F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[FoverF]

The trouble begins when your ROEs, like it was in Viet-Nam, do not allow BVR engagements.

I'm not sure how often this will be a major problem for the F-22.

As far as I'm aware, F-15 pilots were allowed to engage Iraqi aircraft based on Non-Cooperative Target ID, using technology that was available in 1991. I would expect the F-22 to have some pretty significant capabilities in this regard.

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... in Arizona:

It's official, the F-35 is coming to Luke.

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley announced today that Luke AFB has been chosen as the location of the Air Force's F-35A Lightning II pilot training center. The base will receive 72 aircraft for a total of three fighter squadrons.

"This is a great day for Luke," said Brig. Gen. JD Harris, 56th Fighter Wing commander. "Our selection for F-35 training ensures the long-term viability of our mission of training the world's greatest fighter pilots, which we've been doing at Luke for seven decades."

The F-35, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, is a fifth-generation fighter aircraft intended to be the Air Force's premier strike aircraft through the first half of the 21st Century. It is a multirole fighter that is expected to eventually phase out the service's F-16s and A-10s.

Aircraft will begin to arrive at Luke between late 2013 to mid-2014, although exact timing will depend on production schedules. Construction on base to prepare for the aircraft, however, is expected to start almost immediately.

The Record of Decision cited several reasons why Luke was the service's top choice, including facility and ramp capacity, range access, weather, as well as capacity for future growth.

"We're the envy of the Air Force when it comes to community support," said Rusty Mitchell, director of Luke's Community Initiatives Team. "While there has been development that's grown out toward Luke, the community has made every effort to ensure that the growth has been compatible with our mission. We cannot thank our West Valley neighbors enough for letting us be part of the community, not just in the community."

In addition to training U.S. pilots, Luke will also serve as an F-35A International Partner Training site ....

U.S.A.F. Info-machine, 1 Aug 12

More on the base itself here.

 

[WingsofFury]

As far as I'm aware, F-15 pilots were allowed to engage Iraqi aircraft based on Non-Cooperative Target ID, using technology that was available in 1991. I would expect the F-22 to have some pretty significant capabilities in this regard.

From what I've been told, during DESERT STORM there were severe restrictions on French AF Mirage F1s initialy as the Iraqi AF also flew them, so I'm wondering what it would have been like had the French Mirage's been in the same fold....

And another thought...radar is just capable of picking up aircraft but not identifying which country it's from...

 

[WingsofFury]

Of course, all this would really depend on whether the situation was a 1v1....something that I don't believe would ever happen in modern air combat given that jets work in teams...

Anyone please correct me if necessary.....!

 

[Rifleman62]

It's official, the F-35 is coming to Luke.

Great. We Snowbird three miles from Luke AFB and have lots of F-!6's overhead now. People sit at the end of the runways watching take offs and landings. Met a couple of German pilots in training at Luke.

It is great to see formations of fighter aircraft low and loud.

 

[FoverF]

From what I've been told, during DESERT STORM there were severe restrictions on French AF Mirage F1s initialy as the Iraqi AF also flew them, so I'm wondering what it would have been like had the French Mirage's been in the same fold....

And another thought...radar is just capable of picking up aircraft but not identifying which country it's from...

Well, you might be surprised. It all depends on range, aspect, conditions, etc, and of course pretty much everything is classified, but... a modern fighter radar might be realistically expected to differentiate between (for example) a multi-engined airliner vs a fighter vs a twin prop, to identify how many engines and/or tails is has, things like that. Supposedly fighters like F-15s and newer Flankers can differentiate between fighter types from head-on at BVR based on their turbine signatures. How reliable it is, or at what ranges, is anyone's guess if we don't have the classified info, but supposedly F-15s were killing people based on that kind of information 20 years ago. I'd expect the F-22 to be a step or two ahead.

Plus there are a lot of other means, passive EM sensors, systems like COMBAT TREE, etc. Probably other stuff I've never heard of or even thought of.

In terms of having friendly and enemy forces flying the same type, visual identification is not really an option either. You can't ask someone to close in until they can differentiate between the roundels on otherwise identical sand-coloured figher jets. You'll have to leave that up to IFF, briefings, planning, air controllers, etc, and if all of that fails, I'd say you're unlikely to be saved by trying to figure out if that's a red-white-and-BLACK roundel or a red-white-and-BLUE roundel while closing at a relative 1200kts.

