Friday, July 25, 2014

B-29

It is home video quality but parts of it are very good. Ride along on Fifi, the last B-29 in flying conditions.

Start a few minutes in and observe all the work the flight engineer has to do.

I met Paul Tibbetts over 10 years ago. The guy was really sharp even in old age.

When the B-29 was in development, had some catching fire issues. In order to show it off to aircrews after some of that, they had an all-woman air crew fly one around to some of the training bases.

A sexist way of stating that women can fly it; no problem.

Amazing we built so many of these.

1938- Design study
1939- Formal specification
1940- Boeing design submitted
1940- Static airframe
1941- Order for 14 test and 250 production aircraft.
1942- First flight of prototype
1943- Various troubles. 100 delivered only 15 airworthy. Most common problem was the engines.
1944- Changes came so often that production aircraft went directly to the depot for modification.

3,970 produced.

Here is a training film for the flight engineer....

LM sales force in pre-Internet era

Some of LM's sales force must still be in the pre-Internet era and think they can fib to U.S. allies in just about any forum. Certainly no one in the U.S. watches Fuji TV.

Here is an interesting article that may point to the fact that one of LM's international salespeople for the F-35 is making up just about any story they want.

Now. Notice the lead photo for the article is an F-22 and that the way the article is written, there may be something lost in the translation, but look at these quotes; including the "fifth-generation" meme:

Dave Scott, Lockheed Martin's director of international customer engagement for F-35s, dismissed claims that the Russian T-50 and Chinese J-20 qualify as fifth-generation fighters during an interview with Fuji Television Network. The US F-35 is the only fifth generation fighter aircraft that deserves Japanese investment, he said.

Addressing Japan's greatest concern, Russia's T-50 and China's J-20, Scott referred to a report by AFRL ( Air Force Research Laboratory .ep) that claimed the F-35 is able to outperform its heavyweight opponents effortlessly by reducing 30-70% of the fuel load and increasing the supersonic cruising radius by 50%. He also referred to a statement of Boeing, manufacturer of the F/A-18E Hornet, claiming that the T-50 and J-20 as not completely fifth generation.

Any nonsense will do when the U.S. talks to its "allies". The fuel load idea is outrageous. Is that before or after emerging PacRim threats take out our tankers?

National security is not important.

Sales figures are.


---

-Time's Battleland - 5 Part series on F-35 procurement - 2013 
-Summary of Air Power Australia F-35 points
-Bill Sweetman, Aviation Week and the F-35
-U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) F-35 reports
-F-35 JSF: Cold War Anachronism Without a Mission
-History of F-35 Production Cuts
-Looking at the three Japan contenders (maneuverability)
-How the Canadian DND misleads the public about the F-35
-Value of STOVL F-35B over-hyped
-Cuckoo in the nest--U.S. DOD DOT&E F-35 report is out
-6 Feb 2012 Letter from SASC to DOD boss Panetta questioning the decision to lift probation on the F-35B STOVL.
-USAFs F-35 procurement plan is not believable
-December 2011 Australia/Canada Brief
-F-35 Key Performance Perimeters (KPP) and Feb 2012 CRS report
-F-35 DOD Select Acquisition Report (SAR) FY2012
-Release of F-35 2012 test report card shows continued waste on a dud program
-Australian Defence answers serious F-35 project concerns with "so what?"
-Land of the Lost (production cut history update March 2013)
-Outgoing LM F-35 program boss admits to flawed weight assumptions (March 2013)
-A look at the F-35 program's astro-turfing
-F-35 and F-16 cost per flying hour
-Is this aircraft worth over $51B of USMC tac-air funding?
-Combat radius and altitude, A model
-F-35A, noise abatement and airfields and the USAF
-Deceptive marketing practice: F-35 blocks
-The concurrency fraud
-The dung beetle's "it's known" lie
-F-35's air-to-air ability limited
-F-35 Blocks--2006 and today
-The F-35B design is leaking fuel
-F-35 deliveries
-ADF's wacky F-35 assumptions

Comment of the week

Comment of the week by reader M&S.

