The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

"Eurofighter loses ground against F-35 in Japan contract race"


The Eurofighter has fallen behind in the race to become Japan's next-generation air-defence fighter.
Eurofighter loses ground against F-35 in Japan contract race
The consortium behind the Eurofighter Typhoon is continuing to promote the aircraft in Japan.

By Julian Ryall, Tokyo

8:05PM GMT 13 Nov 2011

Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/8887511/Eurofighter-loses-ground-against-F-35-in-Japan-contract-race.html

Defence analysts monitoring the three-way dogfight for the multi-billion contract say Tokyo has been impressed with the stealth technology of the Lockheed Martin F-35, which will enable it to carry out clandestine monitoring of Chinese, North Korean and Russian military assets in the region.

It also remains indebted to Washington for the assistance the US military provided in the aftermath of the March 11 earthquake.

"Even before March 11 there were many factors in favour of the F-35, but since then that national security relationship between the two governments has become much closer," one analyst with knowledge of the bidding told The Daily Telegraph.

The third aircraft in the running for the contract is the Boeing F/A18 Super Hornet and representatives of Eurofighter and Boeing have scheduled a joint press conference in Tokyo on Wednesday to debate the merits of their aircraft.

The consortium behind the Eurofighter Typhoon is continuing to promote the aircraft, however, and remains confident in its product.
 
Lockheed offers Japan F-35 final assembly


By: Siva Govindasamy Singapore
01:30 14 Oct 2011

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-offers-japan-f-35-final-assembly-363326/


Lockheed Martin has dangled the possibility of final assembly of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in front of Japan as part of its plan to win the country's F-X fighter competition.

The US airframer confirmed that final assembly and check out, component manufacture, and F-35 maintenance, repair and overhaul have been included in its response to Tokyo's request for proposals.

"These key fifth-generation production technologies are state-of-the art for the aerospace industry, and will provide Japan with a cornerstone for building long-term industrial leadership," said Lockheed.

Industrial participation is an important component of the requirement, which is to replace the Japan Air Self-Defense Force's fleet of McDonnell Douglas/Mitsubishi Heavy Industries F-4 Phantoms.

Flightglobal's MiliCAS database lists Japan as having an active fleet of 90 F-4s, including 14 reconnaissance-configured examples.

Japan's first preference was to buy the Lockheed F-22 Raptor, but that has not been possible because of restrictions imposed by the US Congress on exports of the fifth-generation fighter's stealth technology.

Industry sources believe this has pushed the F-35 slightly ahead, even though programme delays have some in Tokyo worried.

That would open the competition up to the other contenders - Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block II and Eurofighter's Typhoon.

Boeing sees Japan as the second possible export customer for the Block II Super Hornet after Australia, which itself purchased the F/A-18 as a stop-gap because of concerns over delays to the F-35.

Boeing is touting the F/A-18's multi-role capabilities as a potential discriminator in the contest, citing the Super Hornet's "proven operational capability to seamlessly conduct air dominance or precision strike missions across the combined air, ground, maritime and electronic battlespace".

The rivals, it adds, specialise in "either air-to-air or air-to-ground operations".

Taking a thinly-veiled swipe at the F-35, Boeing Japan president Mike Denton said that when its proposal was submitted, the company provided Tokyo with "guaranteed pricing and a guaranteed delivery timeline".

BAE Systems, which is leading the Eurofighter consortium's campaign, said its aircraft was a "cost-effective" solution and "the most capable deterrent to regional threats". It is also offering Tokyo licensed production, maintenance and technology transfer. The last issue is important to some officials in Japan, who worry about the US willingness to give full access to the F-35's source codes.

"Japan can have sovereign control of manufacture, support and upgrade of Typhoon aircraft in Japan by Japanese industry," BAE said.

