Lightning II: So Far, So Good

from http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2007/0707lightning.asp

The fifth generation F-35 has cleared some hurdles, but the stakes are
high and the challenges many.

Lightning II: So Far, So Good

By Adam J. Hebert, Executive Editor


The F-35 Lightning II is starting to look like a fighter that will
punch well above its weight. And that is good, because militaries
around the world have quite a lot riding on this fifth generation
warplane.


The first flying F-35 air vehicle, dubbed AA-1, is of USAF's
conventional takeoff and landing variety that is destined to replace
the F-16. It is shown here during a recent test flight. (Lockheed
Martin photo)

In the United States, the Air Force is counting on the F-35A, a
conventional multirole variant, to provide next generation stealth and
sensor fusion to go with the powers of its stablemate-the F-22.
Introduction of the Lightning will let USAF start retiring its aged
F-16s in a few years. Later, F-35s will take the place of ground-
attack A-10s, too.

The US Marine Corps needs the short takeoff and vertical landing
(STOVL) F-35B to replace its fleet of old F/A-18s and AV-8B Harrier
jump jets. Marine Corps squadrons will, in fact, be the first to go
operational with F-35s, in 2012.
The Navy, meanwhile, is eager to acquire the F-35C carrier variant of
the Lightning. It will bring much-needed stealthiness to its big decks
and allow retirement of older F/A-18C Hornets. The Navy's premier
carrier fighter, the F/A-18E/F, possesses no stealth capabilities.

Apart from the US services, many other nations are looking to benefit
from the $300 billion F-35 program. Nine "partner" nations-notably
Britain, which will equip both the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy with
F-35s-now are in the queue for the aircraft over the next few
decades.
All told, partner nations' air forces and navies have booked orders
for a total of 3,173 Lightnings. That may not be the end. Israel and
Singapore have also signed on as "security cooperation participants"
and could well wind up purchasing significant numbers. Essentially,
every nation that currently flies the F-16 is considered a possible
F-35 customer.

"We see the potential," said Brig. Gen. Charles R. Davis, program
director for the F-35. He added, "We're getting great performance out
of the system right now."
Indeed, the first flying F-35 air vehicle, designated AA-1, is quickly
accumulating test flights. It flew for the 19th time on May 3-the
first flight took place late last year.


The F-35 is supported by nine partner nations contributing
developmental funding, manpower, and design input. Partner nation
flags are seen here on AA-1's fuselage. Other nations will likely
purchase thousands of F-35s. (Lockheed Martin photo)

These flights represented the initial 20 hours of a rigorous, 12,000-
hour flight-test plan for a program that will eventually produce three
highly common stealth fighters.

In rapid succession, the fighter passed several milestones this
spring. Pentagon acquisition chief Kenneth J. Krieg approved the
program for low-rate initial production in April. More than half the
developmental aircraft are now under construction, and plans call for
AA-1 to fly an average of six times per month.
Program officials are evaluating a variety of key performance
parameters, and results in most areas are better than planned. Reality
is exceeding plan in the areas of combat radius, radio frequency
signature, mission reliability, sortie generation rate, and logistics
footprint. STOVL performance, meanwhile, is near the stated
requirement.

Network readiness is an area that still needs some work. Many of the
F-35's early communications requirements were tied to Demand Assigned
Multiple Access satellites that are going out of service, to be
replaced by Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) satellites around
2014. With initial operational capability (IOC) in 2012, the program
office has decided to build the F-35 to MUOS specifications.
This means, however, that F-35s will lack a direct beyond-line-of-
sight communications capability until MUOS is operational. Until that
time, Lightnings will have to route those communications through E-3
AWACS, E-8 Joint STARS, or other assets.

It was on Dec. 15 that AA-1 lifted off from Lockheed Martin's Fort
Worth, Tex., facility for the first time to fly a 35-minute sortie.
Pilot Jon Beesley took the aircraft to 15,000 feet, performed a series
of maneuvers to test engine and subsystem operation, and returned to
base.
The aircraft had no fuel leaks during ground tests or the first flight-
unprecedented for a new fighter design.

No flight-test program makes it through without hitches, however, and
AA-1 experienced what Davis described as a "fairly significant
electrical problem" in May. It was the first problem of the sort. The
pilot returned to base after a 45-minute sortie, and the redundant
systems on-board worked as expected, said Lockheed Martin spokesman
John A. Smith.
The F-35 team did not expect any delays in flight testing as a result
of the incident.

