?
About half of what the UK wants
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
631
Reaction score
432
"A handful of F-35s can accomplish the same mission objectives, or desired effects, as it might take 12, 15, 20, 25 or more other aircraft."

This argument may cut both ways. Sure keeping on buying the F-35 is the better alternative, but if its so effective, why need a 1-1 replacement with legacy fleet.
You still need to be physically there with an asset covering airspace with regards to air combat. The ground threats have also changed and improved since the 90s and are likewise more effective. Any modern fight with a peer adversary is going to last a week or two and I would prefer to have more than just enough that is needed in a simulation.

Sure a f22 can defeat 6 migs but it can replicate itself to be everywhere at once. And so it is with the F-35.
Your el-cheapo fighter won't do you any good if all it does is show up to get shot down.
if in a real war you could make them unmanned, you could play some great mind games with the enemy.....

How many aircraft is Canada looking for?
About half of what the UK wants
70 ish? Thats a bit small to split in two, with all the duplicated costs....
 

kitnut617

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
473
Reaction score
248
"A handful of F-35s can accomplish the same mission objectives, or desired effects, as it might take 12, 15, 20, 25 or more other aircraft."

This argument may cut both ways. Sure keeping on buying the F-35 is the better alternative, but if its so effective, why need a 1-1 replacement with legacy fleet.
You still need to be physically there with an asset covering airspace with regards to air combat. The ground threats have also changed and improved since the 90s and are likewise more effective. Any modern fight with a peer adversary is going to last a week or two and I would prefer to have more than just enough that is needed in a simulation.

Sure a f22 can defeat 6 migs but it can replicate itself to be everywhere at once. And so it is with the F-35.
Your el-cheapo fighter won't do you any good if all it does is show up to get shot down.
if in a real war you could make them unmanned, you could play some great mind games with the enemy.....

How many aircraft is Canada looking for?
About half of what the UK wants
70 ish? Thats a bit small to split in two, with all the duplicated costs....
Canada is already producing parts for the program, only a couple of months ago it was reported that the government handed over more millions to the development costs even though the government is sitting on the fence about buying them.

The present government seems to think that because the country is producing parts, that if they choose another aircraft, they will still be involved with producing parts for the F-35.

But lets wait and see what happens in just over a week from now ----
 

icyplanetnhc (Steve)

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
199
Reaction score
170
Website
aiaa.seas.ucla.edu

GE confirms that the XA100 wasn’t designed with the F-35B in mind, broadly confirming P&W’s statement that AETD wasn’t really designed with much STOVL considerations.

The debate over cost (especially in sustainment) versus capability will be pretty interesting in the coming years.
 
Last edited:

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
306
Reaction score
191
"A handful of F-35s can accomplish the same mission objectives, or desired effects, as it might take 12, 15, 20, 25 or more other aircraft."

This argument may cut both ways. Sure keeping on buying the F-35 is the better alternative, but if its so effective, why need a 1-1 replacement with legacy fleet.
You still need to be physically there with an asset covering airspace with regards to air combat. The ground threats have also changed and improved since the 90s and are likewise more effective. Any modern fight with a peer adversary is going to last a week or two and I would prefer to have more than just enough that is needed in a simulation.

Sure a f22 can defeat 6 migs but it can replicate itself to be everywhere at once. And so it is with the F-35.
Your el-cheapo fighter won't do you any good if all it does is show up to get shot down.
If you have read my previous posts I am ANTI CHEAPO fighter. I don't know how or by what rational train of thought you had from what I stated can lead anyone to your conclusion.
 

Similar threads

Top