Italeri F35

[goose]

hi ive just been given as birthday (today) present the Italeri 72 scale F-35 A seems a nice kit. questions- it says 3x us decal options but it also includes Nederland, Belgium, Italy & UK national insignia ie RAF pink, blue roundels and tail flashes, i have a what if plan for RAF one so tail flashes on tails roundel upper lower both wings where do we think fuselage roundels will go, us stars n bars are on fuselage rear under tailplane,s

load out it comes with a pair of AIM-120 and pair of GBU-31, carried internally what do we think RAF will use?

ive seen a Academy one on e-bay in us which shows 3 under wing pylons, is this likely, wont it ruin stealth capabilities?

[Caution Wake Turbulence]

Happy Birthday!

(sorry, I don't know the answers to your questions... )

Andrew

[techniquest]

Forgive me, but if it's to be a 'what-if' surely it doesn't matter - put the markings where you like and load it up with whatever you want.

Happy birthday

Have a look here - this should help and inspire: http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,36152.0/highlight,f-35.html

Edited April 8, 2014 by techniquest

[Giorgio N]

First of all, happy B'day !!!

Then to the model.. the pylons will be used for all those missions where stealthiness will not be required, for example after the enemy air defence system has been destroyed or to carry tanks during transfer flights, so it will be possible to see them when the aircrafts become operational

[Romeo Alpha Yankee]

Well here are a couple of shots of RAF F-35Bs. They don't seen to carry fuselage roundels at the moment. The rego is in the place of the US stars and bars

oh and Happy birthday

[-Neu-]

load out it comes with a pair of AIM-120 and pair of GBU-31, carried internally what do we think RAF will use?

The Paveway IV is being tested on the F-35, and will likely be used instead of the JDAM.

ive seen a Academy one on e-bay in us which shows 3 under wing pylons, is this likely, wont it ruin stealth capabilities?

Its more unlikely. You're right that the aircraft's low observable advantages will be affected by the pylons, but there are many other reasons. 4000lbs of internal payload capacity is on the heavier side of loadouts, thus there will rarely be a need to carry more weapons. For how the RCAF will operate, its more likely that the aircraft will rarely use pylons. It takes time to install and remove them, and they also decrease the aircraft's range and flexibility. I think you'll see very few aircraft use them.

[dambuster]

It rather depends on whether the weapons that the owning armed force wishes to use are cleared or can even operate from the weapons bays.

Every new weapon that is integrated requires software updates ($$$) - i am not convinced that this aircraft will have the operational flexibility whilst maintaining a stealth posture, and I don't think that most end users have a path to full clearance of all weapons they would wish to use.

F-35B is even more limited, the internal weapon stations and middle-wing pylons are limited to half the load of the A/C. Indeed there is even debate on whether the F-35B can carry useful loadouts plus tanks due to the wing plumbing.

Peter

Edited April 9, 2014 by dambuster

[goose]

Interesting info chaps and thanks for birthday messages

[SimonR]

Happy birthday for yesterday Goose!

I want to do one of these in RAF colours (well - grey & grey!), I assume we will be getting the 'B' version - are there many external differences between the 'A' & 'B'?

cheers

Simon

[dambuster]

Happy birthday for yesterday Goose!

I want to do one of these in RAF colours (well - grey & grey!), I assume we will be getting the 'B' version - are there many external differences between the 'A' & 'B'?

cheers

Simon

Yes...... You need a B model as you will find it a big challenge to convert an A.

Peter

[-Neu-]

It rather depends on whether the weapons that the owning armed force wishes to use are cleared or can even operate from the weapons bays.

Every new weapon that is integrated requires software updates ($$$) - i am not convinced that this aircraft will have the operational flexibility whilst maintaining a stealth posture, and I don't think that most end users have a path to full clearance of all weapons they would wish to use.

That's not quite true. The F-35 uses the new Universal Armaments Interface: basically a tri-service standardized system that simplifies new weapons integration. Its already in service with the F-15E, and has facilitated weapon integrations for that aircraft. That's what's facilitated the Norweigan JSM missile's addition to the F-35, among other systems. The real challenge is for manufacturers to produce weapons to fit in the F-35's bomb bay, like Meteor or Amraam. Since the Paveway IV is a Raytheon product and already had fit checks, I think its integration is a foregone conclusion.

F-35B is even more limited, the internal weapon stations and middle-wing pylons are limited to half the load of the A/C. Indeed there is even debate on whether the F-35B can carry useful loadouts plus tanks due to the wing plumbing.

