T-X gets more interesting...

T-38 in "Aggressor" paint.

The USAF has yet to declare an open competition to replace its venerable T-38 Talon trainer.  Despite this all signs point to this one as "one-to-watch".  Competitors would very much like to prove that they still have the chops to build a fighter-type aircraft.  At its current pace, this could very well turn into another "Battle of the X-Planes".

As the USAF finalizes the capabilities it wants for the T-X, more manufacturers are deciding to forego license-building proven designs and will offer "clean sheet" designs instead.

Boeing, which has partnered up with Swedish-based Saab, was the first to do this.  This despite the initial rumors of a "downgraded" Gripen being used as the basis.

Northrop Grumman, soon after taking the lead over from its partner, BAE, has decided that it will also develop a clean sheet design instead of offering a version of BAE's Hawk.  While some were rather surprised by this announcement, one has to wonder what chances Northrop Grumman/BAE really had with the 40-year-old Hawk.

KAI's T-50 Golden Eagle

Not to be outdone, Lockheed Martin has now admitted that their famous "Skunk Works" branch has been working on a clean sheet T-X design since 2010.  This, despite pairing up with South Korean based KAI in offering the T-50 Golden Hawk.

Lockheed Martin will wait until the actual statement of requirements are released before it puts forward one design or the other.  Undoubtedly, there is pressure to keep with the T-50 design after S. Korea has ordered 40 F-35 Lightning IIs.

General Dynamics is still offering up a version of the Alenia Aermaccchi M-346 Master.  Given that the M-346 is based on the Russian Yakovlev Yak-130, it may not be the most palatable option.  It also lacks the sheer lobbying power of its competitors.

Textron AirLand Scorpion

Textron Airland LLC certainly stands out as the competition's "dark horse".  Its AirLand Scorpion could make an appearance, possibly after an engine and wing swap.

The big unknown so far is what the requirements will actually be.  While the program is intended to procure only 350 aircraft, their is potential for a lot more.  Foreign sales are almost a certainty, and there is certainly a need for an aircraft to provide an "aggressor role" for the USAF's fighter aircraft.

While the USAF pursues mega-buck aircraft like the JSF, there is still a market for lightweight, low-cost fighters.  Friendly nations that do not have the funds (or the security clearance) to buy high-end fighter aircraft still need an option.  Do not forget that the T-38's sibling, the F-5 Freedom Fighter, was meant to be just that.

With Saab/Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and possibly even Lockheed Martin going forth with clean sheet designs, there could very well be more to the T-X than a simple trainer.


Published: By: Unknown - 6:38 AM

What if... Canada developed its own fighter?

Thanks to everybody who voted in last week's "What if..." poll.  The results were pretty straight forward.  A staggering 81% of you believe that the F-35 is the wrong fighter for Canada no matter what the price.

Yikes.

The inspiration for this week's "What if..." comes from BF4C's new cover picture.  (I got a request to take down the Voodoo...)  The CF-100 Canuck remains Canada's only indigenous fighter design to make production.  While it certainly is not the sexiest aircraft design, it is still fondly remembered for its ruggedness and longevity.  The "Clunk" even managed to find a foreign buyer with Belgium.

It really is too bad that Canada's fighter industry died with the CF-100's successor, the CF-105 Arrow.

Right now, Canada's fighter selection is rather limited in variety.  While there is a substantial quantity of choices, the quality leaves a bit to be desired.  Even including two aircraft that are not officially in the running, we are limited to:

• The expensive, unproven, and controversial F-35.
• The 20-year-old, expensive, and trouble-prone Typhoon
• The 20-year-old, expensive, and proprietary Rafale.
• The 20-year-old fighter that is just a bigger version of what we already have.  (Super Hornet)
• An updated 20-year-old single engine fighter that many dismiss as a lightweight.  (Gripen)
• An updated 40-year-old design that was too expensive to buy the first time around.  (Silent Eagle)

Basically, it really boils down to three choices:

1. Expensive and unproven
2. Old, possibly expensive...  But updated
3. Really old and expensive...  But updated.

Not exactly an embarrassment of choice.  All of the fighters are multi-role.  Some lean more towards the strike role.  Some have questionable cold-weather performance.  Two of them are single-engined and may not be safe enough.  There just does not seem to be an obvious choice.

What if we just said; "Screw it!"

What if Canada developed its own fighter?

Other nations are doing it.  Japan is building the stealthy F-3 ShinShin.  Turkey and South Korea also have plans on building their own 5th generation fighters.   

There are advantages of going with a clean-sheet design.  For one, we could design an aircraft that has Canada's needs foremost in mind.  There is also the possibility of export sales.

What should a "5th generation" Canadian designed fighter be?

