F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

[BON PLAN]

New F-35 modernization plan could come with hefty $16B price tag

https://www.defensenews.com/air/201...ion-plan-could-come-with-hefty-16b-price-tag/

 

[BON PLAN]

=> The stealthy flying turkey will cost far more than anticipated. It's time to stop dreaming....

 

[scatterStorm]

When did IAF bomb anything in Siachen? You're confusing issues.

Yes I admit, there's a bit of confusion as I've mentioned earlier and I quoted "I could be wrong". Nevertheless, these were recon missions, but IAF tried practising bombing runs in Siachen valley, the issue was figured out because our bombs were offsetting towards the target. Hence we bought the kits from Israel. Further more, since we were in situation where no one would help, denying us the GPS was a major problem knowing the tides of war could turn at any point in time. Those were high times and with high risks.

You are also fear mongering where non exists

My fear is genuine, because it's acknowledge around the world about how dirty US or even Russians can be, not to mention any arms seller. Be it if they offered a few hundred tons piece of composite and alloy flying in the sky.

Don't forget that in the 1971 war, it was Chuck Yager who was training PAF pilots but saw there ass kicked because PAF fighter pilots in there hoe-show of mardangi deviated form actual missions and focused a lot on dogfights. FYI it was Nixon who ordered the 74 task force pacific fleet led by USS Enterprise to be parked near bay of Bengal. Yes it was cold war, but it was the Nixon and I quote said "I would like to piss over Indians even when the war is over". Thankfully he got his own dosage of "Watergate" medicine.

And thank goodness, PAF deviated form there actual missions, else IAF arses would've been kicked.

fyi LCA Tejas MK-1 and MK-2 will use the GE F414, AMCA will most likely use a variant of the F414. CBU-105SFW are deployed on Jaguars along side Paveways, Griffin & Harpoons (on P-8I too along side MK-54 Torpedos). There are a host of US weapons & platforms already in use in IAF & IN. Heck our own IAC-1 uses Ge LM2500 engines for propulsion.

Yes we buy parts from the US and even transport planes, but we never bought a fully fledged fighter jet... like ever, until recently some fake news has been circulated by the PR machine of you know "the one who cannot be named" , why do you think we never bought fighter jets, that because once we do, we will be shackled into an "ecosystem" of NATO weaponry. It's like Apple shoving there pathetic phones without headphone jacks.

Pause for a moment and think, aren't we indoctrinated into having NATO weaponry, considering we are among few nations who operate different type of jets. Imagine buying only there bombs and missiles onboard F35, now I know we also do with MKI but If you are serious than you already know that air launched brahmos missile to be retrofitted over an MKI, would not have been possible as US won't have allowed us to do that. At least our Jugaad taught our DRDO scientist to do something rather than being pushed for JASSM.

Hate to break it to you, but I've my source who knows we won't accept F35, because we don't want our Tejas or AMCA program to be sabotaged.

F-35 is an ideal replacement for erstwhile Mig-27s & Mirages in the IAF while LCA will plug the gap for all the Mig-21s. Rafale is the ideal replacement for the Jaguar. Currently out of 100 or so Jags, only 60 will be upgraded further while 40+ will be slowly phased out by the time Rafale comes in. Hence a total requirement of roughly 72-100 Rafale is obvious.

Now I am not against F35, I am against a slew of crap which will be shoved to Indian Taxpayers like me. F35 requires specific shelters, ground support team not to mention the NATO standard logistics code and quality checks etc etc. Imagine just the G&A cost just to keep the hot air blowing out of that jet.

Right now the PR machine makes it look like everything is under cost control, but who the F.. guarantees if the prices for just the weaponry and spare parts including G&A cost would sore up. Take the case for Rafale ... inflation did affected the price by 300%.