The next aircraft to fly will be a Marine Corps version, in March
2008. That will be a highly important event.



The Lightning II will come in three highly common variants for the Air
Force (F-35A), Marine Corps (F-35B), and Navy (F-35C). The full-scale
mock-up shown here can simulate all three, and is used for antenna
testing. (USAF photo)

The reason is that the toughest IOC target date is that of the Marine
Corps-in the year 2012. Davis noted that, for various reasons,
production has been pushed further into the outyears, meaning there
will be fewer F-35s available in the target year. The Marine Corps,
therefore, is concerned that airplane delays could delay IOC.

"They are on the ragged edge," said Davis.
The Air Force's 2013 IOC date offers more flexibility. The Air Force
doesn't always deploy full squadrons, so the service is now
determining actual requirements for operational status.


Numbers Game

Air Force plans call for acquisition of 1,763 of the new strike
fighters, but top officials have said USAF could cut that number at
some point. Because the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be more capable
and reliable than the aircraft it is replacing, USAF might make do
with fewer of them.

Earlier this year, the Air Force reduced its expected maximum purchase
rate. The old plan was to purchase 110 aircraft per year beginning in
2015. The new maximum buy rate is 80 F-35s per year, and a handful of
aircraft were also cut from the near-term plans.
The moves reduce the amount of money the Air Force will have to spend
on the program in any given year, but the resulting loss of scale
economies will raise the overall program price. "I don't think the Air
Force, with all of its other competing priorities, [was] going to buy
110 airplanes a year," said Davis. "They never had the budget
capacity ... to do that." USAF is "struggling" to make sure it can
"establish the budget capability to buy even the max rate they have
now," 80 aircraft a year at peak production, he added.




(Lockheed Martin illustration)

However, the age of the Air Force's legacy fighters is such that the
service simply must hold to the maximum production rate of 80 F-35s a
year. Otherwise, it will not be able to fill out squadrons and allow
aircraft to retire without being forced into unplanned service life
extension programs.

In Davis' words, "Eighty just kind of keeps their heads above water."
USAF's program has now been stretched; the last purchase, once planned
for 2027, will now take place in 2034.

The Air Force program has taken at least one major new departure in
recent times. USAF no longer plans to procure STOVL variants of the
F-35 as its A-10 replacement.
"There isn't a big payoff for us in STOVL," Gen. Ronald E. Keys, head
of Air Combat Command, recently said. "Our plan now is not to acquire
the STOVL version."

The Air Force determined that the increased utility offered by being
able to operate from shorter or unimproved airstrips did not justify
the added cost, the additional logistics, and the changes in
operational doctrine that the F-35B would require.



The Marine Corps will have the first operational F-35s, of the short
takeoff, vertical landing variety. An X-35 concept demonstrator is
shown here in a hover test. (Lockheed Martin photo)

For the time being the issue is dead. "I don't think there's any
serious discussion within the Air Force about buying the STOVLs," said
Davis. "We're certainly not responding to any questions, and I know of
no activity."

The lead opinion on whether USAF should buy the STOVL JSF seems to
depend on who the Chief of Staff is at the time. Gen. Ronald R.
Fogleman, Chief of Staff from 1994 to 1997, first suggested acquiring
the STOVL version to replace some A-10s. The proposal came back to
life under Gen. John P. Jumper, Chief from 2001 to 2005. (See "The
F-35 Gets Real," March 2004, p. 44.)
Current modernization and structural improvement programs will keep
the A-10 in service into the 2020s, giving the Air Force more than a
decade to change its mind again, if it so chooses.

The Navy-Marine Corps team has an overall requirement for 680
Lightnings, with the exact split between the two services yet to be
determined. The Department of the Navy still is sorting out the deck
requirements for naval F-35s and Marine Corps STOVLs.



The Navy is buying the beefed-up F-35C for carrier use, as depicted in
this Lockheed Martin illustration. The carrier variant will give the
Navy its first stealth fighter. (Lockheed Martin illustration)

Vice Adm. James M. Zortman, commander of naval air forces, said last
year that the carrier fighter requirement falls "somewhere between 360
and 380." At about the same time, USMC Col. Robert Walsh, deputy
commandant for aviation, said that, "right now," the Marine Corps
requirement was 420 aircraft.