Textron's AirLand Scorpion

Should it be an inexpensive aircraft that focuses on close-air support and other light duties?  Such an aircraft could also be an excellent trainer, and possibly see sales in the USAF's upcoming T-X competition.

A small, light fighter would be the most affordable to develop.  It would also serve well as a replacement for the Snowbirds' archaic CT-114 Tutors.  Such an aircraft is all you would really need to deal with asymmetric threats like those posed by ISIS/ISIL, yet far cheaper to deploy.

The trouble is, the market for light fighter/trainers is already fairly crowded.  Not only are there established models like the M-346, T-50, and BAE Hawk; but there will be two newcomers arriving soon in the form of the Textron AirLand Scorpion and the Saab/Boeing T-X offering.  

Mitsubishi F-3 "ShinShin"

There is always the possibility of entering the crowded mid-size multirole fighter market.  The JSF's troubled development does leave the door open to an ambitious competitor.  Such a fighter could steal some of the F-35's sales away if customer nations keep having misgivings about the program.

The Japanese may be doing this with their current ATD-X concept aircraft.  While Japan is still planning on buying the F-35, they really wanted the air-superiority focused F-22 Raptor instead.  The upcoming F-3 fighter (based on the ATC-X) could very well fill that role.  

Going head-to-head with the JSF's massive marketing machine is not for the faint of heart.  Not only that, but aircraft like the Typhoon, Super Hornet, and Rafale still offer compelling options.  Still, the market is huge and could be willing to pass on the troubled F-35 for a more attractive option.

Joe Green's "Super Arrow"

 Any endeavor building our own aircraft would likely need export sales in order to be feasible.  That would be a challenge in the light or mid-size multirole fighter.  Perhaps it would make more sense to enter a niche that is sadly lacking in options?

With the cancellation of F-22 production, foreign buyers looking for a larger, longer range "high-end" fighter are limited to the F-15 Eagle and variations thereof.  That is, until the Russian PAK FA and Chinese J-20 become available.

Perhaps Canada could pick up where they left off with the Avro Arrow?  A large, fast interceptor capable of supercruise and long ranges.  Some may think that the days of the interceptor are dead, but Russia seems to think different.  The MiG-31 has done quite well for itself over the years by combining fighter and ISR roles.  Russia is now working on a replacement.  

Building a modern-day Arrow would be financially challenging, even with an emphasis placed on using off-the-shelf technology in order to keep costs down.  There are plenty of air forces that could use such an aircraft, however and Canada would have no real competitors in the market.  

So what do you think?

A simple, inexpensive light fighter / trainer?

A midsize, multirole F-35 competitor?

A big air supremacy interceptor?

Please vote in the poll above, and leave your comments below.  I will go over the results next week.

 

Published: By: Unknown - 4:54 PM

While the F-35's in omnishambles, others step up.

The F-35's fiberglass stunt double.  (Image credit:  Erik Gustavsson)

It's official.  The F-35 Lightning II will not be making its international debut over Farnborough this week.

This was supposed to be a big month for the Lightning II.  Costs are said to be coming down, with further discounts on the way.  There is even the possibility of the Canadian government making its long-delayed announcement on whether or not to sole-source the stealth fighter.  All this would be met with great fanfare as the JSF made its international debut with its only "Level 1" partner, the United Kingdom.  A flyover at HMS Queen Elizabeth's naming ceremony, followed by an aerial display at the Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT), and then an appearance at the Farnborough International Air Show.

Despite best laid plans, July of 2014 will be remembered as the month nothing seemed to go right for the JSF.  In fact, its UK debut has can be described as in omnishambles.

Hot off an oil leak last month, the F-35 had just resumed flying after a brief grounding only to have a F-35A burst into flames as it was taxiing down the runway on June 23rd.  Despite this dramatic turn of events, an official grounding was not ordered until July 3rd...  Right before the Independence Day long weekend.

While the JSF has been cleared for flight, it does so under strict flight restrictions.  One of those restrictions mandates that the F-35's engine be inspected after every three hours of flight.  Not an easy thing to do while you are flying over the Atlantic Ocean.  Even if these checks could be avoided, the forecast for possible thunderstorms would keep the JSF away because getting hit by lightning could make it explode also.

"Excessive Rubbing" causing headaches?

At least they believe they might have found the cause of the fire.  "Excessive Rubbing" of the turbine blade against its housing caused extra friction followed by extra heat.  Needless to say, this is not a great thing to have in a high precision jet engine surrounded by $100 million dollars (at least) worth of aircraft and jet fuel.

All of this has not helped the JSF beleaguered public image.  It is certainly conspicuous by its absence in the U.K.  It was supposed to be the main attraction, so people notice when it does not show up.  Not only do they notice, but they start to ask questions.

"Why isn't it here?"

"It's grounded?  Why?"