We have Tejas to replace Mig 21s and Rafles to Jags, Mirage is doing alright and MKI will still lead the backbone, and we have the option to upgrade them to 35S. All these jets will be enough to hold us until 2020. then we can push in Tejas Mk2s, AMCA or FGFA into the picture too. The future is still bright without F35s in our arsenal. ​

 

[scatterStorm]

U.S. F-35 fighter modernization could cost $16 billion through 2024

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ld-cost-16-billion-through-2024-idUSKCN1GK02M

Prophecy or Fate... anyone

 

[asianobserve]

Prophecy or Fate... anyone

This cost has no bearing on the production cost or even Lot 11 cost of F-35s. That figure is the commulative cost of modernizing the F-35's that have already been produced under earlier LRIPs to bring them up to current software standards. But that cost is only an estimate and is set to go down because only the earliest LRIP production batches needs extensive software upgrades. And the cost will be shouldered mostly by the US.

 

[asianobserve]

Nuclear burden-sharing dictates that Germany acquire the F-35

Nuclear deterrence is again at the forefront of strategic planning issues — not only for the United States but also its major allies, particularly the members of NATO.

Moscow seeks to leverage the threat posed by its growing and modernizing nuclear arsenal to paralyze any Western response to its efforts to destabilize the political, economic and governmental stability of nations on Russia’s periphery, and shatter the alliance. Senior Russian leaders have repeatedly and publicly threatened the use of nuclear weapons against European nations, including NATO countries.

Russia has violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, even announcing that it was permanently stationing an advanced variant of the nuclear-capable Iskander missile to Kaliningrad from where they are but a few minutes flight time from critical NATO military installations in central Europe.

The Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review illustrates from an American standpoint the long-standing view that a strong, cohesive nuclear alliance is the most effective means of deterring aggression and promoting peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region. Deterrence, particularly of nuclear attack, is dependent on deploying and maintaining credible and effective military capabilities.

In addition, the sharing of responsibility for the storage and delivery of tactical nuclear weapons among member countries is a key aspect of NATO’s strategic deterrent. NATO’s arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons consists entirely of air-delivered B61 gravity bombs. Currently, in addition to U.S. forward-based fighters, five NATO countries — Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey — host tactical nuclear weapons, and all of these but Turkey have dual-capable aircraft dedicated to their delivery.

For Germany’s part, the new government faces a major defense procurement decision with serious consequences not only for that country’s security but the future of NATO. The German Air Force, the Luftwaffe, must decide within the next several years on a replacement for its fleet of some 70 Tornado fighters. These aircraft need to be retired starting in 2025.

What makes this otherwise rather modest requirement of such significance is that some of the Tornado fighters are dual-capable, meaning they have the special wiring and controls to deliver nuclear weapons. Unless their replacement is capable of delivering nuclear weapons, Germany will be unable to fulfill its commitment under NATO’s nuclear-sharing agreement.

The Luftwaffe needs a Tornado replacement that is not only outfitted to carry nuclear weapons, but also capable of delivering these weapons to their targets in the face of advanced, highly lethal air defenses on the first day of war. The German government has suggested the Eurofighter Typhoon might fit the bill. Currently, Germany operates 145 Eurofighters.

However, the Typhoon meets neither of these criteria. Designing, testing and certifying a nuclear-capable Eurofighter variant would take years to develop and add hundreds of millions of dollars to the already high cost of this aircraft. In addition, the ability of the Typhoon, like all fourth-generation fighters, to penetrate Russia’s integrated air defenses is already questionable. Because the nuclear deterrent mission must be credible from the outset of hostilities, before Russian air defenses have been attrited, the use of fourth-generation aircraft in this role is increasingly nonviable.

Fifth-generation aircraft, currently the American-built F-22 and F-35, have capabilities that make them particularly suitable for missions involving countering advanced air defenses. Also, in recent Red Flag exercises, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter achieved a 15-to-1 air-to-air kill ratio against a variety of fourth-generation aircraft. These are the major reasons why three U.S. military services and the U.K., Italy, Norway, Canada, the Netherlands and Turkey, NATO members all, have already committed to acquiring the F-35. Belgium is currently examining several options to replace its F-16s, including the F-35.

Some number of F-35As, the version being acquired by the U.S. Air Force and several NATO allies, will be modified with the wiring and other gear to enable them to carry the B61. Current plans call for a nuclear-capable F-35A to be fielded in the early 2020s. This timeline would meet the Luftwaffe’s schedule for retiring its Tornado fighters.

