F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[On Guard for Thee]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australia-to-buy-24-super-hornets-as-interim-gapfiller-to-jsf-02898/

[Smallc]

They're buying 58 f-35s.

[On Guard for Thee]

They're buying 58 f-35s.

Wow, downgraded again. Initially it was around a hundred and then shortened to 72 last time I looked. Now 58. I suspect that is partly because of (well crazily ballooning costs) but also because they realize they need a mixed fleet to cover the bases. F 35 can't do it.

[Derek 2.0]

Props-R-Us

.

Actually no…….the RAAF aircraft (AU-2) pictured is real.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm shocked that you would once again flog LockMart projections! Wonder how they managed to wrangle a $120M cost... even better than the U.S. could secure - go figure!

It varies by accounting method and what is included.

oh wait... I forgot about the current sales push! You know, where Bogdan is out flogging 2-for-1 offers... apparently, a bake-sale is next! All this talk about a F-35 death spiral because no actual orders have been coming in... you know, contracts, money exchanged and all that. I wonder what the hesitation by other countries is all about. Perhaps a fire-sale is needed... I kid, I kid!

The death spiral eh……did you look at your second graph?

[Derek 2.0]

Is that why Aus. is ordering up to two dozen more F 18's?

No they're not, that was a proposal by the previous Government…..

[Derek 2.0]

They're buying 58 f-35s.

No, 72 F-35A in several tranches, with an additional purchase once planned (of F-35A) to replace the Super Hornets……of course, said additional tranche will now likely see the purchase of the F-35B.

[Derek 2.0]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australia-to-buy-24-super-hornets-as-interim-gapfiller-to-jsf-02898/

Those are Growlers, a new capability for the RAAF and not a replacement for legacy Hornets, but the F-111.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yep, because they are getting cold feet about the F 35. They have come to realize it can't fulfill all the roles it was intended too. Wisely they have opted for a mixed fleet.

[Derek 2.0]

Wow, downgraded again. Initially it was around a hundred and then shortened to 72 last time I looked. Now 58. I suspect that is partly because of (well crazily ballooning costs) but also because they realize they need a mixed fleet to cover the bases. F 35 can't do it.

Their intended requirement hasn’t been “downgraded” and still stands as:

F-35A x 72 replacing their legacy Hornets.

F/A-18F x 24 that replaced their F-111.……and these Hornets will likely be replaced by the F-35B after the 72 F-35As have been delivered

EA-18 x 12 aircraft that are a new unique capability to the RAAF…..there is the option of upgrading 12 of the 24 above Super Hornets to a near standard.

[Derek 2.0]

Yep, because they are getting cold feet about the F 35. They have come to realize it can't fulfill all the roles it was intended too. Wisely they have opted for a mixed fleet.

No they're not......Cold feet would be indicated by them replacing legacy Hornets with Super Bugs, but of course they are not.

[On Guard for Thee]

No they're not......Cold feet would be indicated by them replacing legacy Hornets with Super Bugs, but of course they are not.

Cold feet would be indicated by signifigantly scaling back the order and backing away from a single fleet with an aircraft that doend't live up to it's billing. It's a "bomb truck" and so if you need an "agile" fighter, you need something else.

[Derek 2.0]

Cold feet would be indicated by signifigantly scaling back the order and backing away from a single fleet with an aircraft that doend't live up to it's billing. It's a "bomb truck" and so if you need an "agile" fighter, you need something else.

The Australians never intended to operate a single fleet …..and of course, they haven’t scaled back their orders.

[On Guard for Thee]

The Australians never intended to operate a single fleet …..and of course, they haven’t scaled back their orders.

100 reduced to 72. I'd kinda call that scaling back.

[Derek 2.0]

100 reduced to 72. I'd kinda call that scaling back.

Reread the article:

Australia plans to buy up to 100 of the advanced combat aircraft but so far has placed a firm order for 72, with the first squadron to be declared operational in 2020.

As I said, the final tranche of ~28 aircraft of 100 will be the replacement for the Super Hornets in the mid-late 2020s, but as mentioned prior, they are likely to purchase the F-35B for their remaining requirement, which would allow the Super Hornet fleet to be retired earlier.

[On Guard for Thee]

They, and others, have realized they need a mixed fleet. The JSF can't live up to it's billing. So they just keep degrading the billing. Just look at it's profile, it's too fat to be maneuravable, and that single engine ain't got enough punch, (well unless it's punching a hole in the tailfeathers as it blows up) 40 some odds seconds to go supersonic in afterburner. That will certainly downgrade engine cycle times don't ya think?

[Derek 2.0]

They, and others, have realized they need a mixed fleet.

Indeed, by the end of next decade the RAAF and RN FAA will be operating a mixed fleet of F-35As and F-35Bs

The JSF can't live up to it's billing. So they just keep degrading the billing. Just look at it's profile, it's too fat to be maneuravable

The F-35 is far more manoeuvrable armed then the aircraft that it will replace…..faster too.

and that single engine ain't got enough punch,

The most powerful engine ever put into a single engine type…….The F-35 armed will have a greater sustained speed then the aircraft that it will replace.