Thus, the combined requirement ranges from 780 to 800 fighters. Yet to
be seen is how the Navy Department will cover this demand with a buy
of only 680 F-35s.
Davis characterized the ongoing discussions as a "healthy debate."

The partner nations have thus far produced a combined requirement for
730 aircraft.
Foreign partners such as Britain and Australia are eager to ditch
their obsolete fighter aircraft and move on to the sleek, stealthy
Lightning. At present, both the RAF and Royal Navy fly Harrier jump
jets, fighters that have proved effective and versatile but tend to be
unreliable.

The F-35 schedule is critically important for the Royal Navy, which
wants to retire the Harriers as planned and move the F-35s onto two
new 60,000-ton-class aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS
Prince of Wales, in 2012 and 2015, respectively.
Britain's services plan to buy 138 F-35s, and it has been the strike
fighter's top foreign partner from the outset.

Australia, whose national air force still flies 1970s-era F -111
fighter-bombers, is up against a similar problem. However, as anxious
defense leaders approached an internal deadline, they flinched,
abandoning a plan to wait for the F-35's arrival. Canberra, said
Davis, made a "political decision," to purchase a "gap-filler" group
of 24 Boeing F/A-18 fighters.
Nine Partners

Australia did not want to take the risk that the F-35 would not be
ready in time to replace the F-111.

Fortunately for the F-35 program, Australia still plans to buy a total
of 100 Lightning aircraft.
The nine F-35 partner nations recently signed a memorandum of
understanding reaffirming their commitment to participation in the
production phase of the program. By the end of February, the US,
Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, and
Turkey all had signed the MOU codifying an agreement on the "common"
portions of the production, sustainment, and follow-development.


The first flying F-35 is shown here with its afterburner blazing on
takeoff. The program has a challenging development process ahead.
(Lockheed Martin photo)
These partner nations are committing more than $4 billion to develop
the F-35. The MOU also spelled out each nation's expected purchases.
For an aircraft program of this scope and magnitude, harsh questions
about cost always will be close at hand.

One way to measure cost is the recurring unit flyaway cost, which
excludes sunk costs such as research and development and test.
Estimates now are $48 million for each Air Force F-35A, $67 million
for each Navy F-35C, and $67 million for each Marine Corps STOVL
F-35B. (These estimates are calculated in 2002 dollars, which are used
as the baseline.) Air Combat Command notes that the conventional
takeoff and landing (CTOL) unit cost is less than the cost of a new
F-16 with advanced radars.
Still, the F-35 program is in the grip of serious financial questions.
Two recent developments illustrate the problems facing the F-35
program office.

The Pentagon announced earlier this year that the F-35 program's price
had grown by 8.5 percent in then-year dollars, which factor in
inflation out to 2034. (Measured in constant dollars, the cost of
growth is a more modest 4.5 percent.) The spike stems mostly from a
decrease in the annual procurement quantities and stretch-out of the
production, the April announcement read.
Not all the recent cost growth is due to DOD budget adjustments,
however. The F-35 program is now using much more titanium than
previously expected, and this change occurred at the same time that
the cost of titanium shot up in the world market. This added billions
in cost to the program.

The Government Accountability Office, for example, isn't happy with
the F-35's acquisition strategy, Davis said. In a recent report, the
Congressional auditors recommended that the Pentagon limit annual
procurement quantities to 24 aircraft per year until the flight-test
program proves each variant's flying capabilities, around 2010.
GAO's concern is that the concurrent development, procurement, and
test schedules will force delays or require large numbers of aircraft
to be retrofitted as problems are identified.

Davis feels that GAO wants the F-35 to be purchased "like the F-16:
Put a block out there, fly it for a few years, put another block out
there-do very simple increments."
He continued, "That can be done, but that can be a very costly
process, too. I am concerned about the concurrency" between the F-35's
test, development, and acquisition schedules, but the program is
building on the lessons from the F-22 program, which was "a great risk-
reducing pathfinder for us."

F-35 radar development is "at least a year ahead of where the F-22 was
at this point in their program," said Davis. "They had to figure all
this out on their own." While development will certainly be difficult,
"we think we're going to be able to overcome a lot of those concurrent
challenges."
The F-35's alternate engine program suffered a more dramatic fate, and
its future is now in the hands of Congress, after the Pentagon moved
to kill it.

