F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Ex-Dragoon]

I think the Max and Ninja show has really outlived any educational value this thread may have had. I am not sure how long I can really stomach reading the same arguments of "JSF is good", "JSF is bad" or; Two engines good", "two engines bad" over and over again. Your stances are set in stone and are unwavering, so I am locking it with the usual caveats. If you have anything additional to add then IM a mod.

Mlnet.Ca Staff

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Article from Aviation Week about the Netherlands decision to cancel participation the F-35 JSF program.

Article Link

Dutch Vote to Cancel Order for F-35 JSF
Posted by Christina Mackenzie at 5/21/2010 10:40 AM CDT


The Dutch parliament voted last night by 79 votes against 71 to cancel the order for the first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and to end Dutch participation in the program's Initial Operational Test and Evaluation phase.

The vote on a motion proposed by the Labor Party was based on the fact that price estimates made by Lockheed Martin in response to the Netherlands' original Request for Information and the Supplemental Request for Information of 2008 are not reliable.

However, Minister of Defense Eimert van Middelkoop said the vote was Labor Party “election rhetoric” prior to the June 9 general election and was quoted by Dutch News as saying that dropping out of the trials would still cost Dutch taxpayers €20 million, after having spent €800 million (some say more than €1 billion) to date.

The Netherlands has been run by a caretaker Labor/Christian Democrat government since the previous government lost a vote of confidence in February over the army's deployment in Afghanistan. Van Middelkoop said in a statement issued on May 20 that he was neither willing nor able to act on Parliament's vote as he believed the government's temporary status means it cannot take such irreversible decisions before the election.

But Labor MP Angelien Eijsink says it is irresponsible to continue with the JSF program. She cites delays, the Nunn-McCurdy cost breach, the 2-year delay of the IOT&E and poor progress in flight testing. She also mentioned that Parliament was still awaiting vital data on noise levels and said the industrial business case for JSF participation was no longer valid given the much lower than anticipated number of orders for the aircraft.

Labor says it wants to continue Dutch participation in the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase but other parties want to end it.

The Royal Dutch Air Force currently operates 90 F-16s, 18 of which are scheduled to be sold to Chile towards the end of this year. Originally the Netherlands was planning to buy 85 F-35s.

If the decision is implemented it won't exactly be a surprise. Dutch politicians have been rumbling for months that the JSF is far too expensive and the Netherlands' participation in the program is now in the hands of the electorate. But given the general economic doom and gloom in Europe right now, chances are high that the Dutch will vote for a party that is not going to be spending for something that many do not see the need for.

If the Dutch do withdraw could this be the encouragement other wavering European participants need to pull the plug too?

With the ongoing economic crisis taking place in Europe, plus the fact that the F-35 has been experiencing a "few problems" may result in more cancellations.

 

[aesop081]

Dutch cancel.....

Denmark about to do the same.....

Original projected cost of a F-35 : $50 million

Current best (conservative) estimate : $112 million

After a 15% increase from original estimate, the  Nunn-McCurdy law kicks in and requires that Congress be notified and a review of alternatives be conducted.

After a 25% increase from original estimate, Nunn-McCurdy calls for outright cancellation.

Looks like everyone's F-35 decision might be in danger of being made for them......

 

[Eggy]

If the decision is implemented it won't exactly be a surprise. Dutch politicians have been rumbling for months that the JSF is far too expensive and the Netherlands' participation in the program is now in the hands of the electorate. But given the general economic doom and gloom in Europe right now, chances are high that the Dutch will vote for a party that is not going to be spending for something that many do not see the need for.

The party that is leading the polls is in favour of acquiring the F-35. Elections are in two weeks so I don't think a lot will change.

 

[a_majoor]

Dutch cancel.....

Denmark about to do the same.....

Original projected cost of a F-35 : $50 million

Current best (conservative) estimate : $112 million

After a 15% increase from original estimate, the  Nunn-McCurdy law kicks in and requires that Congress be notified and a review of alternatives be conducted.

After a 25% increase from original estimate, Nunn-McCurdy calls for outright cancellation.

Looks like everyone's F-35 decision might be in danger of being made for them......

Of course, what are the alternatives for the Americans? The Europeans can go for the SAAB Gripen, Dassault Rafale or the Eurofighter Typhoon (or maybe a Russian plane as a very outside possibility)

 

[aesop081]

Of course, what are the alternatives for the Americans?

