Internationale fighter ontwikkelingen

[Poleme]

Welk kaliber had de USMC toentertijd voor deze 1.000 schoten in gedachten? Was dat 25 mm of 27 mm (De Mauser BK27 moest het veld ruimen voor de GAU-22/A)?

Dat was het 25 mm kaliber, want 27mm is voor de Amerikaanse strijdkrachten niet standaard en de BK27 "is not designed here".
Oorspronkelijk zou de F-35 stuurhut voorzien worden van beeldschermen van het gerenommeerde Belgische Barco.  Ook "not designed here", dus die worden toch geleverd door NorthropGrumman.  Daarnaast heeft de US Air Force liever de Amerikaanse ACES schietstoel, terwijl de huidige Britse Martin Baker Mk.16 toch echt beter is en die zit ook in de Euro Canards.

[Harald]

US will not offer F-15 and F-16 to Finland

Contrary to reports from Helsinki in April, the US Departement of Defense will not offer the Boeing F-15 Eagle and Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon to Finland as possible replacements for the country's fleet of 'legacy' F-18 Hornets. Washington told Helsinki it will not respond to Finland's Request for Information (RfI) for those jets, Finnish MoD confirmed on Monday 2 May. Washington however will send information on the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.

Both the F-15 and F-16 were named on a list of candidates released by Helsinki in April. Both were designed in the 70s and are nearing the end of production in the US. Their inclusion in Finland's list – and the inclusion of the F-15 in particular – came as a surprise to many, although officials earlier said that Finland was open to all offers that met the conditions of the HX-fighter project. That is the name assigned to the F-18 Hornet replacement program.

The candidates now left in that program, are the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Boeing F-18 Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin F-35 and Saab's next generation JAS-39 Gripen. The latter will see its rollout of the factory in Sweden on 18 May.

All manufacturers will have to send Helsinki all required information by the end of this year. Comparison of the performances of all jets is scheduled for 2018 and a final decision is expected not before 2021

http://airheadsfly.com/2016/05/02/us-will-not-offer-f-15-and-f-16-to-finland/

[Sparkplug]

'Apart', dat de F-35 voor CAS missies bijna of volledig gebruik maakt van stand-off geleide wapens.  Twintig jaar geleden waren het toch echt de US Marines, die graag zagen dat de JSF net als de A-7 CorsairII een munitie voorraad zou krijgen van 1.000 schoten.

Welk kaliber had de USMC toentertijd voor deze 1.000 schoten in gedachten? Was dat 25 mm of 27 mm (De Mauser BK27 moest het veld ruimen voor de GAU-22/A)?

[Poleme]

Congress to block A-10 retirement pending F-35 combat evaluation


Gilmore says if a combat-loaded F-35B jump jet travelled 250nm to provide air cover for troops, it could only spend 25-40mins in the area before refuelling compared to 1h without external tanks for the A-10.

"Recent exercises involving the use of F-35A and F-35B aircraft in limited close air support mission environments have shown that the fuel burn rate with internal weapons – two bombs and two air-to-air missiles – is 10-20% higher than the F-16, depending on the variant, and about 50-70% higher than the A-10," Gilmore notes in written testimony.

"The F-35 has a lightweight, 25mm cannon, internally mounted on the F-35A with 182 rounds, and in an external pod with 220 rounds for the F-35B and F-35C, while the A-10 has a 30mm cannon with 1,150 rounds," he adds. "Even though the A-10 gun has a higher rate of fire, the A-10 gun can fire for over 17s versus approximately 4s for the F-35, providing the capability for many more gun attacks."

Gilmore and Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall said at the hearing that the F-35 will perform the CAS mission very differently to the A-10 and will rely more on precision weapons like the Boeing GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, a weapon that has made even the Cold War Boeing B-1B bomber an effective CAS aircraft.

Kendall says he is a "huge proponent and fan of the A-10" but there isn't enough force structure or funding available to the DOD continue operating single-mission aircraft.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/congress-to-block-a-10-retirement-pending-f-35-comba-424673/

1.  Actie radius F-35B.
Uit zeer betrouwbare Amerikaanse en Britse bron heb ik vernomen dat een F-35B in Close Air Support configuratie een totale vliegduur heeft van net 45 minuten.
De F-35B heeft dan 2 AIM-120's, 4 250 pond Small Diameter Bombs en een kanon gondel bij zich.