Currently, the JSF program has two engine programs in place: Pratt &
Whitney is developing the aircraft's primary F135 power plant, which
is derived from the F-22 Raptor's engine. Also under development, as a
competitor, is the GE-Rolls Royce F136 engine, intended as an
interchangeable but alternative power source. The Pentagon zeroed out
funding for the alternative engine in its Fiscal 2008 budget request,
again strictly for financial reasons.
"I believe there is always value in competition, and there's value in
having additional sources," Gen. T. Michael Moseley, Chief of Staff,
told Congress earlier this year. "At the end of the day, this is about
money. It's $2 billion that we don't have."

Davis said his hope is that Congress will fund whichever engine
development programs it finds appropriate. The worst-case scenario
would be for Congress to order the alternate engine program to proceed
but not provide funding, requiring the money to come from the
program's general account.
Such an unfunded mandate would force the Air Force and Navy to each
give up $800 million to $900 million worth of airplanes. "That is my
biggest concern," Davis said, "If Congress uses this program as a
source to fund this engine, ... we will have serious problems."


Fact of Life

Every budget perturbation is a problem because affordability is a
hallmark of the program. "We have probably lost, cumulative, over a
billion dollars' worth of buying power just due to normal budget
adjustments over the years," said Davis, a fact of life in Washington
that is hardly unique to this program.

Affordability is why JSF was created in the first place, to create
efficiency out of what historically would have been three separate
fighter programs.
"The biggest thing that concerns me ... is just trying to keep these
production numbers stable," said Davis. "The single most damaging
thing that can happen to the program right now is continued
degradation of the numbers of airplanes. That just drives cost." (See
"Struggling For Altitude," September 2006, p. 38.)

Program stability is key. "I need to keep the budget stable; I need to
keep the production schedule stable. ... You can very easily force
this program into a situation where it rapidly becomes unaffordable
and you have schedule problems. It's the old story: We've proven time
and time again that the [cost] to the program is at least three or
four to one for every dollar you take out."
Davis said, "We've got to deliver to the services what we've promised,
but on the other hand, I need the department and the services to try
to provide us stability."

The program has an opportunity over the next year to prove its
progress. One variant is in the air, and the F-35B is next. This was
the variant that forced the radical redesign in 2004, as the STOVL
aircraft had grown 3,000 pounds overweight. (See "The F-35, Ready for
Prime Time?" June 2005, p. 28.) The F-35B still has the tightest
development schedule.
Davis is confident the program can prove that performance is on track
with the first STOVL flight next spring. Many of the world's air
forces are hoping he's right.

In the latest Code One the JSF is shown coming out of the page carrying
wing tanks, weapons, racks, pods, all external. You could exchange the
picture for an A-4, Harrier, Jaguar, and F-4, an F-18, F-14, F-15 or
F-16 and perhaps even a Eurofighter - all of which (all of which) have
some superior quality over the JSF. It is a nice new jet, has lots of
stealth (we are told) but for the moment - someone tell me - what does
it do better. Then down the road - it will also be far short of what we
will need - so what the heck are we doing except spending money. Note
that now out of fear the Navy is spending more good money to actually
cut up and crush the retired F-14's desperate never to allow them to be
brought back. The F-35 may be the nicest new jet but for what purpose
does it serve??



"Mike" wrote in message
oups.com...
from http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2007/0707lightning.asp

The fifth generation F-35 has cleared some hurdles, but the stakes are
high and the challenges many.

Lightning II: So Far, So Good

By Adam J. Hebert, Executive Editor


The F-35 Lightning II is starting to look like a fighter that will
punch well above its weight. And that is good, because militaries
around the world have quite a lot riding on this fifth generation
warplane.


The first flying F-35 air vehicle, dubbed AA-1, is of USAF's
conventional takeoff and landing variety that is destined to replace
the F-16. It is shown here during a recent test flight. (Lockheed
Martin photo)

In the United States, the Air Force is counting on the F-35A, a
conventional multirole variant, to provide next generation stealth and
sensor fusion to go with the powers of its stablemate-the F-22.
Introduction of the Lightning will let USAF start retiring its aged
F-16s in a few years. Later, F-35s will take the place of ground-
attack A-10s, too.