"ONE CAUGHT ON FIRE WHILE TAKING OFF?"

"How much is this thing gonna cost, anyway?"

"WHAT?  It's the most expensive weapon ever?"

"It's already overbudget and eight years late?

"IT'S STILL NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING READY?" 

"OUR GOVERNMENT WANTS TO BUY THESE THINGS TOO???" (storms off to grab a pitchfork)

Farnborough and RIAT are big events where government officials hobnob with defense contractor executives.  High profile events like these are often where deals are announced and impressions are made.  While Lockheed Martin's public relations people are sure to downplay the seriousness of the F-35's non-appearance, government officials will likely be treading far more carefully.

Any nation, including Canada, who is "on the fence" about a JSF purchase will no doubt put off any purchase announcements until this has blown over.  Announcing a multi-billion dollar fighter buy right after that fighter misses its own international debut due to an engine fire would be akin to hanging an albatross around their neck.

Oddly enough, Phillip Hammond, UK Minister of Defense, is no longer Minister of Defense, as of today.  Read of that what you will, but there could be a trend.

Meanwhile, other manufacturers are out trying to get attention.

See?  They made it.

Despite starting its development a mere 23 months ago, the Textron Scorpion managed to do what the 8-year-old F-35 could not...  Show up.  While the Scorpion certainly is not in the same class as the F-35, it has the handicap of not being publicly funded.  It is also an aircraft many of the world's cash-strapped air forces could actually afford.

Spiffy Tiffie.

Then there is the Eurofighter Typhoon, Britain's current pride and joy.  Not only did the Typhoon show up in a commemorative D-Day paint scheme, but it also received a commitment to develop the CAPTOR-E AESA radar.

The "show-stealer" award goes to Saab, however.  Saab presented an update on its Gripen E, confirming its AESA radar, and MBDA Meteor capability.  Saab also revealed that its latest customer, Brazil, would be undertaking much of the design work on the two-seat Gripen F, as well as building most of that country's Gripen Es.  This comes at a time when many F-35 customers are questioning their offset benefits.

But the icing on the cake has to be this gem:

The Troll from Trollhättan?

While Lockheed-Martin is busy touting its absent and flight restricted F-35 as the most advanced fighter available on the market, Saab is fighting back by promising a "PRODUCT THAT ACTUALLY WORKS."

Ouch. Published: By: Unknown - 7:29 PM

Excuses... Excuses...

My house is under the "15:00 Sat/sam." dot.

Sorry for being away for the weekend.  Hurricane "Post tropical storm" Arthur paid my family, neighbors, and I a little visit on Saturday, knocking trees and power lines out of the ground, leaving me and my trusty iMac without power for about three-and-a-half days.  Thankfully, there was no damage to my house other freezer full of groceries.

The weekend went slowly.  Mobile device power was at a premium and wireless internet service was spotty at best.  While I like to envision myself as well prepared for a zombie apocalypse, I am not sure if I could live in a world without hot, fresh coffee every morning.

Even without power and spotty internet access, I managed to read (if not reply or moderate) all of your comments.  Thanks to you all for keeping the conversation rolling and keeping the tone civil and mostly on topic.  (So what if the Super Hornet was brought up in the Silent Eagle vs. Gripen FJFC...  As long as its about fighter jets, it's all good!)

I was also happy to enjoy an e-mail correspondence with none other than Air Power Australia's Peter Goon.  Those of you unfamiliar with the APA's website should do yourselves a favor and go there now.  There is an absolute plethora of information, commentary, and research located over there.  Far more than you will ever see at this meagre blogsite.

Yeah...  Yeah...  Whatever.  An entire weekend goes by and I cannot contribute due to a little hurricane post-tropical storm?  Excuses...  Excuses...

Speaking of excuses...

Still some problems here...

It is looking more and more that the JSF will need to be excused from its upcoming appearance at the RIAT (Royal International Air Tattoo) and the Farnborough Air Show next week.  While the decision is still very much up in the air, the Unitied Kingdom's F-35B likely won't be.

JSF supporters, including those in the US Senate, do not see this as a big deal.  They offer the usual platitudes that the aircraft is still very much in development, and mishaps like this do happen.  But should they really?

"The F-35 is still early in it's development...  This stuff happens!"

The JSF certainly is still in development, but it is far from the early stages.  The first flight of the F-35 (not the X-35 demonstrator)  occurred in December 2006.  It has been in production for more than eight years and over 100 copies have been either built or currently being assembled.  Its ever-increasingly optimistic IOC (initial operational capability) is scheduled for very late next year for the F-35B, 2016 for the F-35A, and 2019 for the F-35C.  With just slightly over a year before the JSF is intended to operational, unknown engine fires should not receiving headlines.  