M&S

>>
They are not actually producing F-35 aircraft, but developmental
prototypes. Actual F-35 aircraft won't be available until after the
Milestone C production decision. Milestone C, which initiates the
Production and Deployment Phase, is currently scheduled for 2019.
>>

The contract will be effectively signed when the Marines declare IOC
in 2015. At that point, any default of the contract (which is the
natural outcome of failure to pass Milestone C) will be 'for
convenience of the government'.

See: A-12 and 25 years of litigation.

>>
The Production and Deployment phase is where a system is produced and
deployed. To enter this phase, a program, among other things, must
have passed developmental testing and operational assessment,
demonstrated that it is interoperable with other relevant systems, and
can be supported operationally, shown that it is affordable, be fully
funded, and pass Milestone C.
>>

The F/A-18E/F _failed_ the pass:fail portion of the naval OPEVAL,
across the board on acceleration, radius, turn rate, radar, EW suite,
FLIR and other major areas.

They 'built into' the Lot II which had the configured cockpit and NFF
to support the APG-79 and the ASQ-228 and 'full function' ALQ-214 as
they came online but the jet is still a dog aerodynamically and will
remain so until more powerful F414s are introduced, at which point it
will be a dog with a pedigree because the F414s will burn more fuel
and the jet is already at least 187nm short of radius (550nm promised
vs. Tomcat 21, 393nm mandated in adjusted KPP, 363nm achieved).

According to WAPJ, the F/A-18E/F is slow to roll, cannont maintain a
loaded roll reversal, slow to pitch and slow to come off the pitch
with slow acceleration in both loaded and unloaded states.

Since we will not stop buying underperforming cows that pass
themselves off as fighters under circumstances where the testing
parameters -don't- include 'classified because it's penetration
signature related'; how do you expect either a fair or an open to the
public debate on the JSF Milestone C event?

The Navy will take the F-35 because the other services will crush them
if they don't. The Marines clearly don't give a damn about performance
and only want a new toy since they are willing to drop the requirement
for any kind of comprehensive testing altogether.

It's a hopeless case of the military wanting job security for their
flyboys, no matter how likely they are to become obsolete to robotics,
fuel crises and directed energy weapons.

And the Congress and corporate sides having their own spoon in the pot
and thus p ressing for a jet that this nation doesn't need and cannot
afford.

>>
At Milestone C, the MDA (normally) authorizes the beginning of
low-rate initial production, which is intended to both prepare
manufacturing and quality control processes for a higher rate of
production and provide test models for operational test and evaluation
(OT&E).
>>

Again, I ask you, if everything that matters relative to the F-35s
testing comes down to stealth and cyber (because PEO Bogdan has
stated, in public, that he doesn't care if it doesn't meet the promis
ed F-16 level performance spec and is, in fact, barely equal to the
F-4), why are we playing this game that says that 'Testing Means
Everything!' when in fact, all signs point to the Services generating
substantial slack for their chosen aircraft and doing everything
possible to undermine those they don't want?

The F-111B was a substantially superior Fleet Air Defender to the
F-14. It was a better carrier landing aircraft, it carried the
required number of missiles and while it missed it's loiter target by
about 20%, it was nothing like the F-14 which missed it's target by
almost 50% _with only 4 missiles_.

The Navy wouldn't speak up at meetings, wouldn't sign off on
pressuring Pratt or Hughes to lighten the avionics suite (though they
subsequently did so for the Tomcat) and whien finally pressured to
come up with a series of 'fixes' which would ameliorate the aircraft's
deficiencies in meeting their needs, did so with the N-1 series of
mods which did NOTHING to improve the jet's combat capabilities but
late-demand ruined the aircraft's development timelines to the point
that cancelling the F-111B occurred before carrier flight testing (by
Grumman test pilots, who said the jet passed) even began.

Please.

With that kind of institutional corruption, there is no hope for
honest in the JSF testing process because there is no independent
design and test agency, specifically set up like The Fed, to be beyond
the grasping clutches of either Congress or Services to make the
laughing stock known for what it is.