Super Hornet, Block 52 F-16s, Silent Eagle, etc...

 

[a_majoor]

The irony of having to ditch the F-35 for a 1970 vintage airframe (especially the F-16) will be appreciated by the ghost of Colonel John Boyd.

 

[aesop081]

1970 vintage airframe (especially the F-16)

The original F-16A and the current Block 52 F-16C are worlds apart.

 

[SeanNewman]

It is absolutely staggering how much money the military spends sometimes not to have something.  Also, why is it that manufacturers can get away with anything they want and charge governments unlimited amounts of increases/fines, but we never charge them fines when they break the same contracts?

Not blaming only the Air Force here, we're all guilty of it (it's just that the AF toys are the most expensive).

That's why I said in another thread that we have no business as a middle power being involved in the development of anything because we just can't afford it. 

[/vent]

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

It is absolutely staggering how much money the military spends sometimes not to have something.  Also, why is it that manufacturers can get away with anything they want and charge governments unlimited amounts of increases/fines, but we never charge them fines when they break the same contracts?

Not blaming only the Air Force here, we're all guilty of it (it's just that the AF toys are the most expensive).

That's why I said in another thread that we have no business as a middle power being involved in the development of anything because we just can't afford it. 

[/vent]

I would disagree...have you seen what an area air defence destroyer goes for?

 

[SeanNewman]

I would disagree...have you seen what an area air defence destroyer goes for?

Because you came up with one example you want to disagree with me as far as overall trends?

How much does a new fighter jet compared to a LAV?  How much does a new Chinook cost compared to a Leopard?

How much does a C17 and infrastructure cost compared to a Mechanized Infantry battalion?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Because you came up with one example you want to disagree with me as far as overall trends?

How much does a new fighter jet compared to a LAV?  How much does a new Chinook cost compared to a Leopard?

How much does a C17 and infrastructure cost compared to a Mechanized Infantry battalion?

Because you so obviously missed it...I was pointing out how expensive any naval project "tends" to be. :

 

[aesop081]

How much does a new fighter jet compared to a LAV?  How much does a new Chinook cost compared to a Leopard?

How much does a C17 and infrastructure cost compared to a Mechanized Infantry battalion?

other than saying "air stuff is expensive", do you have a point here ?

 

[Kirkhill]

Wading in again.

Incrementalism
OODA
Logistical Inertia
Optimization

747 – 1968 747-100, 747-200, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400ER, 747-8 2010

Arleigh Burke
1980 – Design studies, 1983 – 3 Competitors,  1985 – Contract Award, 1988 –First Keel, 1989 – First Launch, 1991 – first Commission (11 years development and construction)
1998 – Flight II  Commissioned
2000 – Flight IIA – 5”/54
2001 – Flight IIA-5”/62
2002 – Flight IIA – 5”/62 no CIWS, 2009 – Latest Commission, 
6 Future Hulls launched, building or contracted.

The closer you get to the optimal the less room there is to optimize.
The less room there is to optimize the less reason there is switch to a completely new design and the more expensive the new design becomes.

Concurrently you have to deal with logistical inertia – we power cars with gas because we have lots of gas to power cars – we use 5.56 and 7.62 because we have lots available – we use the railway gauge we do because the Roman wagons left ruts of that size. 

Cars are computerized 1880s concepts with updated materials.

Industrial operations are based on processes that have advanced through wood, stone, ceramics, bronze, iron and steel versions powered by muscles, wind, water, gravity, springs, steam, combustion and electricity. 
The usual processing plant is engaged in a process of continual improvement.  Very few green-field plants are established unless the market demands a completely new capability. Incrementalism is the order of the day.

I don’t think it is unreasonable to foresee a world of the future where there is much that is recognizable (Block 752 F-16s, M3347 HMMWV, M1C 47 Abrams etc) while at the same time there will be M1A2 Scramjets and UAVs and UGVs being operated.
That seems to be the lesson from many of these Great Leap Forward projects where the instigators are looking to get a revolutionary advantage from systems that have already experienced generations of optimization. There just ain’t that much room.

Is there much wrong with the old DDH hull form?  Or for that matter the CPF?  How do their speeds compare to theoretical limits and historical capabilities?  Or is the real problem with the Canadian fleet simply that there is no ongoing plan to refine, replace and upgrade so that the fleet can be constantly upgraded?
 