"We are also able to offer software source codes and other data, giving Japan the ability to develop the aircraft itself to meet its own unique needs, now and in the future."
 
i find it funny that sales of the F-22 have been blocked due to 'concerns over its stealth technology' getting out, but the F-35 with it's superior coatings is being marketed far and wide..
 
mithril said:
i find it funny that sales of the F-22 have been blocked due to 'concerns over its stealth technology' getting out, but the F-35 with it's superior coatings is being marketed far and wide..
Click to expand...

Final assembly isn't the same as making parts.
 
mithril said:
i find it funny that sales of the F-22 have been blocked due to 'concerns over its stealth technology' getting out, but the F-35 with it's superior coatings is being marketed far and wide..
Click to expand...

The F-22 is blocked because of specific leglislation.
 
sferrin said:
mithril said:
i find it funny that sales of the F-22 have been blocked due to 'concerns over its stealth technology' getting out, but the F-35 with it's superior coatings is being marketed far and wide..
Click to expand...

Final assembly isn't the same as making parts.
Click to expand...
not what i meant. the justification given to the media as to why the sales of the raptor overseas were blocked was concern over stealth technology proliferating. (of course, not long after the PAK-FA flew and the J-20 images started cropping up.) the concern was implied to be due to the potential for other nations to reverse engineer the tech if they got examples of it, and for potentialy hostile nations to get it through espionage of said reverse engineering.
but at the same time, the F-35, which even back then boasted superior stealth materials (half of the stealth 'secret') and equivilent avionics, has been marketed to lots of other nations world wide.
if proliferation of stealth technology is a concern, the F-35 would be just as big of a danger as the F-22. so either congress just doesn't want to reexamine it's choice, or it was some other aspect of the fighter they didn't want to proliferate, something the F-35 lacks.
 
Mithril you have no idea what you are talking about. The F-22 export prohibition has been in place since the late 1990s. It predates the PAK-FA and J-20 by some time. The F-35 LO treatment has been designed from day one to be exportable without compromising US technology. The F-22 does not have the same provisions and one senior USAF officer giving an estimate thought it would cost at least one billion (in ought six dollars) to redesign the F-22 to use LO treatments and other materials that would not compromise US technology.
 
There is more to the F-22 than just stealth. B) I wonder with so many nations crying about the cost of the F-35, how many would actually buy the more expensive F-22 if the export ban was lifted? my bet would be about two... maybe three or four if we really sweetened the deal.
 
Pratt & Whitney's F135 propulsion system is the engine for the new advanced, single-engine tactical fighter, the F-35 Lightning II, developed by Lockheed Martin. The F-35 has unique capabilities for conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL), carrier-variant (CV), and short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL). The same F135 engine will power all three variants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_dFIA58uuE
 
"GE, Rolls drop push to build F-35 engines"

By Jim Wolf

Fri Dec 2, 2011 5:19pm EST

(Reuters) - General Electric Co and Rolls Royce dropped their drive to build an alternate engine for Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 joint strike fighter, giving up on what they had said could be a $100 billion market.

The decision to end their in-house bankrolling of the project beyond 2011, announced on Friday, is a boost for United Technologies Corp's Pratt & Whitney unit, maker of the engine used in the F-35's early production models.

The Defense Department earlier this year canceled funding for the GE-Rolls engine, capping repeated efforts to persuade Congress to kill it as a belt-tightening measure.

That led the partners to say they would foot the bill themselves for the rest of this year and fiscal 2012 in the hope that lawmakers would step back in with federal funding as they had done for years in rebuffing the Pentagon.

"The decision, reached jointly by GE and Rolls-Royce leadership, recognizes the continued uncertainty in the development and production schedules for the JSF program," the companies said.

The Joint Strike Fighter project is the Pentagon's costliest purchase ever at a projected $382.5 billion for more than 2,400 aircraft in three models over the next two decades.