Of course, all this would really depend on whether the situation was a 1v1....something that I don't believe would ever happen in modern air combat given that jets work in teams...

Anyone please correct me if necessary.....!

If you assume many vs many, then the need for visual identification becomes even less restrictive. For example the flight lead can fly 5 miles ahead to eyeball the target, allowing the rest of the flight to fire their weapons BVR when the lead confirms the targets' idenitity (just as one simplistic example).

Or F-22s could be fitted with one of the stealthy optics pods under development to ID targets at much greater than visual range. Or Raptors could work in conjunctions with F-35s or other friendly aircraft that have high-end optics.

Lots of options.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Remember this?

This, from MERX (try here – screen capture at Google Docs – if the link doesn’t work):

.... (Treasury Board Secretariat) requires the services of a team of resources composed of the Senior Auditor, Project Leader/Manager or Partner/Managing Director categories to Review of the Department of National Defence (DND) acquisition and sustainment project assumptions with respect to the estimated costs for next generation fighter jet ....

And who’s been invited to send in a bid?  From the MERX posting

(....)

Deadlines (at this point):

• Send your bids in by July 16
• Be ready to brief government officials no later than October 10
• Have a report ready for Parliament by October 24

More in the Statement of Work (7 page extract from the bid package) here, and in the amendments/clarifications to date (10 pages) here.

This latest from MERX (screen capture also available here if link doesn't work):

.... Canada is seeking to establish a contract for Financial and Accounting Services .... from date of award to January 31, 2013. Treasury Board Secretariat requires the services of a team of resources composed of the Senior Auditor, Project Leader/Manager or Partner/Managing Director categories to Review of the Department of National Defence (DND) acquisition and sustainment project assumptions with respect to the estimated costs for next generation fighter jet ....

This RFP is only for pre-qualified Suppliers for Stream Six (6) Financial and Accounting Services against Professional Audit Support Services (PASS) Supply Arrangement (E60ZG-060004)

175213 Canada Inc.
Altis Human Resources (Ottawa) Inc.
BDO Dunwoody LLP
BMCI Consulting Inc.
Collins Barrow Ottawa LLP
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Ernst & Young LLP
IBM Canada Ltd.
Interis Consulting Inc.
KPMG LLP
Meyers Norris Penny
Murray Management Consulting Inc.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP
QMR Staffing Solutions Incorporated
Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton
Spearhead Management Canada Ltd.

(....)

While the original deadline for a report to Parliament in the earlier MERX posting was October 2012, this latest bit of work (see latest Statement of Work here) seems to have a report going to Parliament closer to the end of November 2012.  Hmmm....

 

[The Bread Guy]

The Harper government has yet to hire an independent auditor to crunch the numbers on the F-35 deal, more than two months after its self-imposed deadline to clean up the stealth fighter fiasco. 

Public Works quietly re-issued a tender on Wednesday, asking for an audit firm to come forward and take on the politically explosive task of verifying the figures provided by National Defence, which was accused last spring of hiding the true cost of the multi-billion dollar program.  The tender was re-issued because the original call did not allow accounting firms enough flexibility to sub-contract portions of the complex project, said Amber Irwin, a spokeswoman for Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose. 

“This request for proposals (RFP) issued today will ensure that this independent review is done properly and supersedes the previous one issued,” Irwin said.  “The requirements of the RFP have been broadened to ensure qualified bidders can fulfil the task required by the government.” 

Asked whether the delay will affect the minister’s promise to table the independent cost assessment in Parliament this fall, Irwin replied, “The National Fighter Procurement Secretariat is committed to getting this done right and in a timely manner.” 

The tender does not close until the end of the month and Irwin would not speculate on how quickly a company will be chosen and get to work ….

CP, via the Ottawa Citizen, 8 Aug 12

According to pages 3 and 4 of an excerpt from the latest Statement of Work, the latest guesses are:

• Draft report of key findings:  November 5, 2012
• Oral briefing with senior government officials:  November 13, 2012
• Final report of key findings:  November 20, 2012
• Report on independent verification of the 2012 Annual Update to Parliament for the NGFC Project:  November 27, 2012

We’ll have to see how that goes.