Peter

If we look at loadouts during OIF and OEF, 2000lbs is/was the most common weight carried by F/A-18s and F-16s. The development of sub-500lbs weapons (specifically Small diameter bomb) adds greater flexibility, allowing for multiple weapons to be carried. Frankly, the "debate" on the ability of the B model to carry wing stores is probably fictitious. It would have shown up in the SAR or operational evaluations at this point if it was a real problem.

Edited April 9, 2014 by -Neu-

[goose]

I'm going to use the A my thinking as replacement. 617sqd from Tornado it would be an A as didn't expect them to want stovl option

[-Neu-]

I'm going to use the A my thinking as replacement. 617sqd from Tornado it would be an A as didn't expect them to want stovl option

The RAF had planned at one point to replace Tranche I typhoons with F-35As around the 2020 mark, but later backtracked and just updated their current fighters. I personally believe that come 2020 when the cost savings of the F-35 over the Tiffy are made apparent they will do so. Maybe find one of those squadrons and make a what if... which might turn out to be accurate later on.

[dambuster]

If we look at loadouts during OIF and OEF, 2000lbs is/was the most common weight carried by F/A-18s and F-16s. The development of sub-500lbs weapons (specifically Small diameter bomb) adds greater flexibility, allowing for multiple weapons to be carried. Frankly, the "debate" on the ability of the B model to carry wing stores is probably fictitious. It would have shown up in the SAR or operational evaluations at this point if it was a real problem.

Ah yes, the lets build an aircraft and equip it to fight the last war....

And how many of these readily integratable weapons does the UK have? As I understand, we've already postponed integration of Brimstone and Storm Shadow on cost grounds.

OK for the US with a tri-service interface but what about other partners? And are the 'modified' munitions backwards compatible with Typhoon? I still maintain that we haven't really understood the cost to acheive full operational flexibility. Who was it who said 'Flexibility, the key to Air Power'?

Peter

PS and nobody has yet mentioned Alice.... :smile:

[-Neu-]

Ah yes, the lets build an aircraft and equip it to fight the last war....

No, its a trend that has been going on for over 70 years. I used to have an nice couple of slides that illustrated the development of aerial bombing since 1939. Back then it took a fleet of bombers to put an airfield out of commission by cratering the runway. In Kosovo, a single B-2 could do it alone with GPS guided bombs. This trend is largely a function of the growing accuracy of bombs (first by better aiming systems, then by precision guided munitions), improvement in explosives, and growing tailoring of bombs effects.

Consequently, one of the biggest growth area of munitions in the past decade are so called micro bombs, that can be fitted onto newer aircraft and drones. So, no its not "the last war." its a long developing trend that is continuing in the future. the alternative is dropping more, less accurate, larger bombs.

And how many of these readily integratable weapons does the UK have? As I understand, we've already postponed integration of Brimstone and Storm Shadow on cost grounds.

Paveways and amraam right now, possibly more. Its unclear what is required to make Meteor work but it fits on the A2G stations inside the bay. In reality you would likely purchase a new set of munitions for the F-35 anyway, and have some compatibility with ones already purchased. Is that ideal? no. But its better than your options with other aircraft, like Rafale or Gripen.

OK for the US with a tri-service interface but what about other partners? And are the 'modified' munitions backwards compatible with Typhoon?

Would you like to propose an alternative? Because that would be the status quo, which you said yourself costs millions. The RCAF faced this issue in the 1990s with the CF-18s.. its just not affordable.

This is the advantage of UAI. Instead of paying millions to upgrade an aircraft's the avionics to carry a weapon, you set a standard and the weapons are designed to meet it. And that's the true flexibility of the F-35. Like it or not, F-35 IS the future of Western aviation. There will be more of them than Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen combined, multiplied by two. For most countries, the F-35 will be their only aircraft. There are advantages to that as well. Countries can share development costs on specific upgrades (and they already have.) Canada the UK and Australia will maintain their own reprogramming areas. Munitions, like the Joint Strike Missile made by Konigsberg, will be readily available for all nations, not just the one who pays for the upgrade.

I still maintain that we haven't really understood the cost to acheive full operational flexibility. Who was it who said 'Flexibility, the key to Air Power'?

Frankly, given the issues the RAF has with its current fleet of fast movers, I'd say that the F-35 offers a pretty attractive package. The B version is a true multi-role capability out of the box (even in 2B configuration), that will be cheaper to procure and operate than the typhoon (with better sensors too), and which can operate from your carriers to boot.

Peter

PS and nobody has yet mentioned Alice.... :smile:

I assume you're talking about ALIS, which is probably the one of the most significant advantage the F-35 has over any other aircraft: on the same level of low observability and high bandwidth Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) communications.