Navy Vice Admiral David Venlet, who runs the program for the Pentagon, called in an interview published Thursday for slowing the plane's production because of what he described as a surprising number of potential airframe faults turned up in testing.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard McKeon, a key second engine backer, voiced disappointment that "the uncertainty regarding the future of our military budget, and the Joint Strike Fighter program in particular," had ended what he considered a model for government-industry partnership to contain costs.

"But decisions that could cripple our national security and our economy are being made today that will be difficult, if not impossible, to undo tomorrow," the California Republican added in a statement.

He was referring to deep spending cuts mandated by a congressional "super committee" failure to strike a $1.2 trillion deficit reduction deal last month.

Pratt in a statement on Friday said it remains focused on lowering engine costs and making sure the flight-test program is successful. "We are grateful for the continued confidence and support of our DoD customer" for the F-35 engine, the company said.

GE and Rolls had argued that a choice of engines would save money over time, putting the potential market at $100 billion or more. GE said the companies had spent tens of millions of dollars of their own on the project in 2011. Since 1997, the government has spent about $3 billion on it, GE said.

The company said it was working very closely with the Defense Department to speed the development of jet propulsion for U.S. warplanes' next generation beyond the F-35.

Even without the alternate engine program, GE's research and development investments for military and commercial aviation are at "historic levels," said Richard Kennedy, a company spokesman.

George Little, the Pentagon press secretary, said GE and Rolls-Royce were very important industrial partners "and we look forward to continuing to work with them."

(Additional reporting by Phillip Stewart in Washington and Karen Jacobs in Atlanta, editing by Dave Zimmerman, Gary Hill)

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/02/us-usa-ge-idUSTRE7B11HW20111202
 
I got to say that I'm concerned with Admiral Venlet talking about lowering production rates (for LRIP batches) due to concerns with the faituge testing. I know finding cracks during fatigue testing is normal, but with the current state of congress/debt/economy, it makes one wonder if the high rate of concurrency planned between building actual production aircraft and finishing testing is backfiring.
 
It would appear that GE and R-R now believe that the F-35 program is headed for the rocks.
 
Grey Havoc said:
It would appear that GE and R-R now believe that the F-35 program is headed for the rocks.
Click to expand...

Were there potential F-35 customers who preferred the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 engine over the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine?
 
Grey Havoc said:
It would appear that GE and R-R now believe that the F-35 program is headed for the rocks.
Click to expand...

No it would appear their shareholders don't want to spend $3 billion of their own money developing an engine the customer doesn't want.

If the F-35 had a quarter for everytime some observer has declared it dead or in a 'death spiral' or words to that effect it would be the best investment since usury.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Grey Havoc said:
It would appear that GE and R-R now believe that the F-35 program is headed for the rocks.
Click to expand...

No it would appear their shareholders don't want to spend $3 billion of their own money developing an engine the customer doesn't want.

If the F-35 had a quarter for everytime some observer has declared it dead or in a 'death spiral' or words to that effect it would be the best investment since usury.
Click to expand...


And USERY is exactly what it is going to be because any nation who decides to go all in with the f-35 is going to be going into permanent debt it will never be able to pay off. 160-180 million a copy? Are you kidding?


Ahhhh thank you very much fractional reserve banking for using usery making so few rich, and debtors the rest of us. (different topic)


Wouldn't it make more sense for a country to just buy Migs? An f-35 is going to require 100 more man hours per month to maintain than current fighters (pentagon study)


They admit its a delicate, labor intensive machine. Will it be on the ground being repaired while migs and sukhois are out fighting and flying in harsh combat conditions?


Hate to be a critic, I like to hear more tech details about the fighter, but is it a realistic choice when there is a global economic crisis? It sounds like the f-35 will spend a lot of time in the hangar baing debugged, software fixes, etc and that makes for a bad combat ready plane.
 
I spoke to a mig pilot once and they park their mig-29s out in the snow and just throw a cheap tarp over the cockpit.


In the morning its ready to fire up and take off, now that's a truly combat capable and rugged plane.