 

[dapaterson]

Methinks it will be hard to find any of the well-known firms to bite at this opportunity.  Too many opportunities to end up in the news cycle in a bad way.  Regardless of what conclusions you reach, someone will be attacking you.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Methinks it will be hard to find any of the well-known firms to bite at this opportunity.  Too many opportunities to end up in the news cycle in a bad way.  Regardless of what conclusions you reach, someone will be attacking you.

I think its more complex than that, based on the PWGSC statement. The problem with Canadian firms is that they don't typically retain people who are experts in the US budgetary process, particularly on the defence side which is a real specialist area. So you're going to have to subcontract a significant amount of work out to someone in the US in order to get the information needed to effectively complete the task. 

I think this mirrors the problem with the Canadian debate. There are very few people who actually navigate around the US defense documentation. This was utterly apparent when one looked at the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report. Its cost estimates were completely off the mark.... they didn't even reference the US Budget P-1 or Selected Acquisition Review, preferring to use an outside party to do an estimate based on unit weight and cost. The final numbers suggested our per-unit cost in 2020 would be more than what the USAF is currently paying for LRIP aircraft. I think its that sort of faux pas that the accounting firm would like to avoid.

What galls me is that people today say that the PBO's view has been vindicated; actually its only vindicated if you look at the aggregate and compare the DND 30 year to PBO's 20 year costs.

I'm fairly certain that any review completed by the large firms, will find the government's figures to be pretty close to the mark. Since the majority of the estimate was made based on US figures, you're basically auditing the US budget... which are heavily scrutinized by any number of official outlets.

 

[Haletown]

Hey buddy  . . lay off slagging the PBO.

Any organization that has so many geniuses that they  can invent a brand new  method of estimating the future costs of an aircraft based on the historical gross weight changes of prior aircraft must be 100% respected. 

Because our glorious PBO never makes mistakes.

/sarc off

;D

 

[thunderchild]

I have 2 Questions, firstly if 65 aircraft is the minimum number of aircraft  what happens if one crashes or we have losses, how fast can we get replacements? second no contract has been signed yet as my understanding goes, has an in-term lease/purchase of aircraft been worked into the cost of the program (ie:does lockheed need to provide new or reworked F-16's to the RCAF)

 

[Haletown]

meanwhile, the testing continues and the F-35 starts to come to life as a weapons system.

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=229404#229404


BF-03 is flying the older software . . the newest Block 2A release apparently has a lot more weapons and sensor integration stuff.

 

[HB_Pencil]

I have 2 Questions, firstly if 65 aircraft is the minimum number of aircraft  what happens if one crashes or we have losses, how fast can we get replacements?

First, I don't think the loss of one or two aircraft should adversely affect the RCAF readiness, except in the long term as aircraft hours are eaten up across a smaller fleet. Others can probably give a more definitive answer on that however.

Typically from the initial ordering of long lead items to final delivery takes approximately two to three years. Since Canadian F-35s have two important modifications from standard F-35As (the P&D refuel system and the drag chute) that means we can't buy a completed or near completed aircraft as we have with other aircraft. It seems that the probe and drogue installation is one of the first steps in the forward fuselage assembly according to US Navy documentation.

Another consideration is that the production line should be fairly booked for the first decade, at least until the F-35B/C production is completed. So its more than likely that we would take over an long lead time order from the US or another partner, then complete it as an CF-35. My best guess is one and a half to two years.... but that's purely conjecture.

second no contract has been signed yet as my understanding goes, has an in-term lease/purchase of aircraft been worked into the cost of the program (ie:does lockheed need to provide new or reworked F-16's to the RCAF)

Why would they need to provide new or reworked F-16s?

 

[dapaterson]

Since Canadian F-35s have two important modifications from standard F-35As (the P&D refuel system and the drag chute) that means we can't buy a completed or near completed aircraft as we have with other aircraft.

My understanding is that those options are being investigated, not that they are decided.  Any modifications to a platform removes many of the benefits related to buying off the shelf; one selling point of the F35 is that it will be off the shelf.