De F-35 heeft inderdaad bewezen relatief weinig peut te verbruiken vergeleken met de F-16.
MAAR ... de F-16 kruist daarbij in een grond aanval configuratie met een snelheid van 448 knopen (kts) / 830 km/u.   Terwijl  de F-35A niet sneller gaat dan 300 kts / 555 km/u en de vlieger de gashendel en stuurknuppel zo minimaal mogelijk beroert.   Kortom:  waarom ga je dan met een USD 130 - 200 miljoen duur bul de oorlog in waarbij je je wapensysteem vliegt alsof het een verkeersvliegtuig is en die ook een 2-voeter in een inpandig 'kantoor' heeft zitten.  Dan wordt je wel heel kwetsbaar voor jachtvliegtuigen en luchtafweer geschut en vuurpijlen.  Ga dan voor het Predator C/ Avenger bewapende Remotely Piloted Aircraft.

'Apart', dat de F-35 voor CAS missies bijna of volledig gebruik maakt van stand-off geleide wapens.  Twintig jaar geleden waren het toch echt de US Marines, die graag zagen dat de JSF net als de A-7 CorsairII een munitie voorraad zou krijgen van 1.000 schoten.
Maar ja, economisch is het niet goed te praten als een 130 - 200 miljoen duur apparaat bloot beschadigd of gesloopt wordt door ongeleid trash fire of MANPADS.
En schade aan al die Radar Absorberende Materialen en constructies kost heel veel pecunia en tijd.
zie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell_(pilot)   Een A-10 pilote die met haar Warthog veel schade in de strijd opliep
Terwijl de ervaringen, ook in Afghanistan, Irak, Libya, Mali, Jemen en Syria laten zien dat je voor effectieve CAS toch echt vaak onder de 10.000 - 15.000 voet moet opereren.
Helaas, een oorlog bestaat niet alleen uit speer werpen en pijl en boog schieten, maar ook uit man tot man gevechten met strijdbijl, degen, knots of vuisten.
Heb je geen zin in 'krassen' dan kan je maar beter laten we zeggen kapper, bloemist of iets dergelijks worden.

[Sparkplug]

P&W wrapping up F135 engine development

By James Drew, Washington DC | 29 April 2016

Pratt & Whitney expects to wrap up system development and demonstration (SDD) of the F135 propulsion system for the F-35 Lightning II in July after 15 years of work, but the company will remain engaged with the wider Joint Strike Fighter flight test effort which runs until late 2017.

The P&W's head of military engines Bennett Croswell tells Flightglobal that the F135 team is also about 85% of the way through correcting an engine fault inherent in 180 early-model units and caused one aircraft to catch fire on the runway at Eglin AFB, Florida in June 2014. The problem was traced to hard rubbing in the engine's compressor section.

The incident temporarily grounded the F-35 fleet and prevented the US Marine Corps F-35B from debuting at the Farnborough Air Show. "I feel very confident we're going to get across the ditch this time," Croswell says.


P&W

Now that development is wrapping up, Croswell is looking to an F135 engine component improvement programme that receives $33 million per year in the US Air Force's budget as well as new science and technology initiatives as vehicles for developing block upgrades for the 43,000lb-thrust afterburning turbofan.

The F135 represents the present and the future of P&W's military engines business, says Croswell, and new developments will reduce fuel burn, increase thrust and lower the overall life cycle cost. The F135 will evolve in increments like the F100, of which P&W delivered 7,000 over 40 years and 3,900 remain in service today.

A P&W engine has been chosen to power the still-classified Northrop Grumman B-21 long-range strategic bomber, but the US Air Force won't confirm if it's some derivative of the F135. Croswell also won't discuss the next-generation heavy ordnance carrier, but says planned improvements to the F135 will support current F-35 operations and help P&W win new business in the future, perhaps even re-engining contracts.

Initial changes will be software related, Croswell says, with no significant components changes required. The next step up will come via the US Navy's Fuel Burn Reduction programme, which aims to cut F135 fuel consumption by 4% by about 2020.

P&W is also engaged in the Air Force Research Laboratory's Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) project that is developing adaptive cycle engines with a third bypass stream. The ultimate goal is an engine 25% better fuel efficiency than today's engines and 10% greater thrust. P&W and GE Aviation have moved their competing designs from AETD through to the preliminary design review phase and are conducting fan and core demonstrations this year.

