F-35 Tests Proceed, Revealing F/A-18-Like Performance - Defense News

F-35 Tests Proceed, Revealing F/A-18-Like Performance - Defense News

Operational pilots should be thrilled with the F-35's performance, Kelly said. The F-35 Energy-Management diagrams, which display an aircraft's energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and for different load factors, are similar to the F/A-18 but the F-35 offers better acceleration at certain points of the flight envelope.
"The E-M diagrams are very similar between the F-35B, F-35C and the F/A-18. There are some subtle differences in maximum turn rates and some slight differences in where corner airspeeds are exactly," Kelly said.
Thomas, who is also an F/A-18 pilot and a graduate of the Navy's Top Gun program and the Marines' Weapons and Tactics Instructor Course, agreed that all three variants should be lethal in the within-visual-range fight.
Beyond visual range, the aircraft's radar and stealthiness will enable it to dominate the skies, Thomas said.
Stealth will allow the F-35 to go into the teeth of enemy air defenses, which are becoming increasingly lethal, Thomas said. The Marines intend to operate the F-35 for 30 to 40 years, when stealth may be required even for close-air support.
"Stealth is going to be a requirement," Thomas said, echoing a point one normally hears mostly from U.S. Air Force officials.
Alongside stealth, the sensors and networking are crucial to the F-35 program.
To that end, Kelly said that mission systems testing for the jet's radar and infrared sensors have been going well. He offered unqualified praise for the F-35's APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar.

F-35 Production Ramps Up Nicely.

FORT WORTH, Texas, May 16, 2011 – The second F-35A Lightning II production aircraft flies above the compass rose of Rogers Dry Lakebed at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., May 13. The aircraft, designated AF-6, ferried to Edwards AFB from Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base following the Air Force formally accepting the fighter into its inventory May 12. The first production jet, AF-7, was delivered to Edwards AFB May 6.

Notice how quickly the delivery dates are between the first and second F-35A!  Learning curve gentlemen.  Learning curve!

A video feast.

XF-104...Fast Blast From The Past.

Col Sanborn heads to Europe and a uniform question.

CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan-Col. Russell A.C. Sanborn, the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing (Forward) assistant wing commander, is slated to leave Afghanistan in mid-May for Stuttgart, Germany, to become the U.S European Command’s deputy operations officer. Sanborn has accumulated more than 2,400 flight hours in the Harrier, and deployed multiple times, including to the first Gulf War. On Feb. 9, 1991, while serving as a pilot in the Gulf War, Sanborn’s aircraft was shot down over southern Kuwait by a surface-to-air missile during a combat mission. He was captured and held as a prisoner of war until his release on March 6, 1991.His personal decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, Bronze Star, Strike Flight Award with Combat V, and the Combat Action Ribbon.,Staff Sgt. James R. Richardson, 3/5/2011 6:49 AM

Congrats goes to Col Sanborn.  Fair winds and following seas---as they say.  But his picture leaves me with a uniform question.  Is subdued rank allowed for wear?  And if it is then why isn't qualification badges allowed to also be subdued?

The Marine Corps is going to hate it.  Heck I'm not sure I like it but it does appear to be the most practical of all possible solutions.

Its time boys.

Time to allow uniform and qualification badges to be sewn on---God Forgive Me---in the fashion that the US Army does it.

Either that or move rank to the shoulder pocket flaps and eliminate the wear of qualification badges with cammies.


UPDATE:


I have my answer guys.  It appears that this was approved back in 2002 (Much thanks to the person who set me straight!).  Funny though, I never saw men I worked with in this particular wear of uniform (meaning insignia at all).  In my battalion, when in the field, we all knew who was who on sight and in garrison it was all shiny all the time.  In the field, they left it behind.  Without knowing the background on this particular photo, any further comment is unwarranted.

Why isn't the sky over Afghanistan filled with A-10's?

Let's have a real talk about the USAF in Afghanistan.


1.  The logistics effort that they're pumping forward is second to none.  I highly doubt that any other air force in the world could come close to even matching half the effort.
2.  The high tech medical evacuation effort is second to none.  Again, I doubt that any other air force could match it.
3.  The USAF Security Forces, EOD teams and Medical Staffs are doing outstanding work.

That's the good.  But where are the A-10's?  Why isn't the USAF filling the skies with these airplanes?  This question is asked with acknowledgement of the desires of the ground forces...they want persistence.  They want accuracy. They want long loiter periods.

That would seem to be covered with the A-10C.  If Wikipedia is to believed then the USAF has 13 squadrons of these magnificent airplanes with about half of those in the Guard and Reserve.