The C17 and C130J acquisitions are great examples of off the shelf procurement; one can look at the Cyclone for the problems with customization.

 

[FoverF]

I have 2 Questions, firstly if 65 aircraft is the minimum number of aircraft  what happens if one crashes or we have losses, how fast can we get replacements?

Based on historical experience, when one crashes, there will be no replacement.

As far as I understand (and I could be wrong here), the air force can't buy airplanes without parliamentary approval, and that would require a whole new tender process. However, the CF is allowed its own discretion for repairing and overhauling airframes. In the past this has meant the CF 'repairing' destroyed airframes by fabricating more or less the entire aircraft from components. Which naturally costs several times more than buying a new airframe.

But it is a rare day indeed for attrition replacements to be bought after an aircraft enters service. There were no replacement Hornets bought that I know of, and I don't think there were any attrition replacements for the Voodoos before that. I wouldn't expect any attrition replacements for the F-35s if they enter service.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Shared under the Fair Dealings, etc....

F-35 stealth fighter drops its bomb in tests off the U.S. coastline

By The Canadian PressAugust 9, 2012

ABBOTSFORD, B.C. - The oft-maligned F-35 has passed an important development milestone by dropping its first test bomb.

The practice run happened Wednesday at an air test range along the Patuxent River in Maryland.

The stealth fighter has been the subject of raging controversy in the U.S. and abroad including in Canada, where the auditor general slammed the Harper government last spring for its planned purchase of 65 jet fighters.

A vertical take-off and landing version of the multi-role fighter the 'B' variant successfully dropped an inert, 453-kilogram smart bomb on a target.

Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed Martin s vice president of F-35 business development, says the program is hitting its benchmarks and remains ahead of its plans in the flight test program.

The U.S. defence giant has been criticized for delays and huge cost overruns in the $389-billion program, the largest single defence procurement in U.S. history.

If and when Canada formally signs a contract for the "A' variant, the F-35 would also become this country's largest defence acquisition.

Much of the debate over the aircraft has revolved around the price tag for individual aircraft, a figure that is tied to the number of orders in any given year.

There has been rampant speculation in the U.S. that the Pentagon plans to carve between 10 and 30 per cent out of its order of 2,443 aircraft effectively driving up the price for itself and everyone else.

O'Bryan dismissed it as just speculation and pointed to the Obama administration's recent budget and a Pentagon assessment that indicates the order has not changed.

Note to readers: This is a corrected story. A previous story wrongly said the practice run occurred off Atlanta


Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/news/stealth+fighter+drops+bomb+tests+coastline/7067073/story.html#ixzz23B5Ze2kJ

 

[Journeyman]

Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed Martin s vice president of F-35 business development, says the program is hitting its benchmarks and remains ahead of its plans in the flight test program.


The U.S. defence giant has been criticized for delays and huge cost overruns in the $389-billion program, the largest single defence procurement in U.S. history.

Are these not contradictory?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Are these not contradictory?

Hey! I didn't write it. K?

;D

 

[HB_Pencil]

My understanding is that those options are being investigated, not that they are decided.  Any modifications to a platform removes many of the benefits related to buying off the shelf; one selling point of the F35 is that it will be off the shelf.

The C17 and C130J acquisitions are great examples of off the shelf procurement; one can look at the Cyclone for the problems with customization.

I think you're overstating the level of risk. The B and C models both use the P&D refueling method, and they are over a quarter of all F-35s to be produced. Put it another way, the number of F-35s using P&D is should be more than all of the F/A-18Es ever produced. The modification requires them to utilize an assembly from the B&C model instead of the A model. So its an modification with relatively low risk attached, particularly since several other states will utilize same modification.

The drag chute is a different question. The Norwegians and Canadians are likely the only customers and I don't think full scale development work has commenced. 

Are these not contradictory?

No. Basically in 2010 the program went through complete overhaul called the "replan." A new cost estimate and testing schedule was implemented, while resources were reorganized.  This was done in response to a Nunn Mcurdy Breach, where the program exceeded 25% of its original estimates. Since then the F-35 has largely met those targets, except for a few cases.