>>
Upon completion of OT&E, demonstration of adequate control over
manufacturing processes, and with the approval of the MDA, a program
can go into full rate production. When enough systems are delivered
and other pre-defined criteria are met, an Initial Operating
Capability (IOC) can be attained, allowing for some degree of
operations. Full Operational Capability (FOC) is a chieved when the
system is ready to operate as required.
>>

Let's read this like it should be said, relative to the JSF:

"When there are enough jets in service to make the obvious
king-is-dead new platform obvious and essential because enough -time-
has passed in which the existing inventory spares pipe has been
defunded so that it is broke off it's ass due to inadequate spares and
upgrades, IOC will be 'declared' as a contractual endorsement for the
jet's full rate manufacture so that the Manufacture can have binding
legal justification to force the s ervices to continue forwards if
later service use shows massive deficiencies."

You tested it, you bought it, if it's broke, it's your own fault.

>>
Producing and fielding prototypes, which by the way are not certified
for air-worthiness, is going to be a huge mistake. It will include
what they are calling Initial operational capability, which is no
capability as ep indicates above.
>>

They are dropping ordnance. Not well to be sure but they are doing it
and have been doing so for quite awhile-

F-35 Drops First Guided Bomb, October 30, 2013
http://mobile.reuters.com/arti...

Since dropping bombs and shooting missiles, under guidance, is the
first precondition to killing people declared the enemy, the jet has
capability.
The truth of this story is more complex.
1. We have no enemies worth an MTW.
And likely will not, until sometime between 2050 and 2070 when
resource depletion, global warming effects on refugee populations and
the global preeminency of China's economy renders the U.S. a fourth
rate has been regardless. I personally believe we will see massive
civil wars in _this_ country, long before then.
2. The real threats are not things which airborne platform can meet.
The more you push airpower, the more the terrorists will respond with
their own, 'untouchable', alternatives. And as our borders have not
been secured in over a decade, that worry will have to include nuclear
weapons.
The F-35 does nothing for this.
If the U.S. pushes Russia on the Ukraine, the Russians will flatten
the country with nuclear weapons rather than allow NATO overwatch on
her internal missile fields, industry and breadbasket. And the F-35
will be able to do _nothing_ to stop this.
Global Commerce Alli ance beh ind alternative trading partnerships,
uninterested in Fed control over the USD global currency base is
_legal_. And will become increasingly sought after as nations without
17 trillion dollar deficits ask what they are getting from currency
leveraged trading with the U.S. when there are alternative
mass-markets to sell their goods and services too, exclusively.
We have no heavy industrial base. We have sold it to the Chinese. We
cannot do without trade. There is _absolutely nothing_ that the F-35
can do to support this trade by increasing deficit and decreasing
dollar value under the Greenspanian tried and true 'I know, print more
money!' condition.
3. Threats to the F-35 itself are also not readily answerable.
Directed Energy Weapons _are here_. With the 2010 Gamma Firestrike
tests by Northrop Grumman, they have already passed the industry
standard for weaponization threshold on a 5-7km capability. It is only
a matter of time and need before the threat , using civilian telecomms
systems as an apriori proliferated technology base starts to imitate
and this will become a driving need for them because standoff weapons
will make point defense of targets by signature limited missile
systems rather pointless.
Hunting Weapons are even easier to do and will replace rocket based
S2A within a few years.
Finally, if you want to end a wasp problem, you don't spray or swat
individual wasps. You find the nest. And the F-35, with it's crippled
radius, does _nothing_ to offset the ability of BASM and ASCM and
OTH-B targeting to destroy it's carrier basing mode or limited land
basing options (Kadena and Andersen) in the Pacific Pivot theater we
have chose to focus ourselves around 'Near Peer' beating.
A Peer whose consumer goods we are dependent upon. A Peer whose
neighbors are the sole market alternative for some of those goods
which we must protect as a pricing differential because _we have no
internal economic engine_ able to meet our own demands.
CONCLUSION:
The JSF is stupid. It is flawed operationally as a doctrine as much as
an individual platform. It will drive us into a condition whereby we
end up forcing the very kinds of wars we need to avoid, sooner,
because of uncontrolled spending on capabilities which are irrelevant
today (a Reaper does a better job at CAS in AfG) and not even
self-protecting in the military scenarios of a 2030-2050 fight.
So don't pretend that 'testing' matters. Because the students wrote
the test themselves and the teachers will correct any mistakes they
make to make sure that 'no child is left behind'.
Until you break that union rules system of institutional cronyism and
corruption, there is no hope for military procurement in general and
aircraft procurement in particular.
Why bother administering a test when the class knows the answers and
will open book cheat the parameters right in front of your eyes?