Even senior German defense officials see the Joint Strike Fighter as their country’s best near-term option. The Luftwaffe’s chief of Staff has hinted that the F-35A is the only aircraft that can meet all his service’s requirements for a Tornado replacement. In addition, he pointed out, acquiring a stealthy fifth-generation fighter capable of attacking targets from far away would strengthen the interoperability of European air forces.

For political and industrial base reasons, the German government prefers to replace its Tornado aircraft with a European fighter. However, it is already too late to develop a new aircraft and meet the 2025 deadline.

In the long term, Germany will naturally want to pursue a European fifth-generation fighter capability. But for now, it makes sense for the Luftwaffe to acquire the F-35.


https://www.defensenews.com/opinion...aring-dictates-that-germany-acquire-the-f-35/

 

[BON PLAN]

Nuclear burden-sharing dictates that Germany acquire the F-35

Nuclear deterrence is again at the forefront of strategic planning issues — not only for the United States but also its major allies, particularly the members of NATO.

Moscow seeks to leverage the threat posed by its growing and modernizing nuclear arsenal to paralyze any Western response to its efforts to destabilize the political, economic and governmental stability of nations on Russia’s periphery, and shatter the alliance. Senior Russian leaders have repeatedly and publicly threatened the use of nuclear weapons against European nations, including NATO countries.

Russia has violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, even announcing that it was permanently stationing an advanced variant of the nuclear-capable Iskander missile to Kaliningrad from where they are but a few minutes flight time from critical NATO military installations in central Europe.

The Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review illustrates from an American standpoint the long-standing view that a strong, cohesive nuclear alliance is the most effective means of deterring aggression and promoting peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region. Deterrence, particularly of nuclear attack, is dependent on deploying and maintaining credible and effective military capabilities.

In addition, the sharing of responsibility for the storage and delivery of tactical nuclear weapons among member countries is a key aspect of NATO’s strategic deterrent. NATO’s arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons consists entirely of air-delivered B61 gravity bombs. Currently, in addition to U.S. forward-based fighters, five NATO countries — Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey — host tactical nuclear weapons, and all of these but Turkey have dual-capable aircraft dedicated to their delivery.

For Germany’s part, the new government faces a major defense procurement decision with serious consequences not only for that country’s security but the future of NATO. The German Air Force, the Luftwaffe, must decide within the next several years on a replacement for its fleet of some 70 Tornado fighters. These aircraft need to be retired starting in 2025.

What makes this otherwise rather modest requirement of such significance is that some of the Tornado fighters are dual-capable, meaning they have the special wiring and controls to deliver nuclear weapons. Unless their replacement is capable of delivering nuclear weapons, Germany will be unable to fulfill its commitment under NATO’s nuclear-sharing agreement.

The Luftwaffe needs a Tornado replacement that is not only outfitted to carry nuclear weapons, but also capable of delivering these weapons to their targets in the face of advanced, highly lethal air defenses on the first day of war. The German government has suggested the Eurofighter Typhoon might fit the bill. Currently, Germany operates 145 Eurofighters.

However, the Typhoon meets neither of these criteria. Designing, testing and certifying a nuclear-capable Eurofighter variant would take years to develop and add hundreds of millions of dollars to the already high cost of this aircraft. In addition, the ability of the Typhoon, like all fourth-generation fighters, to penetrate Russia’s integrated air defenses is already questionable. Because the nuclear deterrent mission must be credible from the outset of hostilities, before Russian air defenses have been attrited, the use of fourth-generation aircraft in this role is increasingly nonviable.

Fifth-generation aircraft, currently the American-built F-22 and F-35, have capabilities that make them particularly suitable for missions involving countering advanced air defenses. Also, in recent Red Flag exercises, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter achieved a 15-to-1 air-to-air kill ratio against a variety of fourth-generation aircraft. These are the major reasons why three U.S. military services and the U.K., Italy, Norway, Canada, the Netherlands and Turkey, NATO members all, have already committed to acquiring the F-35. Belgium is currently examining several options to replace its F-16s, including the F-35.