The two American engine manufacturers expect follow-on contracts, each worth up to $1 billion, for the Adaptive Engine Transition Programme (AETP) by mid-year. The AETP demonstration phase runs through budget year 2021, with engine performance and durability tests expected in 2019 and 2020. The best engine is likely to power the next Air Force and Navy fighter platforms.

"When you look at when next-generation will be fielded, you need to back it up and start now," says Croswell. "We'll expand on variable cycle features. We're doing an AETD/AETP engine with a variable cycle fan and we're looking at things like a variable cycle core as well.

"That'll be the foundation for what we do in next-gen. We'll do some significant durability testing, go to altitude and test the engine across the full envelope."


Lockheed Martin

The F135 is derived from the F119-100 turbofan that powers the F-22 Raptor and was installed on the Lockheed X-35 and Boeing X-32 JSF prototypes. Since F-35 development began in October 2001, P&W has delivered 270 F135s, including the Rolls-Royce LiftFan-equipped -600 version for the F-35B – the only supersonic short takeoff, vertical landing combat aircraft.

This month, the company finalised a contract for 66 Lot 9 engines under $1 billion deal and is should receive funding for the next 100 Lot 10 units soon. P&W recently received funding for Lot 11 long-lead parts as aircraft production ramps up in Texas, Italy and Japan.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pw-wrapping-up-f135-engine-development-424810/

[Ace1]

Congress to block A-10 retirement pending F-35 combat evaluation

The chairman of the US Senate House Armed Services Committee says lawmakers aren't likely to authorise the retirement of any more legacy warplanes until there is "no doubt" that the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II can adequately fulfil its intended roles.

The statement by Senator John McCain at a Joint Strike Fighter congressional hearing on 26 April comes as members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) consider legislation to outlaw retirement of the Fairchild Republic A-10C, at least until the F-35 completes its initial operational evaluation and comparison testing with the "Warthog". The Air Force wants to start drawing down A-10C squadrons beginning in fiscal 2018 and the final airframe would move to desert storage in 2021.

The F-35 isn't expected to begin its operational assesment until late 2017 or perhaps even some time in 2018, but language included in HASC chairman Mac Thornberry's mark of the fiscal year 2017 defence policy bill would retain 171 A-10Cs until JSF operational testing is complete.

The Pentgaon's current programme of record buys 2,443 Lightning IIs for $379 billion through 2040 to replace the A-10, F/A-18, F-16 and AV-8B. Comparison testing between the F-35 and those platforms is meant to certify that the $100 million multirole fighters can successfully accomplish every mission assigned to those types, including close air support (CAS), surface attack, suppression/destruction of enemy air defenses, offensive and defensive air warfare and aerial reconnaissance.
The US Defense Department's director of operational test and evaluation J Michael Gilmore said at the congressional hearing that the F-35 won't exactly match the close air support capabilities of A-10, which was designed in the 1970s expressly for that purpose, but it might perform the role better in a high-threat combat scenario.

However, the F-35's higher fuel burn rate, weapons limitations and smaller gun put it at a disadvantage compared to the A-10, he notes.

Gilmore says if a combat-loaded F-35B jump jet travelled 250nm to provide air cover for troops, it could only spend 25-40mins in the area before refuelling compared to 1h without external tanks for the A-10.

"Recent exercises involving the use of F-35A and F-35B aircraft in limited close air support mission environments have shown that the fuel burn rate with internal weapons – two bombs and two air-to-air missiles – is 10-20% higher than the F-16, depending on the variant, and about 50-70% higher than the A-10," Gilmore notes in written testimony.

"The F-35 has a lightweight, 25mm cannon, internally mounted on the F-35A with 182 rounds, and in an external pod with 220 rounds for the F-35B and F-35C, while the A-10 has a 30mm cannon with 1,150 rounds," he adds. "Even though the A-10 gun has a higher rate of fire, the A-10 gun can fire for over 17s versus approximately 4s for the F-35, providing the capability for many more gun attacks."

Gilmore and Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall said at the hearing that the F-35 will perform the CAS mission very differently to the A-10 and will rely more on precision weapons like the Boeing GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, a weapon that has made even the Cold War Boeing B-1B bomber an effective CAS aircraft.