It may not have the stealth and tech of a f-35, but the mig is durable for combat in the real world, and ready to fly.


More money in the maintenance of the f-35 means fewer available pilots and training hours, just something to consider. And any small surface scratch will degrade the stealth greatly.


Maintenance crews have to check the surface after every flight, esp- in adverse conditions ie-dust, sand, and heavy rain/hail.


I really don't want to bash a cool plane like the f-35, but really have my doubts about it seriously. And a lot of top people are just as concerned.
 
kcran567 said:
I spoke to a mig pilot once and they park their mig-29s out in the snow and just throw a cheap tarp over the cockpit.


In the morning its ready to fire up and take off, now that's a truly combat capable and rugged plane.


It may not have the stealth and tech of a f-35, but the mig is durable for combat in the real world, and ready to fly.
Click to expand...

The ruggedness of Russian combat aircraft is really not that much of a suprise. Consider that Russian (and formerly Soviet) combat aircraft had to be able to deploy to various regions in the former USSR with vastly different climates. The same MiG-29 could fly today in Siberia and tomorrow in the deserts of Kazakhstan. In contrast, recall some of the problems the AH-64 encountered deploying to different regions.

I did talk with an engineer from GE a week or so ago, apparently they're still keen on the F136, at least in-house. His impression was that they were waiting for the P&W F-35s to get some hours and the operators to realize that a better engine might be desired or even required in some circumstances. This was compared to the replacement of P&W powered F-16s with GE Vipers in Korea. So it seems that GE is moving ahead with the F136, or at least that was my impression from the conversation.
 
kcran567 said:
I spoke to a mig pilot once and they park their mig-29s out in the snow and just throw a cheap tarp over the cockpit.


In the morning its ready to fire up and take off, now that's a truly combat capable and rugged plane.


It may not have the stealth and tech of a f-35, but the mig is durable for combat in the real world, and ready to fly.


More money in the maintenance of the f-35 means fewer available pilots and training hours, just something to consider. And any small surface scratch will degrade the stealth greatly.


Maintenance crews have to check the surface after every flight, esp- in adverse conditions ie-dust, sand, and heavy rain/hail.


I really don't want to bash a cool plane like the f-35, but really have my doubts about it seriously. And a lot of top people are just as concerned.
Click to expand...


About it ruggedness? Remember that Americans build tough aircraft too, ever seen a carrier landing? Leaving aircraft exposed on the deck to salt water and other weather makes snow look like a piece of cake. F-35s will operate from Carriers and forward bases as well. an F-35 with a few dings and scratches is still massively more stealthy than a MiG-29. Trust me, if its tough enough to land on an aircraft carrier, its plenty rugged.

5f2347175.jpg


Also haven't MiG-29s been crushed every time they have run into a western aircraft? the Mig "always being ready to fly" has pretty much ensured its always available to be target practice. And yes history validates me. Every time a Mig-29 has run into a western aircraft it has died or fled. I take nothing away from its ruggedness, It is rugged, but a lot of western aircraft are rugged and outclass it in the air.

frankly Ladies and gentleman its a bizarre argument unless Rugged equates to missile hit survival and as tough as MiGs are, it hasn't happened yet. Ruggedness for the MiG-29 has NOT translated into combat success.

as for pilot hours they will probably still get more, the west has always had more money to spend on pilots no matter how not rugged the aircraft. As western legacy fighters get older maintenance is increasing as it is, so there is a strong chance the curves will meet and F-35 pilots will get more hours than legacy pilots. Its not really a factor. Plus with fewer aircraft, you can be more selective with pilots, increase standards and end up with the cream of the crop.
 
kcran567 said:
And USERY is exactly what it is going to be because any nation who decides to go all in with the f-35 is going to be going into permanent debt it will never be able to pay off. 160-180 million a copy? Are you kidding?
Click to expand...