Some number of F-35As, the version being acquired by the U.S. Air Force and several NATO allies, will be modified with the wiring and other gear to enable them to carry the B61. Current plans call for a nuclear-capable F-35A to be fielded in the early 2020s. This timeline would meet the Luftwaffe’s schedule for retiring its Tornado fighters.

Even senior German defense officials see the Joint Strike Fighter as their country’s best near-term option. The Luftwaffe’s chief of Staff has hinted that the F-35A is the only aircraft that can meet all his service’s requirements for a Tornado replacement. In addition, he pointed out, acquiring a stealthy fifth-generation fighter capable of attacking targets from far away would strengthen the interoperability of European air forces.

For political and industrial base reasons, the German government prefers to replace its Tornado aircraft with a European fighter. However, it is already too late to develop a new aircraft and meet the 2025 deadline.

In the long term, Germany will naturally want to pursue a European fifth-generation fighter capability. But for now, it makes sense for the Luftwaffe to acquire the F-35.


https://www.defensenews.com/opinion...aring-dictates-that-germany-acquire-the-f-35/

In this case, it's the end of a potential germano-french next gen fighter. (Not a bad news).
And an opportunity to work together with India.

 

[BON PLAN]

F22 : 49% availability
F35 : 54.6% !!!! astonishing.

 

[sthf]

View attachment 23791

F22 : 49% availability
F35 : 54.6% !!!! astonishing.

That is a really steep decline for both which is baffling. F-15s and people looking after them are impressive as usual.

 

[asianobserve]

View attachment 23791

F22 : 49% availability
F35 : 54.6% !!!! astonishing.

These figures are definitely better than Rafale's very disappointing 48% availability rate with the French Air Force. And Rafale is not even stealthy...

Again, Rafale's availability rate: 48%

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/16/ground-force-half-frances-military-planes-unfit-fly/

I can only guess that the F-22's low availability rate is due to its maintenance intensive older generation RAM coating while F-35's availability rate is mainly due to continuing problems with spare parts' availability and ALIS maturity. But the F-35's availability rate is expected to climb well into past 80% as the spares and ALIS issues are sorted out.

 

[BON PLAN]

These figures are definitely better than Rafale's very disappointing 48% availability rate with the French Air Force. And Rafale is not even stealthy...

Again, Rafale's availability rate: 48%

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/16/ground-force-half-frances-military-planes-unfit-fly/

I can only guess that the F-22's low availability rate is due to its maintenance intensive older generation RAM coating while F-35's availability rate is mainly due to continuing problems with spare parts' availability and ALIS maturity. But the F-35's availability rate is expected to climb well into past 80% as the spares and ALIS issues are sorted out.

Rafale rate is only due to budget restriction.
Planes sent on carrier or on war theater are far far higher. It's why Dassault can offer à 75% diponibility rate to indian air force.
F35 don't suffer budget cut, but will never be so available. never. Too complicated, too late on its planning.

 

[asianobserve]

Rafale rate is only due to budget restriction.
Planes sent on carrier or on war theater are far far higher. It's why Dassault can offer à 75% diponibility rate to indian air force.
F35 don't suffer budget cut, but will never be so available. never. Too complicated, too late on its planning.

Excuses. F-35 is suffering due to deferral of capabilities as a result of the budget cap put in place by Republican Congress during Obama's time.

 

[asianobserve]

The Italian F-35A Stealth Jets Declared Operational In The Air-To-Air Role

The first Italian F-35A Lightning II aircraft assigned to the 13° Gruppo (Squadron) of the 32° Stormo (Wing), based at Amendola air base, in southeastern Italy, have achieved the IOC (Initial Operational Capability), the Italian Air Force has announced.

Since Mar. 1, 2018, the first five stealth aircraft assigned to the Aeronautica Militare have been supporting the SSSA (Servizio Sorveglianza Spazio Aereo – Air Space Surveillance Service) with a Standard Conventional Load (SCL) that includes the AIM-120C5 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile) missile. This means that, if needed, the 5th generation aircraft can undertake regular QRA (Quick Reaction Alert) shifts or be diverted from a different mission to intercept and identify unknown aircraft.

Whilts the F-35 is a multirole aircraft (hence an air-to-air capability should not be too surprising) all the Italian Air Force combat planes (including Tornado and AMX fighter bombers as well as the T-346 advanced jet trainers) are required to be fully capable in the air-to-air role to support Italy’s Air Defense.