Kendall says he is a "huge proponent and fan of the A-10" but there isn't enough force structure or funding available to the DOD continue operating single-mission aircraft.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/congress-to-block-a-10-retirement-pending-f-35-comba-424673/

[Ace1]

F-35 chief considers fix for troubling Block 3i software faults

After 15 years of development and billions of dollars of investment, software glitches continue to hamper Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II operations and in one case, just one of six US Air Force F-35As on a mock deployment to Mountain Home AFB in Idaho were able to takeoff during an alert launch exercise.

"The Air Force attempted two alert launch procedures during the Mountain Home deployment, where multiple F-35A aircraft were preflighted and prepared for a rapid launch, but only one of the six aircraft was able to complete the alert launch sequence and successfully takeoff," the Pentagon's top weapons tester disclosed in written testimony to Congress on 26 April. "Problems during startup that required system or aircraft shutdowns and restarts – a symptom of immature systems and software – prevented the other alert launches from being completed."

The deployment took place in February in preparation for the first trial deployment of the 34th Fighter Squadron of Hill AFB, Utah, which is slated to declare initial operational capability (IOC) with Block 3i aircraft sometime between August and December this year.

It is one of many examples of failed launches attributed to "immature software" that has been loaded into the 179 aircraft Lockheed has already delivered to the Pentagon and international customers since concurrent production and development began in 2007 "well before the stability of the design could be confirmed through testing".

In another "relatively recent" example detailed by the US Defense Department's director of operational test and evaluation J Michael Gilmore, two of four aircraft loaded with an early version of Block 3F had to abort an attempted electronic warfare "super scenario" mission because of software stability problems experienced during startup. "Also, when the aircraft operated in a dense and realistic electromagnetic environment, the current avionics problems caused poor detection and fusion performance, which is exacerbated in multi-ship F-35 formations," Gilmore adds.

Software issues continue to be a problem for US Marin Corps F-35Bs loaded with Block 2B software, even though those aircraft are supposedly the most stable, with a reported average of "8h between software stability events".

Gilmore says if used in combat, the F-35B would need help avoiding threats, acquiring targets and controlling weapons. The Block 2B aircraft are only equipped to carry two bombs and two air-to-air missiles internally, but are also hobbled by "fusion, electronic warfare and weapons employment" deficiencies that cause "ambiguous threat displays, limited ability to respond to threats, and a requirement for offboard sources to provide accurate coordinates for precision attack".

Software issues also plague the latest Block 3i aircraft, which are modified with an improved processor. On 25 March, the F-35 Joint Programme Office (JPO) began flight testing the Block 3iR6.21 software version. Gilmore reports that during the first 30 flights (76 total flight hours) "no less than 27 power cycles were required to get all systems functioning between initial startup and takoff", ranging from full "cold iron" aircraft restarts to component or battery recycling.

The spike in reported software troubles comes as the F-35 programme moves away from parallel coding of multiple, concurrent software blocks to a sequential programming effort, something that F-35 programme chief Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan believes will make the incremental improvement process significantly more efficient.

Bogdan says he has been encouraged by the demonstrated stability of the newest iteration of Block 3i and he expects to make a decision by 1 May as to whether that's the software load that the Air Force's first F-35A combat group will declare IOC with later this year.

The average time between Block 3i "stability events" currently stands at once every three or four hours compared to 8h for Block 2B, says Bogdan, but the latest Block 3i iteration that has been tested over 44 flights and 96 flight hours appears to have tripled in reliability – one failure every 15h, approximately. Bogdan praised Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems and a DOD "red team" for working through the root-cause of these latest software issues and finding a solution. If the initial results prove accurate, Bogdan says it will become the last version of Block 3i.

"Once all the operational tests are done this week, I will make a decision if that version of 3i software is it. I'm leaning toward it being 'it'," Bogdan tells reporters after the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on 26 April. "Other than safety of flight things, that's going to be the software [the Air Force] declares IOC with. No more 2B, no more 3i and no more 3F at the same time – just concentrate on 3F. We think we'll gain some efficienciesthere."

Even if the software issues are fixed to a reasonable extent, there is still 60 days of "schedule risk" that could set back the Air Force's IOC declaration with the conventional A-model. That risk relates to the long-troubled, back-end logistics and aircraft health monitoring network known as the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) that manages the flow of spare parts to aircraft at every main base and deployed location. The latest iteration of ALIS (version 2.0.2) incorporates data from the F-35 afterburning turbofan propulsion system, built by Pratt & Whitney. Incorporating this data and other ALIS fixes has proven to be extremely difficult, says Bogdan.