First of all on usury. In America it may be spelt “usery” but America does not have a monopoly on the English language. For many of us we use the correct international English spelling “usury” as in 1545 Law of King Henry VIII "An Acte Agaynst Usurie". Correcting someone’s spelling because they didn’t use the American version is best described as ‘epic fail’.

Secondly on you cost estimates and subsequent financial predictions in relation to the F-35 this is more total nonsense. Early LRIP aircraft may be very expensive but this is the nature of any production line start up. The mass production aircraft which will comprise the greater bulk of F-35 orders will be significantly cheaper. Further I don’t know of any country in which their F-35 orders will be significantly effecting their budget deficits. That is going into debt to pay for them. Also since Governments can raise money at very low interest rates it is quite hard to see how you can declare this usury?

Looks like my earlier statement about the F-35 being the great generator of nonsense statements about its demise has once again being proven.
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
Cool What-if?
Click to expand...

In the life of the F-35 program (out into the 2030s) it is more than reasonable to expect to see a two seat version. Not for conversion to type training but for demanding strike and ROE compliance.
 
Abraham Gubler, I wasn't trying to pick one usage usery, or usury as being "better" or "American". Point taken. I could care less which spelling I used. Both work.


Taiidan Tomcat I agree with everything you're saying. But what was the level of pilots going against the western aircraft. I would guess that Russian pilots are going to be much more aggressive and skillful than the satellite countries like Iraq that lost aircraft.


And if the Russians are putting their focus on jamming radar guided missiles (which they are), and a way to detect the f-35 using passive IR and multiple radars, that evens up the engagement.


A MIG or Sukhoi is jamming incoming missiles, who cares if the F-35 radar is better? Unless the f-35 is going to shoot down the Sukhoi with its radar.


I like the F-35, just making the point that as it is, $150M a copy is too expensive, losing even one of these expensive aircraft in combat is financial devastation.
 
kcran567 said:
Abraham Gubler, I wasn't trying to pick one usage usery, or usury as being "better" or "American". Point taken. I could care less which spelling I used. Both work.


Taiidan Tomcat I agree with everything you're saying. But what was the level of pilots going against the western aircraft. I would guess that Russian pilots are going to be much more aggressive and skillful than the satellite countries like Iraq that lost aircraft.


And if the Russians are putting their focus on jamming radar guided missiles (which they are), and a way to detect the f-35 using passive IR and multiple radars, that evens up the engagement.


A MIG or Sukhoi is jamming incoming missiles, who cares if the F-35 radar is better? Unless the f-35 is going to shoot down the Sukhoi with its radar.


I like the F-35, just making the point that as it is, $150M a copy is too expensive, losing even one of these expensive aircraft in combat is financial devastation.
Click to expand...

I think Key Publishing would be more your style. They thrive on fanboy bull$hit there.
 
kcran567 said:
Wouldn't it make more sense for a country to just buy Migs? An f-35 is going to require 100 more man hours per month to maintain than current fighters (pentagon study)

They admit its a delicate, labor intensive machine. Will it be on the ground being repaired while migs and sukhois are out fighting and flying in harsh combat conditions?
Click to expand...

Traditionally, MiG and Sukhoi have built their aircraft to be usable in all weathers, but with components that have a short life between overhauls (engines come to mind). The two may be related (larger tolerances result in a large temperature range, but also in more wear). Do you want to end up swapping engines every month?
 
Hobbes said:
Do you want to end up swapping engines every month?
Click to expand...
There may be some compromise between affordability and longevity. Not to mention other properties.

Every capability comes with a price tag.
1) combining capabilities in one piece of equipment sometimes demands more money than specifying single-purpose equipment
2) combining capabilities in one piece of equipment sometimes saves money by re-using components

Looking at what the F-35 has already cost, I'm reluctant to classify it cleanly in either category. The less of them are built, the more it shifts to category 1). Blame it on poor project management, the current economic shambles, ambitious project goals - but keep your eyes on the bottom line.
 
kcran567 said:
A MIG or Sukhoi is jamming incoming missiles, who cares if the F-35 radar is better? Unless the f-35 is going to shoot down the Sukhoi with its radar.