Meanwhile money wasted on diminishing returns could be spent on operational needs or “truly” radical innovations.  And you will only find the “truly” radical by leaving funds in the kitty for people to play with concepts and fail...but it is one thing to “waste” funds building one off concepts....yet another to plan on the infrastructure to build tens, or hundreds, or thousands, or even millions of notional systems that offer decreasing returns over what you can already produce.

An axe is recognizably an axe no matter if it is a chunk of flint on an antler haft or if it is of Teflon coated tempered steel with an ergonomically designed carbon fibre handle and a cushioned, rubberized grip.
The latter does not offer a revolutionary capability beyond the capabilities of the former.
Now a flint knife versus a flint axe.... that is another matter entirely.

Or, militarily, the Sherman vs King Tiger debate.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Kirkhill,

I don't know if it's your work but....

(Block 752 F-16s, M3347 HMMWV, M1C 47 Abrams etc)

You must mean Block 52.

while at the same time there will be M1A2 Scramjets and UAVs and UGVs being operated.

Unless your Abrams is capable of supersonic speeds, it is useless to strap a scramjet to it.

I really do not see your point at all.  Are you saying that in today's environment, there is no way to drastically improve our capabilities because it's already advanced?

 

[Kirkhill]

No, SSM, extrapolation to the logical absurdity.

If the F16 reached 85% of the optimal design for a manned air to air combat vehicle at its launch in the 1970s then development is spent on reducing the remaining 15% of potential growth to 10%, 5%, 1%, .1%.....

Now you can follow two paths to reduce that remaining potential.  You can continue from where you are with an existing platform, accept its limitations and work towards achieving 95-99% of potential - parlaying the existing infrastructure.  Or, you can back up, clean the boards, take a running start and work towards achieving 99-99.9% of potential but taking a whole lot of new chances, learning a bunch of new lessons and building a whole new, and expensive infrastructure.

So, I believe, you could conceivably end up, somewhere round about the year 2050, with either a fleet of F22s and F35s OR a fleet of F16 Block 752s, F-18 T/Us and F15 Strike Eagle IVs - not to mention B52s still being maintained in the air.

Likewise for tanks -  I don't expect M1A2s to have scramjets strapped on the back deck because I don't think a supersonic tank is possible or necessary.  Nor do I think a 120 km/h tank offers a revolutionary advantage over a 90 km/h tank.  It does have an advantage but won't change warfare.


By contrast an operational  scramjet UAV is as like as not to be adopted into US Army service as US Air Force service and this be type classified as an M1 model that was subesquently upgraded and type as an M1A2.

And, no, it has very little to do with my job beyond the fact that I have spent a career applying technologies to people's problems - most often by implementing incremental, evolutionary change than greenfield, revolutionary change.

Change doesn't happen by plant engineers suddenly throwing out all their 75% efficient electric motors and replacing them wiht 95% motors.  It happens by implementing a policy of buying 95s as 75s fail.  Eventually the whole plant is totally turned over.

Kind of like the tale of my grandfather's axe.  My grandfather bought an axe.  My father bought a new handle.  I bought a new head. It is still my grandfather's axe.

 

[SeanNewman]

other than saying "air stuff is expensive"...

In my first post I stated that all three elements have their own expensive things.

I am all for the Air Force getting every dime of their useful purchases like C17s and Chinooks, because we actually get something.

What staggers me is the amount of money spent by governments and forces of the world not to get anything.  Meaning cancellation fees, investment costs and then pulling out early, etc.

It just seems unbelievable that you can spend billions of dollars to have nothing.

 

[aesop081]

It just seems unbelievable that you can spend billions of dollars to have nothing.

It is, in part, unavoidable. Sometimes R&D leads to dead ends, thats just the nature of it. Sometimes you just have to cut your losses too.

Then there is the unfortunate political BS like the Sea King replacement......

 

[Loachman]

Yes, a billion dollars to buy no helicopters.

 

[SeanNewman]

It is, in part, unavoidable. Sometimes R&D leads to dead ends (1)

Then there is the unfortunate political BS like the Sea King replacement (2)

1.  Absolutely agreed, which is why I keep saying that we shouldn't be spending a dime on researching anything because we don't have enough money.  We should request industry to build things and then we buy what they have for sale if it's good, or if Canadian companies don't want to do that we should buy from other countries things that already work (C17s).

2.  This one is entirely our fault, and yes I don't think anyone on this board or in government would disagree with it.  Just very, very, sad/