The IOC in the air-to-air role comes after a long period of training that has seen the F-35s perform T-Scrambles (Training Scrambles) as well as joint drills with Typhoons, G550 CAEW (Conformal Airborne Early Warning) and T-346 jets. Last year, the Italian Lightnings took part in their first national large scale drills during Vega 2017 multinational joint exercise.

In December 2016, the Italian Air Force became the very first service to take delivery of the 5th generation stealth jet outside of the U.S. The IOC in the air-to-ground role of the Italian JSF has not been declared yet.


Read more at https://theaviationist.com/2018/03/...l-in-the-air-to-air-role/#SRk897XpfzRe4wkf.99

 

[asianobserve]

First Deployment of USMC's F-35Bs on USS Wasp

 

[Immanuel]

View attachment 23791

F22 : 49% availability
F35 : 54.6% !!!! astonishing.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/16/ground-force-half-frances-military-planes-unfit-fly/
The Rafale, which is seen as one of the best multi-purpose fighter jets in the world, scores a respectable 49 per cent availability.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/17...French_Air_Force_Is_48_5_Percent#.WqZPS8uWzcs

So you mean to say, the F-35 being a platform with a bigger fleet and still in test mode and not even fully operational has better availability that the Rafale in France

That is truly astonishing.

 

[Immanuel]

My fear is genuine, because it's acknowledge around the world about how dirty US or even Russians can be, not to mention any arms seller. Be it if they offered a few hundred tons piece of composite and alloy flying in the sky.

Don't forget that in the 1971 war, it was Chuck Yager who was training PAF pilots but saw there ass kicked because PAF fighter pilots in there hoe-show of mardangi deviated form actual missions and focused a lot on dogfights. FYI it was Nixon who ordered the 74 task force pacific fleet led by USS Enterprise to be parked near bay of Bengal. Yes it was cold war, but it was the Nixon and I quote said "I would like to piss over Indians even when the war is over". Thankfully he got his own dosage of "Watergate" medicine.

And thank goodness, PAF deviated form there actual missions, else IAF arses would've been kicked.


Yes we buy parts from the US and even transport planes, but we never bought a fully fledged fighter jet... like ever, until recently some fake news has been circulated by the PR machine of you know "the one who cannot be named" , why do you think we never bought fighter jets, that because once we do, we will be shackled into an "ecosystem" of NATO weaponry. It's like Apple shoving there pathetic phones without headphone jacks.

Pause for a moment and think, aren't we indoctrinated into having NATO weaponry, considering we are among few nations who operate different type of jets. Imagine buying only there bombs and missiles onboard F35, now I know we also do with MKI but If you are serious than you already know that air launched brahmos missile to be retrofitted over an MKI, would not have been possible as US won't have allowed us to do that. At least our Jugaad taught our DRDO scientist to do something rather than being pushed for JASSM.

Hate to break it to you, but I've my source who knows we won't accept F35, because we don't want our Tejas or AMCA program to be sabotaged.

Now I am not against F35, I am against a slew of crap which will be shoved to Indian Taxpayers like me. F35 requires specific shelters, ground support team not to mention the NATO standard logistics code and quality checks etc etc. Imagine just the G&A cost just to keep the hot air blowing out of that jet.

Right now the PR machine makes it look like everything is under cost control, but who the F.. guarantees if the prices for just the weaponry and spare parts including G&A cost would sore up. Take the case for Rafale ... inflation did affected the price by 300%.

We have Tejas to replace Mig 21s and Rafles to Jags, Mirage is doing alright and MKI will still lead the backbone, and we have the option to upgrade them to 35S. All these jets will be enough to hold us until 2020. then we can push in Tejas Mk2s, AMCA or FGFA into the picture too. The future is still bright without F35s in our arsenal. ​

Look bhai, there are several key criteria for me that the US would have to meet to win the F-35 deal:

* Cancellation of FGFA from russia
* some basic TOT let's say 25%
* Integration of local weapons like Garuthma 1000 kg Glide bomb, Astra Mk-2, SAAW, Guide HSLDs, DRDO's ARM, Nirbhay etc. should be possible since Israel & Eu customer have the choice of this. Offcourse we'd have to pay for this integration much like we do for the Rafale.
* Final assembly at an Indian line
*Joint development & eventual trickling of key tech from the F-35 to AMCA.