Australia's F-35 roll-out fraud

Today (U.S. time) is the roll out of the first F-35 for Australia.

What the average Australian person may or may not know is that this aircraft has no credible combat capability.

Nor is that likely to improve.

Frank Kendall, U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics. (Mr. F-35 is aquisition malpractice) was at the ceremony.

He has now be put under proper control and the puppet-strings are being pulled with a good endorsement for his post DOD employment via the revolving door.

Air Marshal Geoff Brown of the RAAF was there. He is back in action after being shot to pieces by one of our few elected officials who isn't asleep at the wheel. Watch the whole video. I was worried he was going to cry when caught in so many lies.

The LM boss says it is fitting to mark the 100 years of Australian military aviation. Someone remind the audience about that capability at the start of WWII.

Since then Australia has been doing good. They should be proud of RAAFs past accomplishments in places like Korea and Vietnam.

As well as various peace and security ops.

I don't know how we are going to pay for an aircraft that is 4-5 times more expensive to fly per hour than the current, old F-18s. And those F-18s have more capability. 13 troubled years after LM winning the JSF contract, all they have to show are mistake-jets.

And while bring up the F-18, when Australia decided to get them--75 at the time--the first two were produced in the U.S.

The rest were assembled in Australia.

I can't imagine why Australia is on the fast track to having a majority of its defence logistics and future, tied to foreign interests.

Where they set the terms of almost everything.

Your job? Be a compliant taxpayer, don't ask questions, and hand over the money.

That isn't good government. That is theft.

By trick or device.


---

-Time's Battleland - 5 Part series on F-35 procurement - 2013 
-Summary of Air Power Australia F-35 points
-Bill Sweetman, Aviation Week and the F-35
-U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) F-35 reports
-F-35 JSF: Cold War Anachronism Without a Mission
-History of F-35 Production Cuts
-Looking at the three Japan contenders (maneuverability)
-How the Canadian DND misleads the public about the F-35
-Value of STOVL F-35B over-hyped
-Cuckoo in the nest--U.S. DOD DOT&E F-35 report is out
-6 Feb 2012 Letter from SASC to DOD boss Panetta questioning the decision to lift probation on the F-35B STOVL.
-USAFs F-35 procurement plan is not believable
-December 2011 Australia/Canada Brief
-F-35 Key Performance Perimeters (KPP) and Feb 2012 CRS report
-F-35 DOD Select Acquisition Report (SAR) FY2012
-Release of F-35 2012 test report card shows continued waste on a dud program
-Australian Defence answers serious F-35 project concerns with "so what?"
-Land of the Lost (production cut history update March 2013)
-Outgoing LM F-35 program boss admits to flawed weight assumptions (March 2013)
-A look at the F-35 program's astro-turfing
-F-35 and F-16 cost per flying hour
-Is this aircraft worth over $51B of USMC tac-air funding?
-Combat radius and altitude, A model
-F-35A, noise abatement and airfields and the USAF
-Deceptive marketing practice: F-35 blocks
-The concurrency fraud
-The dung beetle's "it's known" lie
-F-35's air-to-air ability limited
-F-35 Blocks--2006 and today
-The F-35B design is leaking fuel
-F-35 deliveries
-ADF's wacky F-35 assumptions


---

-New Defence White Paper fails to address Australia's core security needs
-2009 Defence White Paper Fantasy
-Analysing "The ADF Air Combat Capability- On the Record"
-Find out who is responsible for the Air Warfare Destroyer mess
-Analysis of Defence Materiel Organisation Major Projects Management and What Needs to be Fixed
-New DMO Boss warns the staff that business as usual is over
-How dangerous is the Defence Material Organisation to our Defence Industry?
-Australia's Failing Defence Structure and Management Methodology
-More on the dud-jamming gear Defence wants to buy
-ADF cost per flying hour
-I will wipe out bullying vows new Defence chief (Houston 2005)
-Vacancy
-Put Vol 2 Report of DLA Piper Review into the light of day
-Rory and Jim
-Parasitism as an Abstraction for Organizational Dysfunctions
-Hobart-class "Air Warfare Destroyer" to be fielded with obsolete radar guidance technology
-The Decay Of Critical Military Thinking And Writing-With Particular Reference To The RAAF
-Newspaper guy gets it right about sub project.... big time
-The great M-1 tank myth
-*UPDATE* Fear and loathing in Canberra - Audit released on MRH-90 helicopter project 
-RAN bullies contractor over Collins sub replacement
-2014-15 ADF budget shocker - Star-ranks
-Air Warfare Destroyer -- Billions, not millions over budget

Thursday, July 24, 2014

DC F-35 price shopping

Some, (not all) of the money to be spent on the F-35 according to various DC political assumptions.