In reality what ALIS does is actually not very unique: its industry standard for Maintenance Repair and Overhaul (MRO) sector in the Civil Airlines Business. Its basically a more advanced version of ACARS, that will allow for a more dynamic monitoring of aircraft health, and improvement in logistical operations. Rather than operating under defined parts life, which is the norm, replacement will occur based on the component's actual health. Thus there will be less replacements, and thus less downtime. Replacements will be drawn from a global parts pool, very similar to what Boeing does with the tens of thousands of civil airliners in service…. that's better than the current practice of trying to predict what parts might need replacing at the beginning of an aircraft's life, then buying a huge load of spares, many of which will never be used. There are a number of studies that show its improvement in the civil world, which is why it is being adopted by militaries world wide. It will improve sortie generation rates, decrease aborts, and cost less than current practices.

It is an absolutely critical factor behind the long term affordability of the F-35. While it is behind in its development, its advantages are far beyond anything else in the market. That's why so much attention is paid towards it.

As a final point, I understand you're super skeptical about the JSF program. Frankly, a lot of what you're seeing out in the press is basically sensationalized press that do not understand the program's particulars.

Edited April 10, 2014 by -Neu-

[dambuster]

As a final point, I understand you're super skeptical about the JSF program. Frankly, a lot of what you're seeing out in the press is basically sensationalized press that do not understand the program's particulars.

Thanks for the considered response. Basing a logistic and maintenance support organisation on the civil model may not be the best approach for a military environment, particularly where loss of missions has a much larger impact than just leaving a couple hundred passengers without a holiday trip.

I am not super skeptical about F-35, just pragmatic enough to recognise that military capability is not always best served by industrial monopolies offering the latest new gadgets backed up with promises of 'cheap, flexible, adaptable' as these three concepts tend to be mutually exclusive.

Think we should let the subject get back on topic.

[Giorgio N]

Thanks for the considered response. Basing a logistic and maintenance support organisation on the civil model may not be the best approach for a military environment, particularly where loss of missions has a much larger impact than just leaving a couple hundred passengers without a holiday trip.

I wouldn't be so dismissive of the processes used in commercial enterprises: with a few exceptions, the kind of logistics employed by companies of every kind are today well superior to what is done in the military. The wastage of resources and materials that everybody who has worn a uniform has witnessed in most armies and air forces is something that is simply not tolerated in a commercial enviroment where the everyday efficiency of everything is a key to profit.

And more: a commercial aircraft might miss a flight leaving a couple hundred passengers without a trip, but if this happens more than once for the same reason, heads start falling within the company and a solution must be found immediately. At the same time history of aviation is full of examples of recurring problems on a certain type of aircraft that took years to sort while nobody ever lost their job over it... seems to me that the civilians are way more serious about loss of missions than the military are

[dambuster]

I wouldn't be so dismissive of the processes used in commercial enterprises: with a few exceptions, the kind of logistics employed by companies of every kind are today well superior to what is done in the military. The wastage of resources and materials that everybody who has worn a uniform has witnessed in most armies and air forces is something that is simply not tolerated in a commercial enviroment where the everyday efficiency of everything is a key to profit.

And more: a commercial aircraft might miss a flight leaving a couple hundred passengers without a trip, but if this happens more than once for the same reason, heads start falling within the company and a solution must be found immediately. At the same time history of aviation is full of examples of recurring problems on a certain type of aircraft that took years to sort while nobody ever lost their job over it... seems to me that the civilians are way more serious about loss of missions than the military are

However, in a commercial environment the tempo is driven by the operator - if we asked any airline to double their flying rate to include several new destinations tomorrow then I doubt they would be able to respond. They have months to plan new routes, schedules and basing solutions. Plus you only have to look at how tightly integrated airline schedules are now such that a delay on one flight at the start of a period has a knock on effect to several succeeding flights. In other words there is no contingency built in and no flexibility and in war that can cost you dearly. In a fast moving military environment the tempo is also driven by what the opposition get up to. And we shouldn't base our future capability and flexibility on recent operations where the air battle has had the luxury of being conducted at our leisure against no air threat.

[Giorgio N]

However, in a commercial environment the tempo is driven by the operator - if we asked any airline to double their flying rate to include several new destinations tomorrow then I doubt they would be able to respond. They have months to plan new routes, schedules and basing solutions. Plus you only have to look at how tightly integrated airline schedules are now such that a delay on one flight at the start of a period has a knock on effect to several succeeding flights. In other words there is no contingency built in and no flexibility and in war that can cost you dearly. In a fast moving military environment the tempo is also driven by what the opposition get up to. And we shouldn't base our future capability and flexibility on recent operations where the air battle has had the luxury of being conducted at our leisure against no air threat.

Actually many airlines can respond to this kind of challenges in very short times. Speaking of proper commercial airlines here, not state owned dinosaurs of course...