But numbers and squadrons aren't the real question.  The real question is this.  If the A-10 isn't useful for the war in Afghanistan then it will never be useful.

Just like 1st Tanks in the US Marines, its time to get these squadrons FULLY into the fight.

USS Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001)

Slan the Fighting Irishman sent me a tip on something I didn't know about but should have.

The US NAVY is going to dedicate the DDG-1001 to Master at Arms Michael Monsoor, US Navy SEAL.

Outstanding.

Follow the link to read the story by Boston Maggie.  The video dedication is beyond awesome and I shamelessly post it here.  Another hero is remembered by the services.  Well done.

Homeland Security and the C-32 Flights.

Homeland Security is dropping the ball.

Again.

David Cenciotti has caught them flat footed again. He has posted two stories covering the movement of this airplane to and from certain locations that I bet they'd prefer to keep secret.

You can read his posts here and here.

If this is something that was planned and they don't care about the publicity then GREAT JOB!  If they flubbed up (which I suspect) then get it together boys!

A new player enters the "F-35" cost fray...

SMSgt Mac enters the F-35 cost fray via his blog "Elements of Power"...Read it all at his spot but this is a primer on his thinking...

When it comes to F-35 ‘costs’ Sweetman is still playing it like he does when frequent commenter 'jackjack' calls him out on the Ares' abuse of F-35 cost numbers. In other words, he talks past the point being made to keep beating the "B.S. Anti-JSF Drum" (patent pending) and holding the JSF costs he does note as 'high' while carefully avoiding equivalent costs (if the info even exists) for other systems. While this Sweetman tactic has at times driven poor 'jackjack' around the bend in frustration, I doubt if it will be little more than mocked at BF for the fey strawman tactic it is. The part of Sweetman's Ares response that directly referred to and linked back to BF's post demonstrates either:
1. The Ragin' Hedge Baby from the Shires didn't really read Blackfive's post or
2. He's assuming a $ cost number used by BlackFive was directed only at Sweetman's use of it.
3. He read the BlackFive post, but thinks his interpretive dance schtick will keep foolin' the rubes.

Sweetman Channels Groucho: "Who are you going to believe? Me or your own lying eyes?"

I said this was gonna get good...and it is.  I'm running to the store for more popcorn and beer.  This is a good sub for Sunday Football!

Elements Of Power: BlackFive Clears Up F-35 Cost 'Confusion'

USAF Light Attack and Armed Recon?

The USAF is doing a Light Attack and Armed Recon comp.  To be honest both aircraft in this are appealing but to be honest, if I had my druthers the USAF would buy American (not assembled in the US...US built).

My opinion and the USAF will do what it wants.  Info on both planes follows.

AT-6

AT-29

f.r3_at6_brochure_flipbook

Note: Embraer does not have a brochure for the AT-29

BlackFive launches a full frontal assault on Sweetman/ARES!

Told ya this was gonna get good!  BlackFive launches a full frontal assault on Sweetman/Ares and it appears that no prisoners will be taken....read it and weep critics!

Posted By Blackfive • [May 14, 2011] 

RE:  So How Much Does an F35 Actually Cost?

One thing a blogger enjoys about as much anything is when someone else unwittingly ends up making the point he blogged about.  Such is the case with the F-35 cost post I put up this week.  And who made the case for me?  Bill Sweetman – a blogger for the ARES blog at Aviation Week.
Sweetman is a critic of the F-35 program.  And, it is clear who he is writing about when he opens with this, in a post entitled “F-35 cost: A Bit of Reality”, a day after the F-35 post appeared here.

There is an unusual amount of utter bilge being talked about Joint Strike Fighter costs …

Hmmm, wonder who he’s talking about?  A couple of paragraphs later, it becomes clear:

(Blogger BlackFive, for some reason, thinks that APUC includes lifetime O&S costs, and goes off to draw some predictably inaccurate conclusions.)

I do?  I challenge Mr. Sweetman to back up that claim.  Nowhere in the post do I even mention O&S costs.  In fact the only place you’ll find O&S is on the chart included in the post to clarify what Mr. Sweetman would seeminly prefer remained murky. 
One can only conclude that Mr. Sweetman doesn’t know how to read the chart, but O&S is clearly listed under “Life Cycle Costs” there.
Sweetman then proceeds to do exactly what I talked about in the post.  He throws all sorts of numbers around with no context.  For instance:

The average procurement unit cost for the USAF F-35A, over the planned 1,763-aircraft run, is about $125 million (page 29).