"All of the things that are necessary for [the USAF] to make that [IOC] decision are on track for a 1 August 2016 declaration with the exception of ALIS," he said during the congressional hearing. "I believe ALIS is approximately 60 days behind, and therefore, I would put ALIS delivery – which is a criteria for them – at about 1 October 2016 as opposed to August."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-chief-considers-fix-for-troubling-block-3i-soft-424650/

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

F35 fighter jets recommended to Danish government by expert group - radio

April, 28-2016

COPENHAGEN, April 28 (Reuters) - Denmark should buy 28 of Lockheed Martin's F35 Lightning fighter jets to replace its present F16 jets, an expert group formed by the Danish Ministry of Defence has recommended to the government, according to local radio.

The group found that the Lightning was better than Eurofighter's Typhoon and Boeing Co's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in four priority areas: military combat, economy, strategics and Danish industrial cooperation with the producer, Radio24syv said citing sources close to the negotiations.

The expert group recommended that Denmark should buy 28 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, it said.

Denmark's decision will be closely watched, as several other nations also have to decide whether to replace their aged warplanes with Lockheed Martin Corp's brand new F-35 or play safe with cheaper, older-generation planes such the Super Hornets.

Now it is up to the government and the political parties supporting the purchase of new fighter jets to decide which one to pick.

Denmark's Defence Ministry did not reply to requests from Reuters. Spokesmen from various political parties declined to comment.

(Reporting by Erik Matzen; Editing by Dominic Evans)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/f35-fighter-jets-recommended-danish-113528877.html

[Lex]

Verzoeke het artikel betreffende JPO goed na te lezen. Een deel ervan staat dubbel gepost. 

[Ace1]

​ANALYSIS: House panel approves funds for 11 F-35s and 14 F/A-18s

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II might be the world's costliest and most divisive warplane, but there's something to be said for the seemingly Teflon-coated Joint Strike Fighter's resiliency.

On 28 April, just days after the developmental aircraft's many flaws were enumerated at a Senate hearing, the US House Armed Services Committee agreed on a defence policy that would fund 11 more F-35s in fiscal year 2017, on top of the 63 aircraft already requested by the US services.

Congress, despite many members being vocal critics of the aircraft, has made adding money for F-35s something of an annual tradition, having also added 11 more Lightning IIs than requested in the current fiscal year 2016 defence budget.

Though US lawmakers decry the concurrent development and production of such a sophisticated and technologically difficult piece of military hardware, they don't seem at all concerned about bolstering production with extra aircraft.

The decision to develop and built the JSF aircraft simultaneously was described this week as "acquisition malpractice" and the cause of a "long nightmare". That's because every one of the approximately 500 aircraft that will be delivered prior to the introduction of the full warfighting Block 3F configuration in 2018, at the end of the system development and demonstration (SDD) phase, will need to be retrofitted at great expense.

However, Pentagon officials note that the aircraft and propulsion system's fundamental design is stable and the main challenges relate to updatable software and the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which still hasn't successfully incorporated engine data.

The Pentagon's top weapons tester J Michael Gilmore told Congress this week that after fifteen years of development and one year out from the planned start of operational testing in late 2017, the F-35 "remains immature and provides limited combat capability", although corrections are being made.

The Defence Department's acquisition czar Frank Kendall says the "F-35 is no longer a programme that keeps me up at night" and testing is about 90% complete. "I do expect additional discovery, but I will be surprised if a major design problem surfaces at this point," he says.

Along with the 11 more F-35s, the House Armed Services panel also authorised funding for 14 more Boeing F/A-18E/Fs for the US Navy. If approved by the full Congress, those extra Super Hornet orders would help keep production in St Louis, Missouri humming at a sustainable level, even if some international orders don't materialise.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-house-panel-approves-funds-for-11-f-35s-a-424747/

[Ace1]

F-35 office has 2,590 staff and $70 million annual budget

It takes 2,590 military personnel, government civilians and full-time equivalent contractors and $70 million per year to run the world's largest and most expensive military aircraft programme, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

That's according to the US Defense Department's F-35 chief Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan, who disclosed the staff count and annual budget of the F-35 Joint Programme Office (JPO) at a congressional hearing about the $379 billion fighter procurement this week.

The numbers include the two F-35 test forces located Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland and Edwards AFB in California.