The US Marine Corps needs the short takeoff and vertical landing
(STOVL) F-35B to replace its fleet of old F/A-18s and AV-8B Harrier
jump jets. Marine Corps squadrons will, in fact, be the first to go
operational with F-35s, in 2012.
The Navy, meanwhile, is eager to acquire the F-35C carrier variant of
the Lightning. It will bring much-needed stealthiness to its big decks
and allow retirement of older F/A-18C Hornets. The Navy's premier
carrier fighter, the F/A-18E/F, possesses no stealth capabilities.

Apart from the US services, many other nations are looking to benefit
from the $300 billion F-35 program. Nine "partner" nations-notably
Britain, which will equip both the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy with
F-35s-now are in the queue for the aircraft over the next few
decades.
All told, partner nations' air forces and navies have booked orders
for a total of 3,173 Lightnings. That may not be the end. Israel and
Singapore have also signed on as "security cooperation participants"
and could well wind up purchasing significant numbers. Essentially,
every nation that currently flies the F-16 is considered a possible
F-35 customer.

"We see the potential," said Brig. Gen. Charles R. Davis, program
director for the F-35. He added, "We're getting great performance out
of the system right now."
Indeed, the first flying F-35 air vehicle, designated AA-1, is quickly
accumulating test flights. It flew for the 19th time on May 3-the
first flight took place late last year.


The F-35 is supported by nine partner nations contributing
developmental funding, manpower, and design input. Partner nation
flags are seen here on AA-1's fuselage. Other nations will likely
purchase thousands of F-35s. (Lockheed Martin photo)

These flights represented the initial 20 hours of a rigorous, 12,000-
hour flight-test plan for a program that will eventually produce three
highly common stealth fighters.

In rapid succession, the fighter passed several milestones this
spring. Pentagon acquisition chief Kenneth J. Krieg approved the
program for low-rate initial production in April. More than half the
developmental aircraft are now under construction, and plans call for
AA-1 to fly an average of six times per month.
Program officials are evaluating a variety of key performance
parameters, and results in most areas are better than planned. Reality
is exceeding plan in the areas of combat radius, radio frequency
signature, mission reliability, sortie generation rate, and logistics
footprint. STOVL performance, meanwhile, is near the stated
requirement.

Network readiness is an area that still needs some work. Many of the
F-35's early communications requirements were tied to Demand Assigned
Multiple Access satellites that are going out of service, to be
replaced by Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) satellites around
2014. With initial operational capability (IOC) in 2012, the program
office has decided to build the F-35 to MUOS specifications.
This means, however, that F-35s will lack a direct beyond-line-of-
sight communications capability until MUOS is operational. Until that
time, Lightnings will have to route those communications through E-3
AWACS, E-8 Joint STARS, or other assets.

It was on Dec. 15 that AA-1 lifted off from Lockheed Martin's Fort
Worth, Tex., facility for the first time to fly a 35-minute sortie.
Pilot Jon Beesley took the aircraft to 15,000 feet, performed a series
of maneuvers to test engine and subsystem operation, and returned to
base.
The aircraft had no fuel leaks during ground tests or the first
flight-
unprecedented for a new fighter design.

No flight-test program makes it through without hitches, however, and
AA-1 experienced what Davis described as a "fairly significant
electrical problem" in May. It was the first problem of the sort. The
pilot returned to base after a 45-minute sortie, and the redundant
systems on-board worked as expected, said Lockheed Martin spokesman
John A. Smith.
The F-35 team did not expect any delays in flight testing as a result
of the incident.

The next aircraft to fly will be a Marine Corps version, in March
2008. That will be a highly important event.



The Lightning II will come in three highly common variants for the Air
Force (F-35A), Marine Corps (F-35B), and Navy (F-35C). The full-scale
mock-up shown here can simulate all three, and is used for antenna
testing. (USAF photo)

The reason is that the toughest IOC target date is that of the Marine
Corps-in the year 2012. Davis noted that, for various reasons,
production has been pushed further into the outyears, meaning there
will be fewer F-35s available in the target year. The Marine Corps,
therefore, is concerned that airplane delays could delay IOC.

"They are on the ragged edge," said Davis.
The Air Force's 2013 IOC date offers more flexibility. The Air Force
doesn't always deploy full squadrons, so the service is now
determining actual requirements for operational status.


Numbers Game

Air Force plans call for acquisition of 1,763 of the new strike
fighters, but top officials have said USAF could cut that number at
some point. Because the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be more capable
and reliable than the aircraft it is replacing, USAF might make do
with fewer of them.