For this kind of discussion, we have a huge leverage with a need of 114 aircraft for IAF + 57 for IN: a deal worth well over $30 Billion.

Recent US buys are 12 C-130Js primarily to be used for SF operations during combat (SF are stregic assets), C-17s to be used as HLTs during war time, 12 P-8Is on order with additional orders of 12 to 24 expected over time (this is the primary air based sub hunter and key strategic asset of the IN meant to track and kill Puki & Chini subs which IMO pose a greater threat than their AF assets), 22+6 Apaches on order with 39+ more to be ordered eventually for IA, 15 Chinooks on order with potentially + 7 more in options (I expect these options to be executed eventually). We could be looking at 100+ S-70 since it already outclassed it's competion in trials. By the way for none of these platforms we only use Indian made IFFs, Datalinks, Comms etc. Also there should be no issues for integration of some Indian weapons on the P-8I (Nirbhay, DRDO ARM), Apaches (Helina)

People keep saying that buying a fighter is different to buy such these other things. I beg to differ. In a war all such assets play a key role & are equally important. P-8I are key in keeping the air and water around IOR clear, they are the best chance IN has against Chini & Puki subs which are sigficant number in total. Apaches will be used in the IAF as Command & Control assets and as guardians of the Strike corps during their deep runs behind enemy lines.

Now I believe is a good time for India/US relations to go further, however that will depend on the outcome of this discussion. If the US refuses the basics, well then no deal.

 

[Immanuel]

These figures are definitely better than Rafale's very disappointing 48% availability rate with the French Air Force. And Rafale is not even stealthy...

Again, Rafale's availability rate: 48%

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/16/ground-force-half-frances-military-planes-unfit-fly/

I can only guess that the F-22's low availability rate is due to its maintenance intensive older generation RAM coating while F-35's availability rate is mainly due to continuing problems with spare parts' availability and ALIS maturity. But the F-35's availability rate is expected to climb well into past 80% as the spares and ALIS issues are sorted out.

In reality having more than 70-75% availability during peace time is far too expensive for any bird. Instead they should have 70% during peace time with ability to hit 90+% during 1st 4 weeks of fighting + 85% during 2 months of sustained warfare. Hopefully MKI wil get here soon.

 

[Immanuel]

New F-35 modernization plan could come with hefty $16B price tag

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/03/08/new-f-35-modernization-plan-could-come-with-hefty-16b-price-tag/

Wait $16 billion to upgrade all 270 F-35 to latest block 4 + applying same upgrades to all future F-35, not a bad cost. Let's see what is the cost of upgrading all Rafales to F-4 standard and compare.

International customers were estimated to be responsible for $3.7 billion of the $10.8 billion software development costs, with the United States shouldering the rest, spending about $1 billion per year over the seven-year plan, Winter said.

The costs would be for the more than 270 F-35 jets currently in the field and others that come off the production line in the near future.

 

[BON PLAN]

In reality having more than 70-75% availability during peace time is far too expensive for any bird. Instead they should have 70% during peace time with ability to hit 90+% during 1st 4 weeks of fighting + 85% during 2 months of sustained warfare. Hopefully MKI wil get here soon.

All depend. Even in peace time if you have a small fleet you need to have a higher reliability than with the same mission tasks and more plane.
In peace time 7% is high.

In france part of the fleet (of M2000 and Rafale) is moothballed in Chateaudun air force.

 

[BON PLAN]

Wait $16 billion to upgrade all 270 F-35 to latest block 4 + applying same upgrades to all future F-35, not a bad cost. Let's see what is the cost of upgrading all Rafales to F-4 standard and compare.

It's very different.

The first 270 x F35 are unable to fight. It's not a upgrade : it's a kind of bill for first IOC...

The upgrade of Rafale is just to increase capacity (ie AESA) or reduce cost (pack ECO on M88) on a war proven plane.