Headquartered near the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, the JPO is managing the acquisition of 2,443 aircraft for the US military services as well as hundreds more for the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea.

The acquisition has almost doubled in cost since the F-35 development contract was awarded to the fighter jet's manufacturer Lockheed Martin in October 2001. To date, 179 aircraft have been delivered compared to the 1,013 that were forecast 15 years ago.

The JPO staffing numbers were requested by US Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Senator John McCain, an outspoken F-35 critic, who said at the hearing on 26 April that the programme's record of performance "has been both a scandal and a tragedy".

27 APRIL, 2016 BY: JAMES DREW WASHINGTON DC
It takes 2,590 military personnel, government civilians and full-time equivalent contractors and $70 million per year to run the world's largest and most expensive military aircraft programme, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

That's according to the US Defense Department's F-35 chief Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan, who disclosed the staff count and annual budget of the F-35 Joint Programme Office (JPO) at a congressional hearing about the $379 billion fighter procurement this week.

The numbers include the two F-35 test forces located Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland and Edwards AFB in California.

Headquartered near the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, the JPO is managing the acquisition of 2,443 aircraft for the US military services as well as hundreds more for the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea.

The acquisition has almost doubled in cost since the F-35 development contract was awarded to the fighter jet's manufacturer Lockheed Martin in October 2001. To date, 179 aircraft have been delivered compared to the 1,013 that were forecast 15 years ago.

The JPO staffing numbers were requested by US Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Senator John McCain, an outspoken F-35 critic, who said at the hearing on 26 April that the programme's record of performance "has been both a scandal and a tragedy".

"The information that I have is it's nearly 3,000 [staff] and the cost is $300 million a year. But $70 million a year to run an office is pretty disturbing," McCain said in response the JPO numbers. That $70 million per year pays for salaries, office space, computers, IT support and other costs.

Asked after the hearing if that was an appropriate staffing level and budget for a programme of the F-35's magnitude, Bogdan said: "I don't know if that's enough or not, or if it's too much. It's what we have.

"You ought to look at the F-35 numbers and remember that we're building three variants for 14 customers, so maybe it's not a bad size for three programme offices," he adds, referring to the aircraft's three variants, which are just 20-25% common compared to the 70-90% commonality expected at the start of the programme.

"I think the difference between the number Senator McCain mentioned, at least on the dollar side, is the bill for navy and air force civilians and military personnel. [That bill] doesn't come to me."

The Pentagon's annual tab for the F-35 is expected to average $13 billion over the next 22 years, according to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO). Its last aircraft will arrive by 2040 and the type will remain in service through 2070.

Lockheed delivered just six aircraft in the between January and March, which is slightly lower than expected because of the transition between production lots, the company disclosed on 26 April in its first quarter earnings results. The company says it remains on track to deliver 53 aircraft as planned this year.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-office-has-2590-staff-and-70-million-annual-b-424696/

[Ace1]

Congress appears ready to let the Lockheed F-117A Nighthawk go

The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) is considering a legislative provision that would allow the US Air Force to finally junk the famed Lockheed Martin F-117A Nighthawk.

The aircraft was officially retired from service in April 2008, but Congress demanded that all aircraft mothballed from 30 September 2006 onward be maintained "in a condition that would allow recall of that aircraft to future service".

The ghost fleet is now accomodated in special climate-controlled hangars at the Tonopah Test Range at Nellis AFB, Nevada – the location dubbed Area 51. There have been dozens of reported sightings and pictures of the aircraft flying since 2008, including sightings of an aircraft being refuelled in flight.

The pioneer of the US military's stealth aircraft revolution, which owes its distinct "Hopeless Diamond" shape to its ability to scatter radar energy, first flew in 1981 but remained shrouded in secrecy until 1988, when the air force acknowledged its existence at a press conference.

Lockheed's Skunk Works division assembled 59 Nighthawks for the Pentagon between August 1982 and July 1990, but stealth technology and adversary radar detection methods quickly moved past the F-117 and the Air Force quickly turned to newer, more low-observable types like the Lockheed F-22, Northrop Grumman B-2 and now F-35 and B-21.

Now, ten years after the F-117A provision was enacted as part of the 2007 National Defence Authorisation Act, US lawmakers appear willing to let the storied single-seat stealth jet move to the aerospace maintenance and regeneration yard in Arizona, where they'll probably be torn apart or less likely, scavenged for hard-to-find parts.