What does the “average procurement unit cost” include? He doesn’t bother to tell you.  Without the chart, or unless you’re intimately familiar with the procurement process and what it entails, you won’t the foggiest idea, will you.  But he’s now established a cost which has no comparative relevance in the discussion of 4^th and 5^th generation fighters.
By that I mean the critics will use that cost to trot out the old “we could buy two 4^th generation aircraft for that price” argument.   Of course they’re using the unit recurring flyaway cost (URC) for the 4^th gen fighter (they have no idea what the APUC is for those aircraft and if they do, they don’t use it) and a completely different cost for the F-35 (in this case APUC).
Something like, “Well Bill Sweetman at ARES says the F-35 costs $125 million (APUC) a copy and a F/A 18 only costs $55 million (URF) so we could buy two of them for every one F-35”.  Apples and pomegranates. 
And of course, that was the entire point of my post.
My thanks to Mr. Sweetman and the ARES blog for helping me make the point about as well as it could be made.  I'm no accountant and was just trying to be extremely clear about costs.
Much appreciated.

So how does this all shake out?  See the video below...

F-35A AF-9 First Flight

The fourth production model of the F-35 Lightning II, F-35A AF-9, completed its inaugural flight on 13 May 2011 from NAS Fort Worth JRB with Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti at the controls.

F-35 Range and the reporting on it.

The DewLine broke the story (at least as far as I can tell)...

Everyone else is jumping on it as another fail for the F-35...

But what's the truth?  The below chart is from the DL...

The facts as I see them...

1.  The F-35B...supposedly the weakest of the bunch is meeting KPP requirements already.  That fact is getting lost in this story.  The "B" will be a winner.  Expect it to sell extremely well, especially with so many Navies acquiring LHD type ships.
2.  The F-35A misses its KPP by only 6 miles.  This will be an extremely easy fix.  That's getting lost in this story.
3.  The F-35C is (like the "B") meeting requirements.

In short, although I'm a fan of Trimble (like I am of Bill---I just think he's waaaaaay off the reservation when it comes to the F-35 program) but he made a non-story into a story.

One thing is for sure.  News of the F-35 drives web traffic.  Even here.

UPDATE:

Something about Trimble's post sparked a memory of this debate before...especially the fact that the F-35B is performing so well range wise.  Then it hit me...This post by Sweetman!  The US and its allies will be gaining Stealth, Speed, Superior Avionics and Extended Range with the F-35.  The parties that choose to replace AV-8B Harriers with F-35B's will see Amphibious Ships finally able to perform not only legacy missions but everything from Fleet Defense to Sea Control Missions.  The F-35 in general and the F-35B in particular are poised to be game changers.

Kel-Tec can officially kiss my a%$!

Follow the link and read this news...via Guns for sale.com

Kel-Tec announced the temporary suspension of PMR-30 production due to potential keyholing problems with the current barrels.  The PMR-30 has been shipping with 1:16 twist barrels, which appear to not stabilize all .22 WMR bullets.Kel-Tec is experimenting with 1:12 and 1:9 twist barrels to see what twist ratio works the best.  Kel-Tec said that they are suspending the production of all PMR-30 pistols until they find the correct ratio to use.  They expect to resume production in two weeks.

After waiting almost a year for them to finally get production under control and product into local gun shops, Kel-Tec pulls this monkey out of their arse?

Please.

Say it out loud Kel-Tec and see if it makes sense to your customers.  Explain to your customers why they shouldn't be beyond pissed.

Sorry, but I'm done.  Its either a Ruger, Walther...heck name it...anything except a Kel-Tec.  Consider me officially pissed off.

The definition of "THIS SUCKS"

If you want to experience misery, pain and general "suck-atude" then run this course!

A U.S. Marine helps a fellow Marine through a muddy obstacle at the endurance course at the Jungle Warfare Training Center on Camp Gonsalves, Okinawa, Japan, April 29, 2011. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Patricia D. Lockhart

Against superior numbers, Marines prevail

Editor's Note:  Too little is being written about the bravery shown by ALL members of our armed forces in the current fight...whether Marines, Soldiers, Sailors or Airmen...where ever I see news of their gallantry, then it'll be posted here.  This is the first of many...

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus presents the Navy Cross to Gunnery Sgt. Brian M. Blonder during a ceremony at the Marine Corps War Memorial in Arlington, Va., May 10, 2011. Blonder received the second highest award given for valor in the face of danger for his actions during an all-day firefight against Taliban insurgents Aug. 8, 2008, during the battle of Shewan, Afghanistan. Although he and the Marines and sailors he was fighting alongside with were outnumbered eight to one against insurgents, they managed to kill more than 50 insurgents and drove the rest out of their fortified fighting positions in the Taliban infested village in southern Farah province. Blonder, a reconnaissance Marine by trade, was serving as platoon sergeant with a force reconnaissance platoon attached to 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment. Photo by Sgt. Michael S. Cifuentes

BlackFive channeled the opposition ....