Earlier this year, the Air Force reduced its expected maximum purchase
rate. The old plan was to purchase 110 aircraft per year beginning in
2015. The new maximum buy rate is 80 F-35s per year, and a handful of
aircraft were also cut from the near-term plans.
The moves reduce the amount of money the Air Force will have to spend
on the program in any given year, but the resulting loss of scale
economies will raise the overall program price. "I don't think the Air
Force, with all of its other competing priorities, [was] going to buy
110 airplanes a year," said Davis. "They never had the budget
capacity ... to do that." USAF is "struggling" to make sure it can
"establish the budget capability to buy even the max rate they have
now," 80 aircraft a year at peak production, he added.




(Lockheed Martin illustration)

However, the age of the Air Force's legacy fighters is such that the
service simply must hold to the maximum production rate of 80 F-35s a
year. Otherwise, it will not be able to fill out squadrons and allow
aircraft to retire without being forced into unplanned service life
extension programs.

In Davis' words, "Eighty just kind of keeps their heads above water."
USAF's program has now been stretched; the last purchase, once planned
for 2027, will now take place in 2034.

The Air Force program has taken at least one major new departure in
recent times. USAF no longer plans to procure STOVL variants of the
F-35 as its A-10 replacement.
"There isn't a big payoff for us in STOVL," Gen. Ronald E. Keys, head
of Air Combat Command, recently said. "Our plan now is not to acquire
the STOVL version."

The Air Force determined that the increased utility offered by being
able to operate from shorter or unimproved airstrips did not justify
the added cost, the additional logistics, and the changes in
operational doctrine that the F-35B would require.



The Marine Corps will have the first operational F-35s, of the short
takeoff, vertical landing variety. An X-35 concept demonstrator is
shown here in a hover test. (Lockheed Martin photo)

For the time being the issue is dead. "I don't think there's any
serious discussion within the Air Force about buying the STOVLs," said
Davis. "We're certainly not responding to any questions, and I know of
no activity."

The lead opinion on whether USAF should buy the STOVL JSF seems to
depend on who the Chief of Staff is at the time. Gen. Ronald R.
Fogleman, Chief of Staff from 1994 to 1997, first suggested acquiring
the STOVL version to replace some A-10s. The proposal came back to
life under Gen. John P. Jumper, Chief from 2001 to 2005. (See "The
F-35 Gets Real," March 2004, p. 44.)
Current modernization and structural improvement programs will keep
the A-10 in service into the 2020s, giving the Air Force more than a
decade to change its mind again, if it so chooses.

The Navy-Marine Corps team has an overall requirement for 680
Lightnings, with the exact split between the two services yet to be
determined. The Department of the Navy still is sorting out the deck
requirements for naval F-35s and Marine Corps STOVLs.



The Navy is buying the beefed-up F-35C for carrier use, as depicted in
this Lockheed Martin illustration. The carrier variant will give the
Navy its first stealth fighter. (Lockheed Martin illustration)

Vice Adm. James M. Zortman, commander of naval air forces, said last
year that the carrier fighter requirement falls "somewhere between 360
and 380." At about the same time, USMC Col. Robert Walsh, deputy
commandant for aviation, said that, "right now," the Marine Corps
requirement was 420 aircraft.

Thus, the combined requirement ranges from 780 to 800 fighters. Yet to
be seen is how the Navy Department will cover this demand with a buy
of only 680 F-35s.
Davis characterized the ongoing discussions as a "healthy debate."

The partner nations have thus far produced a combined requirement for
730 aircraft.
Foreign partners such as Britain and Australia are eager to ditch
their obsolete fighter aircraft and move on to the sleek, stealthy
Lightning. At present, both the RAF and Royal Navy fly Harrier jump
jets, fighters that have proved effective and versatile but tend to be
unreliable.

The F-35 schedule is critically important for the Royal Navy, which
wants to retire the Harriers as planned and move the F-35s onto two
new 60,000-ton-class aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS
Prince of Wales, in 2012 and 2015, respectively.
Britain's services plan to buy 138 F-35s, and it has been the strike
fighter's top foreign partner from the outset.