Things start looking worse when comparing the F-35 with other fighter development cycles.  The F-15 Eagle went from its first flight to being operational within four years.  The F-16 took four years, as did the F/A-18 Hornet.  

Those were older, simpler aircraft, of course.  Let us look at some newer ones.  The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet?  Four years.  Maybe it should not count since it is based on the older F/A-18?  

Eurofighter Typhoon:  The very model of a bad procurement.

Alright, let us look at one of the most protracted, politically charged, and controversial fighters that is not built in the U.S.A, the Eurofighter Typhoon.  The Typhoon is a good example of something that "sounded good at the time".  The European aerospace community, concerned that they were being outdone by big-budget American defense contractors, decided to convince their government to go all-in on a European air-superiority fighter for the year 2000 and beyond.  Hence, the "EF2000".

Britain, Germany, Spain, and Italy all collaborated on EF2000.  What was to be the Eurofighter Typhoon was beset with difficulties right from the start, as development was assigned rather arbitrarily and each nation demanded on a different set of priorities.  Ever try to get 4 people to agree on a restaurant?  Imagine that, only with billions of dollars and thousands of jobs at stake.  

What those involved with the Eurofighter did not envision was a sudden end to the Cold War and sudden questioning of the need for expensive fighter jets when there was no enemy.  One participant, Germany, tried to leave the program altogether (the penalties were too great).  

In the end, the Eurofighter Typhoon has grown to be a respected platform, even though it does still revive criticism for its costs.  It first went operational in 2003, nine years after its first flight.  

The Eurofighter is not a "5th Generation" fighter, however.  

"5th Generation" enough for ya?

There is no arguing that the F-22 is the "5th Generation" archetype.  Like other fighters, its development was beset with the usual technical problems.  Like the Eurofighter Typhoon, the sudden end of the Cold War left its funding (and future) in doubt.  

Despite this, and despite the F-22 Raptor being one of the most expensive aircraft ever made, its time from first flight to operations was eight years.  

With all of the above examples, testing was done on a mere handful of early production models before full-scale production took place.  By contrast, there are now more F-35s than there are CF-18 Hornets in the RCAF.  Current JSF production rates are enough to make Boeing, Eurofighter, and Dassault jealous.  

After eight years and almost 100 airframes, the F-35 is anything but "early in development".  

"Aircraft get grounded all the time!  It's not that big of a deal!"

All aircraft, cutting edge military fighter aircraft in particular, are complicated machines, and not all problems are found in the early stages.  Safety concerns can sometimes lead to the grounding of a particular airframe type, even the iconic F-15 is not immune.

No flying for you today.

So what happens when an military aircraft gets grounded?  Other assets need to be used to fill the gap.  In the case of the F-15 grounding, F-16s took over the duties.  

What happens when the majority of the western world use the same aircraft?

It then becomes a VERY big deal.  Once the USA replaces most of its F-16s, F/A-18s, A-10s, and AV-8s with a predominantly F-35 fleet, an inopportune grounding would leave it with a mere handful of F-22s, F-15Es, and Super Hornets to pick up the slack.  Europe would need to rely on its Typhoons and Rafales, and the RAAF would have a mere smattering of Super Hornets.  Single-fighter type nations like Canada and The Netherlands would have to simply make do without.  

If the JSF were to be grounded in the 2025 to 2035 timeframe, western airpower as we know it today would temporarily not exist.  

What makes this especially unnerving about the F-35 is that the aircraft is jam-packed with all-new technology that it relies on.  The HMD needs to work flawlessly, because there is no HUD.  The DAS system needs to work, because visibility is limited.  Those AMRAAMs should never miss, since it will usually only carry two.  

Oh...  And that engine?  The Pentagon cancelled the only alternative.  

The JSF is looking more and more like a single-point-of-failure concept that is constructed out of single-point-of-failure technology.  

"The F-35 is still the most technically advanced aircraft.  The others just don't compare!"

Maybe so.  Technical advances do little to woo potential buyers when the aircraft itself cannot get off the ground, however.  RIAT and Farnborough are big, international events with real international buyers' attention.  Canceling an appearance due to an exploding engine will not exactly inspire confidence in the program, nor will it encourage new sales.  

Could the Scorpion steal the Lightning's thunder?

Then again, there is always the chance of a dark horse showing up and getting everybody's attention.  Saab will be there to give updates on its Gripen E, an aircraft it would not mind stealing some of the JSF's sales.

Also present will be the scrappy little Textron Scorpion.  An aircraft intended to be an affordable "good enough" option for air forces with lower budgets.  In contrast to the F-35, which has been in testing for 8 years and still might not make it, the Scorpion's first flight was a mere eight months ago...  Yet has already made the trans-atlantic flight.  

No excuses needed there.  

Published: By: Unknown - 7:56 PM