If carried forward by the full committee today, the provision by HASC chairman Mac Thornberry would "remove the requirement that certain F-117 aircraft be maintained in a condition that would allow recall of those aircraft to future service" if approved by the full Congress.

The F-117 is most noted for its involvement in Operation Desert Storm in 1991 against Saddam Hussein's forces. That was the first American-led military campaign to make comprehensive use of stealth aircraft.

The F-117 flew 1,299 sorties during that war, achieving an 80% mission success rate with no losses or significant battle damage, according to the air force. The twin General Electric F404-powered high-subsonic aircraft's primary armaments were internally stored laser-guided Paveway bombs, of which more than 9,300 were dropped on targets in Iraq in 1991.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/congress-appears-ready-to-let-the-lockheed-f-117a-ni-424690/

[Ace1]

Will The F-35 Learn From Past Missteps?

The U.S. Air Force's largest weapon program, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, on which the U.S. will spend more than $400 billion, has hit a stride. The question is how long the program will be able to sustain it.
Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's acquisition chief, told the Senate Armed Services Committee during an April 26 hearing how the Lockheed Martin fighter program has moved beyond the problems of its past. In 2009 he was alarmed by the program's risky plan to concurrently buy aircraft while development continued, calling it "acquisition malpractice." But he said that after a lot of work and oversight, the program has stabilized.

"The F-35 program is no longer one that keeps me up at night," Kendall said, adding that he would be surprised if a major design problem cropped up.

The Marine Corps declared initial operational capability last year and the Air Force is on track to do so by the end of this year. Current law limits funding until the Air Force certifies that the fighter will have full combat capability in terms of hardware, software and weapons by 2018. And Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program executive officer, says software stability issues are being addressed and that the 3F version of software will be delivered in 2018 with full capability. He plans to recommend that Air Force Secretary Deborah James make the certification.

Congress is invested in seeing the program succeed. The House Armed Services Committee is proposing to add 11 additional F-35s to its fiscal 2017 defense policy bill.

And yet, congressional watchdogs are warning that risk lies ahead in the next increment of modernization, called Block 4, and that checks to ensure the program is accountable are lacking.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office has recommended that the Block 4 program, based on its cost, should be declared a major defense acquisition program in its own right. GAO's Michael Sullivan said the F-22 program introduced similar upgrades within the overall program. "Then a $2 billion estimate for those new capabilities became $11 billion, and there was no accountability," he said.

Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation, told senators that current plans for Block 4 need to be "scrubbed rigorously."

"The program's proposed 'F-35 Modernization Planning Schedule' is overly optimistic and does not properly align with the program's current software development schedule, which is also unrealistic," Gilmore says in his written testimony.

The program recently said Block 4 will require new processors at a cost of $700 million that must now be factored into fiscal 2018 budget plans. The first Block 4 software release is planned for late 2020, but it doesn't propose to correct deficiencies to the previous Block 3F software. That kind of schedule adds risk, Gilmore says.

Whether the program has learned the lessons of its past acquisition problems, stemming from plans that proved to be too good to be true, remains to be seen.

"I see a number of unrealistic expectations with Block 4," Gilmore said. "They should take a look at those issues. That will be a good test."

Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) unsuccessfully attempted to add a provision to the defense authorization bill that would make Block 4 its own major acquisition program during the House Armed Services Committee's April 27 markup. She drew a parallel to the F-22 program, saying the Pentagon initially resisted separating modernization from that advanced fighter effort. After billions of dollars in cost growth and delays, Congress stepped in to require F-22 modernization to be broken out in 2013. Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio), who leads the air and land forces subcommittee, argued that creating the separate program for the F-35's Block 4 would add about $13 million to the program's cost and delay delivery of the software by about a year. Overall the committee agreed with him, voting 41 to 20 to reject the amendment.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/will-f-35-learn-past-missteps?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160428_AW-05_93&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000002205251&utm_campaign=5752&utm_medium=email&elq2=3743eaf07af64be188ee062150fa1f43

[Sparkplug]

Gloves come off in fight to win Denmark's combat jet order

By Erik Matzen and Jacob Gronholt-Pedersen | April 26, 2016

* Denmark to pick either Boeing or Lockheed Martin jets - sources

U.S. defence giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing have stepped up their battle in Denmark to win a $5 billion order for combat jets which is due to be decided next month, with an advertising blitz in newspapers and on billboards by Boeing reflecting the importance they give to winning the deal.