[On Guard for Thee]

Indeed, by the end of next decade the RAAF and RN FAA will be operating a mixed fleet of F-35As and F-35Bs

The F-35 is far more manoeuvrable armed then the aircraft that it will replace…..faster too.

The most powerful engine ever put into a single engine type…….The F-35 armed will have a greater sustained speed then the aircraft that it will replace.

It may be your opinion, but not that of some of the test pilots who are brave enough to speak out. Limited of sustained G force, turning radius, A of A, and that engine may be powerful, but it's trying to do too much so it's hot and has "thermal creep" problems as well as "turbine rub" which is what is suspected as causing the latest engine explosion/fire a couple of weeks ago.

[Derek 2.0]

It may be your opinion, but not that of some of the test pilots who are brave enough to speak out.

What test pilots? The reasons why the F-35 will outperform the aircraft that it will replace,are simple and elementary aerodynamics....

"turbine rub" which is what is suspected as causing the latest engine explosion/fire a couple of weeks ago.

Of course turbine rub isn’t caused by heat, nor was said problem found to be systemic to the fleet.

[On Guard for Thee]

What test pilots? The reasons why the F-35 will outperform the aircraft that it will replace,are simple and elementary aerodynamics....

Of course turbine rub isn’t caused by heat, nor was said problem found to be systemic to the fleet.

Turbine rub is caused by nothing but heat. Basically the wheels expand and come into contact with the housing that surrounds them. Sometimes they just crack chunks off and get spat out the tailpipe, and sometime the whole wheel fails and explodes violently such as what hapenned a couple of weeks ago in Florida.

[Derek 2.0]

Turbine rub is caused by nothing but heat. Basically the wheels expand and come into contact with the housing that surrounds them. Sometimes they just crack chunks off and get spat out the tailpipe, and sometime the whole wheel fails and explodes violently such as what hapenned a couple of weeks ago in Florida.

Actually no……you’re prescribing the symptoms as the cause…….Turbine rub can be caused by misalignment, resonance, vibration etc, but the friction will cause heat......put the donkey before your cart.

[On Guard for Thee]

Actually no……you’re prescribing the symptoms as the cause…….Turbine rub can be caused by misalignment, resonance, vibration etc, but the friction will cause heat......put the donkey before your cart.

They don't actually know the cause in this latest case yet, which is why it is limited to 3 hrs between inspections, and which is why it couldn't make it across the ocean to Farnborough. So there is no real cart to put the donkey before, whatever that is supposed to mean. But you're right, all those things can cause turbine rub. It seems in this case the most likely culprit is "thermal creep". And that's a really difficult one to deal with. I know I wouldn't want to be mid Atlantic thinking about it.

[waldo]

Actually no…….the RAAF aircraft (AU-2) pictured is real.

no - given that it can't actually do anything, it's nothing more than a prop (like the one Harper Conservatives used in 2010).

[Moonbox]

It varies by accounting method and what is included.

Yes, we all know that Lockheed Martin has eschewed GAAP for their own special version of Magical Mystery Numbers. They can say whatever they want about unit cost going down etc, but as production scale has increased over the last couple years, so too has the per unit cost of the plane, which is sort of the exact opposite of what's supposed to be happening.

Given the current lack of progress, it's exceedingly unlikely that they'll manage to reduce per unit costs by 30-40% 2018-2019 when large scale production is set to start. Costs will likely go down, but not to the level Lockheed claims or the Pentagon hopes. Bogdan commenting on the unacceptable cost of the Pratt & Whitney engine:

“Whatever acquisition program you're in, when you are in a sole-source environment, it is difficult to find the right levers and motivation to drive cost out of a program,”

Brilliantly, the Pentagon eliminated GE as a second manufacturer of the F-35 engine, and now P&W appears to be gouging them on the engine cost. His words are poignant not just for the basic economic sense they make, but also as a commentary on the lousy decision to sole-source virtually the entire Air Force.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Moonbox

[Derek 2.0]

But you're right, all those things can cause turbine rub.

Of course I’m right, I’m a professional and learned in the subject.

It seems in this case the most likely culprit is "thermal creep".

No it doesn’t……. “Creep” as you term it (Thermomechanical fatigue) is indicative of either/or an inherent issue with metallurgy and poor manufacturing techniques -or- end of life fatigue…….

With the first two, this would indicate a fleet wide problem, but as confirmed, this incident is congruent with a one off event…….As to the later, there has been no indication of the number of hours on the failed engine released for public consumption……..As such, it’s pure speculation.

The cause could have been attributed to something as simple as fouling/FOD or fuel contamination (the most common cause of engine failures in military aircraft) that induced sulphidation.