I like the F-35, just making the point that as it is, $150M a copy is too expensive, losing even one of these expensive aircraft in combat is financial devastation.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of "home on Jam capability?" The missile attacks what is trying to confuse it automatically? Its not science fiction, the Aim-54 could do it. And thats from the 1970's

Its not 150 million a copy, that number is not correct. So you are making a false argument along with a lot of false assumptions. I need to note personally, that I am a big fan of Russian aircraft and this isn't patriotic spouting when I promote the F-35 because my country builds it. Russian aircraft are great-- but the F-35 is better. Its electronics are already ahead of the F-22 and its radar absorbing skin is better as well, both of which are being retrofitted to the F-22 in the future.

A lot of your arguments are red herrings, stuff that if you Google-Fu ed it would answer your sophomoric questions. "Are the IFFs advanced enough for BVR?" Yes the F-35 has the most advanced IFF system in the world that includes highlighting friendly and enemy aircraft directly into the helmet allowing the pilot to visually identify aircraft in a high speed dogfight add this combined with the ability of the helmet to "see" through the aircraft in every direction and you have a potent fast ID system. Moreover with everyone using the F-35, everyone has the world's most advanced IFF and everyone is "playing on the same sheet of music"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY

One of the things that drives up the cost of the F-35 is that its "all included." for example an F-18's ATFLIR targeting pod is an additional $2.9 million, in the F-35 targeting is built in and included in the upfront price.
 
Its not 150 million a copy, that number is not correct.
Click to expand...
The last thing I've read, LRIP-4 aircraft are $111.6 million for an A-model, $109.4 million dollar for a B, $142.9 million for a C. Source: AW. Add $13 million for an engine. Now factor in the billions already spent on the project, and cost-per-unit is nothing like $150 million - it's a lot more. News from the project office is they don't want to say goodbye to LRIP yet.

I don't know what cost-per-unit is going to be by the time F-35 production stops. Anywhere between $150 million and $200 million?
 
Arjen said:
Its not 150 million a copy, that number is not correct.
Click to expand...
The last thing I've read, LRIP-4 aircraft are $111.6 million for an A-model, $109.4 million dollar for a B, $142.9 million for a C. Source: AW. Add $13 million for an engine. Now factor in the billions already spent on the project, and cost-per-unit is nothing like $150 million - it's a lot more. News from the project office is they don't want to say goodbye to LRIP yet.

I don't know what cost-per-unit is going to be by the time F-35 production stops. Anywhere between $150 million and $200 million?
Click to expand...

Price will be lowest at the end of production (not counting economic inflation)
 
Price will be lowest at the end of production (not counting economic inflation)
Click to expand...
Yes, and I'm saying that, if you include development costs, current cost-per-unit is more like $300 million than $150 million. Large-scale production could lower cost-per-unit considerably, but how much? For the moment, the F-35 is stuck in LRIP and I don't expect a significant lowering of costs.
 
Development costs are already paid for separately and are not amortised across the unit price for the F-35 - at least for the partner nations. This is one of the differences with the program and was deliberately put that way so as to help reduce the cost death spiral that affected other programs such as the F-22 and B-2.

I would also not say that the F-35 is "stuck in LRIP". It is progressing through LRIP stages which will continue for some years yet - testing targets have actually been exceeded this year already! I would also not be misled by the term Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) - in the later LRIP phases one is looking at close to 200 aircraft produced a year...hardly "Low Rate"!

Finally, as for not expecting a significant lowering of costs, you obviously haven't seen the target pricing curves companies involved with this program are being expected to meet. There is actually quite a significant price reduction planned as production numbers increase and companies are rigorously held to these targets...it is actually extremely tough to continue to hit these targets too!