UPDATE:  BlackFive has a fascinating conversation going on about the F-35 cost debate.  Most notably McQ (a BlackFive contributor) posted this in the comments....

ARES also blew the call on B5's article. They claim B5 put O&S under PAUC. In fact the chart shows O&S under Life Cycle Costs - exactly where it belongs.

Be nice if they'd learn to read a chart before they go making unsubstantiated claims. Make's 'em look pretty foolish.

 Note that this was posted in my comments section and I chose to give it added prominence.  This is getting good.  Want to read even more interesting stuff?  Go here to follow the conversation at BlackFive!

Yes.

You read that right.

BlackFive channeled the opposition into an area of his choosing and with the natural aggressiveness of a team of highly skilled Infantrymen, initiated contact.

The oppositions response was...as expected...lacking.

Required reading for this weekend is this post of BlackFive's answer to questions regarding the F-35's cost....and then this post on ARES seeking to debunk it.

Quite simply....ARES post ran into an L-Shaped Ambush and is no longer combat effective.

BLACKFIVE strikes back on F-35 costs!

Thanks Bruce for sending me this article!  


UPDATE:  Check out the comment from the Speech Writer/Deputy Communications Director from the US House Armed Services Committee.  BlackFive has the ears of policy makers on Capital Hill.  I'm beyond impressed.

Gentlemen, I present to you the real truth on F-35 costs.  Not the fantasy land dribble spouted by some, but the stone cold truth...and its from none other than one of the big boys on the internet when it comes to defense issue--- Black Five!  I shamelessly post the article in its entirety here.  Read it and weep F-35 critics.

If you've been paying attention to the battle for US air dominance, you might be, like me, a little wary of the comparisons and the rhetoric.  Since there are numbers flying all over the place with regards to cost (mostly from PR firms), I thought we ought to take a look at what the REAL cost of an F-35 is...and we'll look at it in the same terms that the DoD/USAF use to evaluate the bids.
First, we need to talk in terms of 2010 dollars.  We’re talking about what is known as the Unit Recurring Fly Away cost (URF) for a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant (the type the Air Force is buying).  In 2010 terms, it will cost about $65 million dollars.
 
Whoa, wait a minute, you say, I’ve seen costs as high as $110 million a copy!

I’m sure you have.  But they don’t reflect the URF.  Instead they may reflect the Total Ownership Cost (TOC) - the cost of everything necessary to operate the aircraft over the span of its service life - or any of a number of other costs used in the project for various purposes, but it won’t reflect the one we should be most concerned with, the URF.
 
Confused yet?
 
Think of buying a new car.  You go in, look at the sticker price and ask the sales person, “how much will it cost me to drive this car off the lot?”   He or she is going to give you a cost at or near the sticker price.  You’re going to negotiate it down and, if you strike a deal, you’ll drive it off the lot for that negotiated price.  That’s the URF in a nutshell.

With me so far?
 
But does that cost reflect the TOC?
Of course not.
Gas and oil.  Extra cost.  Maintenance.  Extra cost.  Extended warranty.  Extra cost.  Parts.  Extra cost. Labor.  Extra cost.   New tires.  Extra cost. Etc. In fact, if you take all of those costs associated with owning, driving and maintaining the car over the years you own it you’ll find that TOC to be significantly higher than the cost to drive it off the lot (URF).

Of course that’s the case for any fighter aircraft.  However, in the media, the price you see applied to the F-35 may reflect the higher TOC and not the URF.  When such a cost basis is used without identifying it, you end up comparing apples and pomegranates.  The TOC is not what it will cost to fly the plane off the lot.

As an example, imagine the original cost of the B-52.  Now imagine – with the aircraft having been in constant service for 50 years or more – the total cost of ownership.   The difference is going be huge.  We could easily see a difference of several hundred million dollars per aircraft between URF and TOC as fuel, maintenance, upgrades, modifications, parts, labor, crew costs, and basing costs are all added to the aircraft’s original price, correct?  Imagine seeing the TOC for a B-52 represented as the URF.  You’d say “no way, we can’t afford it”.
 
So, given that understanding, what will it cost us to fly the aircraft off the dealer’s lot (URF)?  Again, in 2010 dollars, assuming all the aircraft originally contracted for are bought (2,443) and production can begin in a timely manner, a CTOL variant F-35 is going to cost $65 million to fly away.  The Marine variant, the STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing) will be in the $75 million range and the CV version (more robust frame/undercarriage built for carrier operations) for the Navy in the $70ish million range. 
I briefly talked about other versions of cost associated with this or any other defense project.  They are only meaningful within the government/defense procurement community and are used in reporting and monitoring each program within that community.  They have no real relevance to the URF but are sometimes quoted in the media as reflecting that price.  They provide another example of the wildly divergent costs we see.