(click image to make larger)

And as Bogdan would say, "you know what's coming next..."




Those proposed buys are for aircraft that don't have any proven combat capability, almost 13 years after LM won the JSF contract.



(click image to make larger)

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

F-35 deliveries

F-35 deliveries (existing and projected).




(click image to make larger -Teal Group graphic)

Shockingly flat and points to so many assumptions about the F-35 program that just have not come true.

Compare to this faith-based 2003 graphic (note: only 6 LRIPs).


(click image to make larger)

That last one, LRIP-6 is a bit hard to read. That is for 168 aircraft. Full rate production would follow right after that. You are looking at a lot of lost money to the rent-seekers in the supply chain; a lot of lost capability.

Based on dreams with no credible analysis to back them up.

People are not buying because the aircraft is nowhere near complete. It doesn't work to any credible worth. Something to think about almost 13 years after LM won the JSF contract.

Australia gets their first F-35 tomorrow where it will be rolled out from the Fort Worth factory.

It has no combat capability.

It will get killed vs. emerging threats.

It is unaffordable to own and operate.

Other than that, the program is moving right along.

To oblivion.


---

-Time's Battleland - 5 Part series on F-35 procurement - 2013 
-Summary of Air Power Australia F-35 points
-Bill Sweetman, Aviation Week and the F-35
-U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) F-35 reports
-F-35 JSF: Cold War Anachronism Without a Mission
-History of F-35 Production Cuts
-Looking at the three Japan contenders (maneuverability)
-How the Canadian DND misleads the public about the F-35
-Value of STOVL F-35B over-hyped
-Cuckoo in the nest--U.S. DOD DOT&E F-35 report is out
-6 Feb 2012 Letter from SASC to DOD boss Panetta questioning the decision to lift probation on the F-35B STOVL.
-USAFs F-35 procurement plan is not believable
-December 2011 Australia/Canada Brief
-F-35 Key Performance Perimeters (KPP) and Feb 2012 CRS report
-F-35 DOD Select Acquisition Report (SAR) FY2012
-Release of F-35 2012 test report card shows continued waste on a dud program
-Australian Defence answers serious F-35 project concerns with "so what?"
-Land of the Lost (production cut history update March 2013)
-Outgoing LM F-35 program boss admits to flawed weight assumptions (March 2013)
-A look at the F-35 program's astro-turfing
-F-35 and F-16 cost per flying hour
-Is this aircraft worth over $51B of USMC tac-air funding?
-Combat radius and altitude, A model
-F-35A, noise abatement and airfields and the USAF
-Deceptive marketing practice: F-35 blocks
-The concurrency fraud
-The dung beetle's "it's known" lie
-F-35's air-to-air ability limited
-F-35 Blocks--2006 and today
-The F-35B design is leaking fuel


Tuesday, July 22, 2014

ADF's wacky F-35 assumptions

Defence has released their environmental report on basing the F-35A in Australia.

It offers no real suprises. It highlights once again, the incompetent thinking of Defence.

Since the F-18 arrived years ago, population has increased around RAAF Williamtown. The F-35 is a noisier aircraft. There is no way around that. Of interest, the U.S. Navy is looking at extra ear protection for their already loud aircraft carriers. That tells you something.

The old saw of "don't live around an air base if you can't handle the noise" does have some truth to it. Why would anyone in their right mind develop and buy a house around an air base?

The other part of that though is that some have built assuming long ago that noise patterns would not expand.

They will expand.

And the ADF was concerned last year:

Air force Chief Air Marshal Geoff Brown last week said he was disappointed with decisions by the Port Stephens Council to allow people to build near one of its busiest bases, where they will be blasted with aircraft noise.