Australia, whose national air force still flies 1970s-era F -111
fighter-bombers, is up against a similar problem. However, as anxious
defense leaders approached an internal deadline, they flinched,
abandoning a plan to wait for the F-35's arrival. Canberra, said
Davis, made a "political decision," to purchase a "gap-filler" group
of 24 Boeing F/A-18 fighters.
Nine Partners

Australia did not want to take the risk that the F-35 would not be
ready in time to replace the F-111.

Fortunately for the F-35 program, Australia still plans to buy a total
of 100 Lightning aircraft.
The nine F-35 partner nations recently signed a memorandum of
understanding reaffirming their commitment to participation in the
production phase of the program. By the end of February, the US,
Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, and
Turkey all had signed the MOU codifying an agreement on the "common"
portions of the production, sustainment, and follow-development.


The first flying F-35 is shown here with its afterburner blazing on
takeoff. The program has a challenging development process ahead.
(Lockheed Martin photo)
These partner nations are committing more than $4 billion to develop
the F-35. The MOU also spelled out each nation's expected purchases.
For an aircraft program of this scope and magnitude, harsh questions
about cost always will be close at hand.

One way to measure cost is the recurring unit flyaway cost, which
excludes sunk costs such as research and development and test.
Estimates now are $48 million for each Air Force F-35A, $67 million
for each Navy F-35C, and $67 million for each Marine Corps STOVL
F-35B. (These estimates are calculated in 2002 dollars, which are used
as the baseline.) Air Combat Command notes that the conventional
takeoff and landing (CTOL) unit cost is less than the cost of a new
F-16 with advanced radars.
Still, the F-35 program is in the grip of serious financial questions.
Two recent developments illustrate the problems facing the F-35
program office.

The Pentagon announced earlier this year that the F-35 program's price
had grown by 8.5 percent in then-year dollars, which factor in
inflation out to 2034. (Measured in constant dollars, the cost of
growth is a more modest 4.5 percent.) The spike stems mostly from a
decrease in the annual procurement quantities and stretch-out of the
production, the April announcement read.
Not all the recent cost growth is due to DOD budget adjustments,
however. The F-35 program is now using much more titanium than
previously expected, and this change occurred at the same time that
the cost of titanium shot up in the world market. This added billions
in cost to the program.

The Government Accountability Office, for example, isn't happy with
the F-35's acquisition strategy, Davis said. In a recent report, the
Congressional auditors recommended that the Pentagon limit annual
procurement quantities to 24 aircraft per year until the flight-test
program proves each variant's flying capabilities, around 2010.
GAO's concern is that the concurrent development, procurement, and
test schedules will force delays or require large numbers of aircraft
to be retrofitted as problems are identified.

Davis feels that GAO wants the F-35 to be purchased "like the F-16:
Put a block out there, fly it for a few years, put another block out
there-do very simple increments."
He continued, "That can be done, but that can be a very costly
process, too. I am concerned about the concurrency" between the F-35's
test, development, and acquisition schedules, but the program is
building on the lessons from the F-22 program, which was "a great
risk-
reducing pathfinder for us."

F-35 radar development is "at least a year ahead of where the F-22 was
at this point in their program," said Davis. "They had to figure all
this out on their own." While development will certainly be difficult,
"we think we're going to be able to overcome a lot of those concurrent
challenges."
The F-35's alternate engine program suffered a more dramatic fate, and
its future is now in the hands of Congress, after the Pentagon moved
to kill it.

Currently, the JSF program has two engine programs in place: Pratt &
Whitney is developing the aircraft's primary F135 power plant, which
is derived from the F-22 Raptor's engine. Also under development, as a
competitor, is the GE-Rolls Royce F136 engine, intended as an
interchangeable but alternative power source. The Pentagon zeroed out
funding for the alternative engine in its Fiscal 2008 budget request,
again strictly for financial reasons.
"I believe there is always value in competition, and there's value in
having additional sources," Gen. T. Michael Moseley, Chief of Staff,
told Congress earlier this year. "At the end of the day, this is about
money. It's $2 billion that we don't have."

Davis said his hope is that Congress will fund whichever engine
development programs it finds appropriate. The worst-case scenario
would be for Congress to order the alternate engine program to proceed
but not provide funding, requiring the money to come from the
program's general account.
Such an unfunded mandate would force the Air Force and Navy to each
give up $800 million to $900 million worth of airplanes. "That is my
biggest concern," Davis said, "If Congress uses this program as a
source to fund this engine, ... we will have serious problems."