As an example, one cost used is APUC or Average Process Unit Cost.  Essentially they take the URF and add some other costs to it (see chart) to arrive at that cost.  There’s another called PAUC or Program Acquisition Unit Cost.  Again, in the case of PAUC, URF has some selected costs added to it to arrive atthe particular cost. They’re not costs we should be concerned with as they deal more with program costs over the life of the aircraft (as well as some R &D costs) than the eventual cost per plane to fly away. If you see a cost of $93 million per copy floating around out there, for instance, it is likely the PAUC cost as reflected in the chart. Again, that’s not the cost per plane to fly it away (URF).

Finally, just because it is interesting, let’s talk about something else associated with cost and also not properly compared.

So, I think we can agree that we can fly an Air Force F-35 CTOL away for about $65 million (2010 dollars). But I can fly a 4th generation fighter away for, say, $50 million – why not build a whole bunch of those for less money?

Two reasons – they’re significantly inferior in technology and not very stealthy at all. And that $50 million really doesn’t reflect the true cost – not if you want to do anything with the aircraft other than just fly it around. The F-35 as delivered is mission capable. That means it comes with everything already on board to fly missions in combat. It’s combat ready. The 4th generation fighter? Extra cost is required to make it combat ready. You get a basic 4th generation fighter for the quoted price and then have to buy, at extra cost, what is necessary to configure it for combat. Once you pay to configure a 4th gen fighter to be mission capable, i.e., buy what it needs to do its mission in combat, its cost is pretty close to the same as a CTOL F-35 and it is still an inferior aircraft.

Bottom Line: The actual cost to get a new Air Force F-35 into service is about $65 million (2010 dollars). Claims of higher costs for an Air Force F-35 are usually misleading attempts to include years of operating and maintenance costs (costs applicable to all aircraft across the board regardless of generation) in the purchase price.

Just thought that you should be aware of that.
Let's hear what you think about this in the Comments.
Update 1:  Just heard from the House Armed Services Committee on this post:

Just to piggyback, the Committee is expected to pass an Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act today that authorizes GE-Rolls Royce to self fund  their F35 engine. Since the F35 contract will last 3 decades, the Pentagon originally planned for an annual competition for sustainment and procurement costs. The short term cost of developing the GE engine was deemed too high by the Defense Department, and they canceled the program, ignoring the hazards in handing a $1 billion engine contract to a monopoly. With the Pratt & Whitney engine is already $3.5 billion over budget and wrought with thrust and nozzle problems, the General Electric proposal to pay out of pocket couldn’t have come at a better time.
So in the spirit of your post, today Congress is in a unique position to significantly mitigate the costs of the F-35 program, with no further financial obligation from the Pentagon. We get taxpayer free competition for JSF engine contracts, avoid the pitfalls of a $100 billion Pratt & Whitney monopoly that’s already taking Congress to the bank, keep thousands of employees working, and finally will start to reap the rewards of industry-led acquisition reform. In short, the precise type of reform that the Pentagon and Congress have been pleading with the defense industry to institute for years.
John Noonan
Speechwriter & Deputy Communications Director
U.S. House Armed Services Committee

Update 2:  Got a question about how much the ball park cost for upgrading a 4th gen fighter to combat mission capable?
$10-15,000,000 which makes it about the same cost as the F35.  But you don't get the next gen technology, weapons, capabilities, etc. for that price.

Wow.

Just f*cking wow.

We've all been deceived.  And those that were spouting the various falsehoods know better.

Amazing.

RG-35 4x4 Data Sheet.

Ares broke the story, Defense Tech has the video...I have the data sheet.


baes_pdf_ds_rg35_4x4

What real training looks like.

Marines and Sailors of 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, conduct counter-improvised explosive device training May 6 at Marine Corps Base Hawaii's Boondocker Training Area. During the portion of the exercise shown, they used IED simulators, which produce a puff of smoke and an audible bang. Navy corpsmen and Marines to reacted to the simulated blast and treated mock casualties. The IED simulators were not heard outside the training area. America's Battalion, as 3/3 is also known, is scheduled to deploy later this year to Afghanistan. Provided by Marine Corps Base Hawaii - Kaneohe Bay. 

Yes.  Thats what real training looks like.  Not glamorous---nothing romantic...but vital nevertheless.