The result of the Danish government's lengthy deliberations is expected to make waves around the global defence market, as several other nations also have to decide whether to replace their aged warplanes with Lockheed Martin Corp's brand new F-35 Lightnings or play safe with cheaper, older-generation planes such as Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.

With so much at stake in terms of prestige, the bitter rivalry between the two has erupted into a public spat in Denmark as Boeing compares its rival's new aircraft to a scandal over the botched purchase of Italian trains a decade ago.

"The choice of fighter jets is not just about Denmark's defence. It's also about working from day one," Boeing has said in newspaper and billboard ads, in a clear reference to the F-35 which entered service last July for the U.S. Marine Corps but is still completing a development program which began in 2001.

The U.S. Air Force is slated to declare an initial squadron of F-35s ready for combat later this year.

In the ads a full-page photograph shows some of the defective trains that had yet to be fully developed at the time of order. Technical problems with the 85 trains, of which less than half are in use to date, ended up costing the Danish state hundreds of millions of dollars, causing a public outcry.

Towards the end of the campaign which started in March and peaked in April in newspapers, on outdoor billboards, radio spots and door-to-door distribution, Boeing had bought ads worth 9.65 million crowns ($1.5 million), excluding discounts, according to TNS Gallup Adfacts.

But by reminding Danes of a past purchasing scandal, the ad campaign has raised hackles in some quarters over the use of such tactics but nevertheless has also sparked a public debate about the merits of investing in untried technology.

"We don't use such methods in Denmark," said one defence lawmaker who is involved in the decisionmaking process.

"Boeing ought to be careful not to be hit by its own boomerang, if we get disgusted by the company. Right now, Boeing is close to giving me this feeling," the person said in reaction to the ad campaign.

However, in the wider public - more accustomed to ads for organic cheese than fighter jets - the discussion quickly shifted from what type of plane should be purchased to whether Denmark should buy new warplanes at all.

Boeing has defended its advertising.

"The informational campaign was created firmly out of respect and understanding of the documented Danish acquisition process which has a phase of public debate," Tom Bell, the top sales executive for Boeing's defence business, told Reuters.

And Boeing executives are publicly bullish about their chances of winning the Danish order for up to 30 jets, but privately concede winning Denmark would be a long shot, making the ad campaign seem like a last-ditch effort.

"Winning Denmark is absolutely vital for Boeing which has limited firm export orders left for the (Super Hornet) and is desperate for business," said Francis Tusa, Editor of Defence Analysis.

Outside the traditional major arms purchasers in the Gulf, nations currently shopping for fighters include Belgium, Indonesia and Malaysia, while eastern Europe is looking for secondhand aircraft..

The United States is poised to approve two long-delayed sales of Boeing fighter sales to the Gulf including 28 Super Hornets worth $3 billion for Kuwait.

A separate but unfunded U.S. Navy requirement calls for another 12 jets, but Boeing remains keen to win new export orders to shore up future production for its fighters in St Louis.

For Lockheed Martin, losing the Danish order could dent market confidence in the F-35.

Denmark is one of eight original partners that helped fund development of the F-35 and flies Lockheed F-16 jets alongside Belgium, Norway and the Netherlands. Norway and the Netherlands have ordered F-35s and Belgium has expressed interest.

However, the $379 billion F-35 program has been plagued with cost overruns and delays, although U.S. officials say the program has met its cost and schedule targets since a major restructuring in 2010, and acquisition costs are now finally coming down.

Software issues and problems with a complex logistics system still pose challenges, according to a U.S. congressional report released this month, which said the lack of a back-up system could potentially ground the U.S. F-35 fleet.

Lockheed officials say they are confident that the new jet's superior data-processing and "fusing" capabilities, coupled with its ability to evade radar, will ultimately prevail over the older-generation Super Hornets.

A third contender in Denmark, the Eurofighter Typhoon made by Airbus Group, BAE Systems and Finmeccanica , officially remains on the shortlist, but Danish government sources say it is no longer being considered.

Eurofighter said it was confident of winning more orders after a recent deal for 28 planes in Kuwait. (Additional reporting by Tim Hepher in Paris, Andrea Shalal in Washington; Editing by Greg Mahlich)

http://www.reuters.com/article/global-aerospace-denmark-idUSL3N17B3XA

[Ace1]