"Homeowners that purchase these new developments are acquiring properties that will be exposed to high levels of aircraft noise ... with ... (the) F-35A in the future."

These set of quotes are interesting.

The draft statement said: "Compared to the flying operations of the F/A-18A/B Hornet aircraft, the introduction of the proposed flying operations of the F-35A aircraft will not result in a change of risk to people, property and the environment in relation to aircraft accident and incidents at all RAAF bases except RAAF Base Williamtown."

In Williamtown, the total flying hours of the F-35A will increase by 43% from those of the F/A-18A/B Hornet.

The public has been asked to submit their comments by 19 September for incorporation into the final EIS.


Let us examine those statements.

The mishap assumptions can be classified as weird. A single engine aircraft that will be flown 43 percent more vs the current twin-engine aircraft. Besides the fact of more noise production due to that increase you have an increase of risk from the F-35 motor that has a history of not working right all the time.

No matter what base it is at (it has to deploy up North).

Hopefully when they dump a jet it will go in the swamp or similar unoccupied areas.

Currently, legacy Hornets put in about 13,000 hours per year give or take, at around $12,000 per flight hour.

The F-35 is about 4-5 times the cost per flight hour of the aircraft it replaces. This may improve or not improve but there is still the issue that the jet is years away from being in a real, operational squadron with complete, tested, go-to-war systems. It will consume a lot more fuel than the aircraft it replaces. This means more fuel storage requirements or transport of fuel requirements.

Australia only has enough domestic fuel on hand for about 30 days.

Because of the U.S. DOD milestone-C procurement issues, the F-35 is still a prototype. All of the current trends of mistakes with the program show this.

43 percent more flying with a jet that is 4-5 times more expensive per flying hour.

The ADF budget, with all of the outrageously expensive and defective toys on program record is being eaten alive by operating costs. This will get worse as more faulty, ships and aircraft find their way to "operational" status.

Do the math. Something has to go or they will have to fly 4 to 5 times less F-35s. Given the mistake-jet syndrome and poor project management that is a distinct possibility if it doesn't end up like the Sea-Sprite. That only cost us $1.5B, for no credible combat capability. A bargain compared to this.

As it stands now, the F-35 is a prime candidate for the DMO project of concern list.

In a few days, the first Australian F-35 will roll out at Fort Worth, Texas. It has no, tested, certified, working, combat systems. It has no known reliability.

If used in the Pacific in a future war, it has a very good chance of getting shot down.

Legacy F-18 Hornet flown by RAAF vs the high-risk and faulty F-35:





---

-Time's Battleland - 5 Part series on F-35 procurement - 2013 
-Summary of Air Power Australia F-35 points
-Bill Sweetman, Aviation Week and the F-35
-U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) F-35 reports
-F-35 JSF: Cold War Anachronism Without a Mission
-History of F-35 Production Cuts
-Looking at the three Japan contenders (maneuverability)
-How the Canadian DND misleads the public about the F-35
-Value of STOVL F-35B over-hyped
-Cuckoo in the nest--U.S. DOD DOT&E F-35 report is out
-6 Feb 2012 Letter from SASC to DOD boss Panetta questioning the decision to lift probation on the F-35B STOVL.
-USAFs F-35 procurement plan is not believable
-December 2011 Australia/Canada Brief
-F-35 Key Performance Perimeters (KPP) and Feb 2012 CRS report
-F-35 DOD Select Acquisition Report (SAR) FY2012
-Release of F-35 2012 test report card shows continued waste on a dud program
-Australian Defence answers serious F-35 project concerns with "so what?"
-Land of the Lost (production cut history update March 2013)
-Outgoing LM F-35 program boss admits to flawed weight assumptions (March 2013)
-A look at the F-35 program's astro-turfing
-F-35 and F-16 cost per flying hour
-Is this aircraft worth over $51B of USMC tac-air funding?
-Combat radius and altitude, A model
-F-35A, noise abatement and airfields and the USAF
-Deceptive marketing practice: F-35 blocks
-The concurrency fraud
-The dung beetle's "it's known" lie
-F-35's air-to-air ability limited
-F-35 Blocks--2006 and today
-The F-35B design is leaking fuel