I've seen aircrafts being found and sent to destination within a few hours when needed, I've seen flights cancelled without any delay on the next ones and I've seen aircrafts rerouted in very short time. Every airline knows where they can find other aircrafts if needed and every airline knows how to prepare a new route in no time. Commercial airlines have provided aircrafts for emergencies in many occasions and have had absolutely no problem in responding within 24 hours from the request.

The problems in commercial airlines come more from the traffic control and in the external bureaucracy than from the airline itself. This is where the delays occur, not much in the capability of a company of sorting out a problem.

Now you say an airline would take months to double their flight hours, but how long would it take to a military air force ? Yes, it would take little because air forces fly at a rate that is peanuts compared to airlines, the utilisation rate of military aircrafts is extremely low. And what about mission success rate ? What's the mission succes rate of say Easyjet ? And what's the mission success rate in the military ?

And as the point was about the handling of maintenance on the F-35, my comment is also based on commercial industries in general and the way they handle spares and maintenance. And I can guarantee you that commercial companies are extremely fast in reacting when it comes to this kind of things. A few hours of downtime generates financial losses that have to be justified to the shareholders, these losses can amount to milions and nobody want to be the head of logistics having to justify why milions were lost because of downtimes. At the same time, nobody wants to be the one who has to justify the acquisition of spares that have been sitting unused in a shed taking up space both phisically and in the company inventory system, space that equates to a lot of money.

In this kind of things the military of most countries are well behind the commercial sector but the US military, from what I've seen, seem to have understood certain aspects well before anyone else and the way certain areas are managed is today very close to the way a business is operated. In the end efficiency is efficiency, for a business it results in higher profit, for a military organisation it results in more damage done to the enemy.

[Geoff_B]

Well here are a couple of shots of RAF F-35Bs. They don't seen to carry fuselage roundels at the moment. The rego is in the place of the US stars and bars

oh and Happy birthday

The first aircraft pictured did not have the nose roundels just the wing and tail flash however the next two both have the roundel on the nose.

[-Neu-]

I'll offer one last point.

Thanks for the considered response. Basing a logistic and maintenance support organisation on the civil model may not be the best approach for a military environment, particularly where loss of missions has a much larger impact than just leaving a couple hundred passengers without a holiday trip.

Absolutely, but the JSF's approach offers a lot more flexibility than the traditional thinking. Our current system is really rooted in age-old approaches that were adequate during war. The reality is that it doesn't work well in that situation, and it certainly does not work well for peacetime, which is about 99% of costs.

I'll give an example. During the Libyan campaign Canada deployed approximately a half dozen CF-18s to Italy. Immediately one became a parts mule: it was cannibalized for parts in order to keep the others flying. Is it really an effective use of resources? Of course not. But that's what militaries across the world do, because they don't have a better system to deal with uncertainty.

Behind ALIS (and ACARS) is really a new era of data-driven analysis that allows the ground staff to better predict what they will likely face in terms of maintenence requirements. This means better logistical decisions. So if the F-35 went to Italy instead of CF-18, you could have a defined availability rate for aircraft and a reasonably accurate sortie generation rate. Logistics and maintenance personnel would have the parts on hand that are likely to be perishable. For unexpected issues, decisions can be made in real time, while the aircraft is still flying. That reduces downtime in the field. That doesn't mean that we won't cannibalize in the future, but that it will be much less frequently and on a limited basis. In emergencies, more spares may be carried into theatre; which should help to keep the sortie rate high.

Certainly we can't expect to know every eventuality, but this is light years ahead of what we're doing now... which is not much further than where we were in the 1980s.

I am not super skeptical about F-35, just pragmatic enough to recognise that military capability is not always best served by industrial monopolies offering the latest new gadgets backed up with promises of 'cheap, flexible, adaptable' as these three concepts tend to be mutually exclusive.

The way I look at the JSF program is that its basically doing two things that the military has not done in the past two decades:

#1: large production run. Few programs today have gotten to 500 aircraft, much less 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000... which is where the F-35 looks to be now. That has a huge effect on unit costs, O&M, and upgrades. By comparison, this was the major weakness of the Typhoon program. Not only was the program was beset by cuts, but each partner got a custom built aircraft, with commonality issues between tranches. This is why the JSF program does not allow for modifications for each aircraft: That will massively drive up the unit cost of the aircraft.

#2 New approaches to logistics/maintenence. Quantitative analysis of failure rates (Which has done wonders for the F100 program), two tier maintenance systems, virtual parts pools, ect. Even the most basic applications of these will pay massive dividends in the next 30 years.

These two features will drive down costs. Its only cheap, because this is a true mass production aircraft, compared to the low production scales faced by other aircraft today, which creates massive inefficiencies.

Edited April 11, 2014 by -Neu-