Fact of Life

Every budget perturbation is a problem because affordability is a
hallmark of the program. "We have probably lost, cumulative, over a
billion dollars' worth of buying power just due to normal budget
adjustments over the years," said Davis, a fact of life in Washington
that is hardly unique to this program.

Affordability is why JSF was created in the first place, to create
efficiency out of what historically would have been three separate
fighter programs.
"The biggest thing that concerns me ... is just trying to keep these
production numbers stable," said Davis. "The single most damaging
thing that can happen to the program right now is continued
degradation of the numbers of airplanes. That just drives cost." (See
"Struggling For Altitude," September 2006, p. 38.)

Program stability is key. "I need to keep the budget stable; I need to
keep the production schedule stable. ... You can very easily force
this program into a situation where it rapidly becomes unaffordable
and you have schedule problems. It's the old story: We've proven time
and time again that the [cost] to the program is at least three or
four to one for every dollar you take out."
Davis said, "We've got to deliver to the services what we've promised,
but on the other hand, I need the department and the services to try
to provide us stability."

The program has an opportunity over the next year to prove its
progress. One variant is in the air, and the F-35B is next. This was
the variant that forced the radical redesign in 2004, as the STOVL
aircraft had grown 3,000 pounds overweight. (See "The F-35, Ready for
Prime Time?" June 2005, p. 28.) The F-35B still has the tightest
development schedule.
Davis is confident the program can prove that performance is on track
with the first STOVL flight next spring. Many of the world's air
forces are hoping he's right.

All we can see now can be called a F-35 vs. rest of the world debate.
As it could be understood from other threads he
- USMC is struggling to get their F-35B, and NOT Super Hornet - thus
strongly criticizing the latter.
- USN praises their F/A-18E/F, and - as a result - risks being doomed
to do without F-35C.
- What USAF can do? Blow their own trumpet!;-)

In article , Herbert Viola
wrote:

In article ,
"Flashnews" wrote:

In the latest Code One the JSF is shown coming out of the page carrying
wing tanks, weapons, racks, pods, all external. You could exchange the
picture for an A-4, Harrier, Jaguar, and F-4, an F-18, F-14, F-15 or
F-16 and perhaps even a Eurofighter - all of which (all of which) have
some superior quality over the JSF. It is a nice new jet, has lots of
stealth (we are told) but for the moment - someone tell me - what does
it do better. Then down the road - it will also be far short of what we
will need - so what the heck are we doing except spending money. Note
that now out of fear the Navy is spending more good money to actually
cut up and crush the retired F-14's desperate never to allow them to be
brought back. The F-35 may be the nicest new jet but for what purpose
does it serve??

8 SDBs and 2 AMRAAMs carried internally, giving you stealth, self-defense and
tremendous destructive power against ground targets. And a great AESA
radar. Its
a pretty good plane. It serves the purpose of using stealth to survive
the CAS
and strike mission in future battlefields while offering significant air
to air
abilities.

WADR, whether it's a "pretty good plane" with a "great AESA radar" remains to
be seen. It's had how many flights?
It's not even operational. A little early to be making judgements like that.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

In article , Herbert Viola
wrote:

In article ,
(Harry Andreas) wrote:

8 SDBs and 2 AMRAAMs carried internally, giving you stealth, self-defense
and
tremendous destructive power against ground targets. And a great AESA
radar. Its
a pretty good plane. It serves the purpose of using stealth to survive
the CAS
and strike mission in future battlefields while offering significant air
to air
abilities.

WADR, whether it's a "pretty good plane" with a "great AESA radar"
remains to
be seen. It's had how many flights?
It's not even operational. A little early to be making judgements like that.

I think I hit your GOM button by saying that the F-35 has a great AESA
radar in
a way which made it appear to you that I though it was better than other AESA
radars, including the ones you have toiled over. I meant that its a
great radar
compared to all fighter radars, including the fighters that the third
poster was
describing as better choices than the F-35.

Perhaps, but it's still in development as opposed to operational, so saying it's
great seems a little premature since it hasn't been flown against other
aircraft or aircraft systems. YMMV.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Mike wrote:

from http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2007/0707lightning.asp

The fifth generation F-35 has cleared some hurdles, but the stakes are
high and the challenges many.

Lightning II: So Far, So Good

By Adam J. Hebert, Executive Editor



snip

Thats a lot of eggs in the F35 basket...