Regards,

Greg
 
in the later LRIP phases one is looking at close to 200 aircraft produced a year...hardly "Low Rate"!
Click to expand...
I'm very interested as to when exactly those production rates will be achieved. Certainly not with LRIP-5, and the present economic climate isn't helping to bring those rates any closer - if anything, current thinking is to reduce concurrency of production and testing, which would lead to a reduced production rate.

Development costs are already paid for separately and are not amortised across the unit price for the F-35 - at least for the partner nations.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless the money has been spent, and more will have to be spent yet; money spent to acquire a fleet of operational aircraft. The sum total divided by the number of aircraft is real. Sensor fusion is an ongoing concern, so is fatigue. The F-35 project still has some very serious issues, most of which are likely to be solved. Provided enough money is spent on them, a limited resource.
 
"10 Years and $38 Billion into the F-35"
Posted by Amy Butler at 12/9/2011 1:00 PM CST

While reporting with my colleagues Graham Warwick and Guy Norris for next week’s edition on 10 years of F-35 development work, it was evident that while the program has suffered major – and not unnoticed setbacks – there is progress being made.

The question for the U.S. and its partners ahead is whether the progress is enough to justify further investment in the program and, if so (which is a likely outcome), how much and when.

Vice Adm. David Venlet, brought by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates to rebaseline the program after development and early production problems, said earlier this year he wanted to improve the pace of flight testing, get the F-35B off of “probation” and smooth out the production and assembly process.

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin has made progress in each area, though not all of these goals were fully achieved. A program official said in 2009 that 12 test aircraft would make 12 flights per month to support testing by September 2010. That obviously has not happened. But, program officials report that the pace of testing has improved substantially, allowing for data collection at a rate that is more useful for analysts. Still, however, only 18% of flight-testing is complete 10 years and $38 billion into development.

Substantial progress has also been made in the F-35B, which, last year, was effectively grounded owing to reliability issues with BF-1, the only aircraft then outfitted to expand the vertical landing envelope. Now, however, the fleet is up and running and the program was praised by Venlet for making good on a goal to get to the USS Wasp amphibious ship for its first at-sea trails on schedule. Venlet said he was pleased with the progress on the B, so much so that he declared the following during an interview with Aviation Week:

“We are on a threshold now [such] that I don’t believe that there is anything more unique to Stovl than the other variants that should cause it to have special attention.”

Gen. James Dunford, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, the first F-35B customer, says that “We have a presumption of success with the F-35B [and] it is no longer in the crosshairs.” The path isn’t fully clear, however. Check out Graham’s interactive web model of the historical and current issues plaguing the Stovl model. He also has posted descriptive summaries of each technical challenge on his Leading Edge blog, starting with the first entry here.

The all-clear is expected to come this spring, nearly a year earlier than the January 2013 timeline established earlier this year by Gates when he declared the program on probation.

Work on the F-135 engine and the pace of F-35A testing has progressed. And, work has also progressed on the carrier version, the F-35C, and its suitability for land-based catapult takeoff. A poor tailhook design has forced Lockheed to rework the tailhook and conduct arrested landing trials next year; no arrested landings were attempted as planned this year owing to the tailhook problem.

Despite the success, though, 10 years into development the major problem facing the program is cost: cost to finish development (now estimated to still have $12.5 billion to go), cost to produce each lot, the cost to own and operate and, finally, the cost of “concurrency” modifications, or those retrofits required as a result of deficiencies found in testing.

Venlet says a new “sustainment,” or ownership cost figure is slated for release after the Fiscal 2013 federal budget goes to Capitol Hill in February. Based on deep dive studies, the program office established a new technical baseline for sustainment, including some new assumptions, such as how many bases will be needed for U.S. operations. Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 integration, says the $1 trillion ownership price cited in the most recent selected acquisition report (SAR) in April is likely to be reduced by as much as 20%.

Though getting a better handle on the ownership cost issue appeared to be the big issue of 2011 only seven months ago owing to the sticker shock suffered by the nine nations swallowing hard at that $1 trillion figure.

This new figure is going to the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) in January, along with a request to reinstate the approval to continue Milestone B, or development work. That approval was rescinded last year owing to the Nunn McCurdy cost overrun and subsequent $4.6 billion restructuring.

The Joint Executive Steering Board (JESB), which consists of senior officials from each F-35 member nation, will also meet after the budget release. The December meeting, which was slipped this year because procurement issues are in flux in the United States.

Furthermore, amid so many questions (including whether 3 variants will pass muster in this tight fiscal environment), Jen DiMascio, our congressional editor, has done an interesting piece to look into why some of the lawmakers who have been so blatantly vocal in support of Lockheed Martin programs in the past may be piping down a bit on the F-35.

All of this and more is covered in the Dec. 12 edition of Aviation Week. We hope the update generates some good discussion on the way ahead for the F-35.

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a930c751f-7c52-4615-9f51-277f62bfcfaa&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
 
And, work has also progressed on the carrier version, the F-35C, and its suitability for land-based catapult takeoff. A poor tailhook design has forced Lockheed to rework the tailhook and conduct arrested landing trials next year; no arrested landings were attempted as planned this year owing to the tailhook problem.
Click to expand...
I suppose this is why they were able to go to the EMALs trials early as the arrested landings will be postponned till the redesign is sorted out.
Hopefully thats not going to take them too long as would be nice to see more of the F-35C in landing configuration as that really shows off the bigger wing and of course it really needs to be seen doing its carrier trials as thats where it eventually going to be operating from.
 
Arjen said:
in the later LRIP phases one is looking at close to 200 aircraft produced a year...hardly "Low Rate"!
Click to expand...
I'm very interested as to when exactly those production rates will be achieved. Certainly not with LRIP-5, and the present economic climate isn't helping to bring those rates any closer - if anything, current thinking is to reduce concurrency of production and testing, which would lead to a reduced production rate.

Development costs are already paid for separately and are not amortised across the unit price for the F-35 - at least for the partner nations.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless the money has been spent, and more will have to be spent yet; money spent to acquire a fleet of operational aircraft. The sum total divided by the number of aircraft is real.
Click to expand...

Actually its not. That R&D cost translates into other programs as well. Things learned with the F-35 Are already being applied to the F-22. This is leading to lower operating cost on the F-22. (Does that get included in your aircraft/price numbers?) As Greg has noted it is disingenuous and a deliberate inflation of numbers to look at it that way. Its like including the cost of all your schooling your whole life into college including meals. Suddenly college is about $300,000 which we know isn't that expensive... Yet! LOL Could we also include the price of the education that has gone to the people working on the F-35? WE can just inflate that number to anything right? When we say a "price is separate" on a government program that is a nice way of saying "trust me, that money was going to get spent-- no matter what" Government offices don't give money back. You spend it all, or risk not getting as much next fiscal year. "better to burn through a million dollars than save a single one"

For all the people who shouted that the "F-35B should be canceled, and the C bought instead" We may want to wait until the F-35C can perform as advertised first... Don't get ahead of yourselves. As of Right now the B has a lot more shipboard take offs and landings ;)
 
Its like including the cost of all your schooling your whole life into college including meals. Suddenly college is about $300,000 which we know isn't that expensive... Yet!
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact, you've left out my use of public means like roads, waterworks, energy infrastructure etc. etc. The fact that during my college days I'm not personally charged for these public means doesn't mean nobody has paid for them.

If improvements on the F-22 are fall-out of the F-35 project, and should have been funded differently in the absence of an F-35 project, costs would have been assigned to a follow-on F-22 improvement project. The fact is, without dedicated research for the F-35, the F-35 would never have existed. It is therefore right and proper to take the cost for these activivities fully into account when computing the cost-per-unit, even if secondary benefits for other applications are realised.

Disingenuous? We appear to disagree on that point.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom