The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[LowObservable]

Participation will resume when readings hit a normal level, if such there be.

 

[Triton]

"It's déjà vu all over again" -- Yogi Berra

The early cancellation led directly to a new advanced warplane, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that Lockheed also produces. Today, that nearly $400-billion system is headed in the same direction as the F-22, falling behind schedule, encountering serious software problems and suffering sharp cost growth.

At the heart of the ongoing weapons acquisition problem, retired military leaders and defense experts say, is a failure by the Pentagon and Congress to acknowledge at the outset the true cost and technical difficulties of building complex systems like the F-22.

The military launches ambitious programs based on low-ball estimates by contractors, critics say. Eager to speed money to their home states, members of Congress allocate funding for these leading-edge defense programs, even before the technologies are developed and tested.

When predictable engineering problems cause costs to explode, Congress typically reacts by cutting the flow of money. Production is then curtailed and the Pentagon searches for a lower-cost weapon. The vicious cycle begins again.

"If everybody involved would be more realistic and didn't lie about risk, technical difficulty and cost, we wouldn't have these problems," said Thomas P. Christie, a retired official who spent nearly 50 years working in Pentagon acquisitions. "We jump into these decisions, then get surprised about the outcome."

The F-22 experienced almost every one of these problems. The Air Force began laying plans to build the F-22 in the early 1980s. A decade later, it estimated it would take nine years and $12.6 billion to develop the jet, but it ended up taking 19 years and costing $26.3 billion, not including the production of any aircraft. By the time production was completed, the F-22 cost an average of $412 million each, up from the original estimate of $149 million.

"The system is totally broken and everybody knows it," said Sherman Mullin, the retired former Lockheed chief of the F-22 program and a fierce advocate for the jet. "Partially, the F-22 fell victim to that."

Source:

"F-22 program produces few planes, soaring costs"
by Ralph Vartabedian and W.J. Hennigan
June 16, 2013

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-advanced-fighter-woes-20130616-dto,0,7588480.htmlstory#ixzz2sahY3HxR

 

[Sundog]

"The system is totally broken and everybody knows it," said Sherman Mullin, the retired former Lockheed chief of the F-22 program and a fierce advocate for the jet. "Partially, the F-22 fell victim to that."

Well, no Sherm, if you've been reading this thread you would know not everyone knows it. Why are you such a hater?

 

[Triton]

"The system is totally broken and everybody knows it," said Sherman Mullin, the retired former Lockheed chief of the F-22 program and a fierce advocate for the jet. "Partially, the F-22 fell victim to that."

Well, no Sherm, if you've been reading this thread you would know not everyone knows it. Why are you such a hater?

 

[Triton]

"Child Warfare: Dogfighting Brothers"
by Mark Thompson
Dec. 05, 2013

Source:
http://swampland.time.com/2013/12/05/child-warfare-dogfighting-brothers/

The pitched battle over what new warplane Canada should purchase has crossed a new threshold in a subcontractor’s TV ad that features two young boys debating the merits of Boeing’s legacy F-18 fighter and Lockheed Martin’s fledgling F-35 aircraft. Boeing and its suppliers would dearly like Canada to buy cheaper F-18s instead of the more costly F-35s (the Pentagon pays $160 million for the F-35, and $91 million for the F-18).

[Update: A Boeing subcontractor, RaceRocks 3D, produced this video, trying to sway the Canadian government to buy F-18s instead of F-35s. “Boeing had nothing to do with the ad,” a Boeing spokesman said. This post has been corrected.]

The Walton-like kids are sitting on hay bales in Grandpa’s hangar barn when Kid 1 asks Kid 2, “Hey, what did you do with the $10 Grandpa gave you?”

“This beauty,” Kid 2 says, holding up a foot-long F-35 plastic model.

“The new F-35 strike fighter with the super helmet and electronic computer?” Kid 1 asks in wonderment.

“And,” Kid 2 adds, “it’s invisible.”

“But it’s right there,” Kid 1 counters.

Kid 2 doesn’t like where this is going. He tries to change the subject: “What did you buy with Grandpa’s $10?”

“Three Boeing F-18 Super Hornets, with all the latest avionics and 10 years of full Boeing service support,” Kid 1 boasts excitedly, as the camera zooms to the barn floor to reveal a miniature maintenance vehicle pulling alongside the planes, and tiny Boeing workers tending to them.

“Yea, but your planes aren’t invisible,” Kid 2 says, nervously tugging at the nose until a piece apparently comes off in his hand.

“Well, OK,” Kid 1 says. “Wanna have a battle for the skies?”

“No,” Kid 2 says, casting his eyes downward. “It broke.”

The 52-second spot (which suggests it won’t actually be broadcast) ends with the words “It’s really not that complicated” on the screen before fading to black.

http://youtu.be/IWJeqrvoF6M

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Participation will resume when readings hit a normal level, if such there be.

Passive Aggresive much?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Kids playing with toys. How much more dumbing things down do we have to take?

 

[Sea Skimmer]

Were the toys made in China?

 

[sferrin]

Participation will resume when readings hit a normal level, if such there be.

That should be your signature. Derp-level: Pegged.
edit: I take that back. You're obviously not stupid. I just don't get why objectivity seems to have taken a back seat considering your profession.

 

[sferrin]

At this rate, I'm going to have to install fire extinguishers in my tower case.

Leaving aside the main arguments for a moment, what happens if the worse case scenario occurs and the F-35 program implodes? Would it be possible to fashion a fall-back option out of the program itself? Say for arguments sake dropping the Naval and Marine versions and substituting something like the old F-35D for the F-35A. With a new FCS and a new combat system of course. Would it be possible, do you think?

(h/t lantinian)

At this point (over 100 units produced) the odds of it "imploding" are somewhere between "slim" and "none". And if it did implode the absolute last thing they would do is come up with yet another version.

 

[F-14D]

At this point (over 100 units produced) the odds of it "imploding" are somewhere between "slim" and "none". And if it did implode the absolute last thing they would do is come up with yet another version.

...and considering how many countries have tied their Defense future to this aircaft, sometimes controversially, the diplomatic fallout from such an "implosion" would be near-catastrophic. Plus, US credibility for future export programs would be severely impacted.

 

[Triton]

At this point (over 100 units produced) the odds of it "imploding" are somewhere between "slim" and "none". And if it did implode the absolute last thing they would do is come up with yet another version.

...and considering how many countries have tied their Defense future to this aircaft, sometimes controversially, the diplomatic fallout from such an "implosion" would be near-catastrophic. Plus, US credibility for future export programs would be severely impacted.

It won't "implode." The Joint Strike Fighter program is "too big to fail." We can debate over competing "facts" issued by Lockheed Martin, the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office, the Department of Defense, or outside experts, but we're committed however much it will cost or how long we will need to wait.

 

[Triton]

The usual suspects:

"The jet that ate the Pentagon"

http://youtu.be/KTF_a1DuIyE


Source:
http://f35baddeal.com/2014/02/04/video-calls-out-lockheed-martin-contractors-on-f-35-for-defending-bottom-lines-not-country-2/

Washington – A coalition of non-governmental organizations released a damning video today that sheds new light on the waste and failures of the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program; the video can be viewed in its entirety here. The release of the video comes at a time when the F-35 is increasingly under fire following a spate of highly critical reports, including a report released by the Pentagon’s chief tester last week which found the F-35 developed cracks during testing and has failed to meet target goals in key performance areas. It also comes on the heels of a newreport by the Center for International Policy(CIP) that challenges Lockheed Martin’s claims regarding the number of jobs created by the program, one of its primary selling points. Additionally, it has been reported that the Navy would prefer to invest in more F-18s rather than purchase its version of the plane – the F-35C. The Office of the Secretary of Defense recently denied the Navy’s request to take a three-year break from production of the F-35.

“After two decades in development, the F-35 is both overpriced and underperforming. It is a plane that was designed to do almost everything and has ended up doing none of them well,” said William D. Hartung, Director of CIP’s Arms & Security Project. “Given level or declining procurement budgets for the foreseeable future, it’s time for the Pentagon and the Air Force to rethink their commitments to the F-35, which is on track to be the most expensive weapons program ever undertaken.”

“The F-35 is unaffordable and a performance nightmare,” added Winslow Wheeler, Director, Straus Military Reform Project, Center for Defense Information, Project on Government Oversight.

Both Mr. Hartung and Mr. Wheeler are featured in the video. Mr. Hartung also authored the CIP report.

The video, The Jet that Ate the Pentagon, was produced by Brave New Films and features insights from industry and defense experts who discuss some of the program’s fatal flaws, including the extraordinary costs of the F-35 (the most expensive weapons system in history), critical design failings, “concurrent development,” and extreme technical and performance issues. The video also highlights the role political contributions given to select members of Congress by Lockheed Martin and other defense contractors have played in keeping the F-35 off the budget chopping block.

In addition to the video, the coalition unveiled a new website, F35BadDeal.com, which will serve as a resource hub for those seeking more information about the F-35 and looking for steps they can take to help end the program. Already, over 100,000 people have signed a petition demanding that Congress stop wasting taxpayer dollars on the F-35.

Coalition members include the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Brave New Films (BNF), Center for International Policy (CIP), Peace Action & Peace Action Education Fund, Project on Government Oversight (POGO), USAction, Win Without War, and Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND).

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Well if Winslow Wheeler and the Women's Action For New Directions think it's bad, then I guess I'll have to finally cave in and agree to the anti-F-35 cause. If anyone knows fighter jets it's definitely WAND.

 

[sferrin]

Well if Winslow Wheeler and the Women's Action For New Directions think it's bad, then I guess I'll have to finally cave in and agree to the anti-F-35 cause. If anyone knows fighter jets it's definitely WAND.

No kidding. But hey, the usual suspects have to keep regurgitating the same stories somehow.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Source:
http://f35baddeal.com/

Bah, hah, hah! Bill decide to start his own website? Funny thing is his sycophants are doing their damnedest to turn this board into an F-35 hate-fest as well. (Does Triton even post anything else anymore?)

Same old stuff. If you watch a few of these platforms over the course of development and observe the motifs used by the media, you quickly see that the arguments against the F-15, F-22, Osprey, Superhornet etc. are pretty strikingly similar to the ones we see re the 35. All kinds of doom predictions and misrepresenting of development problems and hiccups as the end of the world. This is not to say that I think it's the most perfectly conceived program in history, but at least it's not going to be cancelled. Hell, run everything jointly... if you can actually get anywhere remotely near the numbers of tails into service and into allied service that even 50% of the expected F-35 run brings, it will have been well worth making some compromises. ...better than getting killed off like the A-12, NATF, or getting capped at 187. The idea that all these top tier airforces, some of them in challenging security environments, will mortgage their future, while their govts will mortgage national security over some hazily described, implied corruption from Lockheed is ludicrous to me. The other aerospace corps know how to play hardball too and if all it takes is some palm greasing, they are at least as good as lockheed at that. Schedule slipping and costs ballooning are not unique characteristics of the 35 program. The dollar figures thrown around are pretty enormous, certainly, but the program is several orders of magnitude larger in scope vs. other programs. ...before anyone brings it up, I do not buy the conclusions of the RAND report against joint projects. Separate projects would fall to the budget axe. At least one of the 3. If that was to be the B version for example, that would restrain US and allied potential in the Pacific quite a bit. There are a lot of carriers coming on line and only one STOVL bird out there. ..and it has been criticized for being stealthy and supersonic. Hmm. Even if the RAF and the USMC really didn't want those characteristics, they would be able to make use of them....the USMC performs Offensive and Defensive Counter Air too, as well as other missions. These characteristics can't hurt when we look to, perhaps Singapore, SK, Turkey, Japan, Italy, Australia even....there's a market emerging for this aircraft. Seems like that shakes out pretty well for distributed, networked ops in the Pacific, as envisioned by air-sea battle, as well as making more sales and contributing to economies of scale.

Just because a lot of folks on the internet, Winslow and WAND, Sprey, etc. say it's a turkey doesn't mean a lot as far as I'm concerned. I'm just going to watch the program and see how many end up getting built and how they work. If I'm wrong, then I'll be glad to admit it. It's way to early to tell still, but I'm reasonably encouraged.

 

[Triton]

Bah, hah, hah! Bill decide to start his own website?

Have you checked out that webpage? It isn't anti F-35, its anti defence. They want to cancel the F-35 and then give every unemployed person in America $200,000 with the money saved. Like that will work out well.

Jeez, they're dumber than I thought. (And that's saying something.) Sounds like a play from the Obama play book. "Promise to give them somebody else's money and you'll be able to lead them around by the nose."

Malarky! Leave it to Abraham and sferrin to twist the message of "F-35 Bad Deal" to make a cheap political shot against the political left and President Barrack Obama specifically. "F-35 Bad Deal" is just giving examples of the opportunity cost of spending $1.5 trillion on the Joint Strike Fighter program and how we might spend the money elsewhere.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Malarky! Leave it to Abraham and sferrin to twist the message of "F-35 Bad Deal" to make a cheap political shot against the political left and President Barrack Obama specifically. "F-35 Bad Deal" is just giving examples of the opportunity cost of spending $1.5 trillion on the Joint Strike Fighter program and how we might spend the money elsewhere.

Leave it to Triton to fail to see the forest for the trees. Have a closer look at your good friends at "F-35 Bad Deal". Its not a reform the defence establishment group its an abolish the defence establishment group.

Coalition Partners Include:
American Friends Service Committee
Taxpayers for Common Sense
USAction
Win Without War
Peace Action & Peace Action Education Fund
Pentagon Budget Campaign
Brave New Foundation
Center for International Policy
Women’s Action for New Directions

 

[AeroFranz]

Depending on what yardstick you use to gauge it, you can make the case that the F-35 will succeed. Will it be the dominant strike aircraft adopted by most NATO and US-aligned countries that can afford it? probably yes.

That's easy to predict when there really isn't a choice because fighter design and procurement has continued getting exponentially more expensive (more than what I think is justified by the increased capabilities and other economic factors). Air Forces do not have an alternative, so they will have to buy what's available, period. They will delay the purchase as much as possible with MLUs of aging aircraft, then eventually buy a reduced number of airframes compatible with what they have in their purses.

On the other hand, current indicators suggest the F-35 has failed to be the affordable fighter we were promised at program launch. Does anyone seriously maintain that it will cost about the same to buy and operate as an F-16? This is the basis on which it was sold, because air forces will not have any more money to spend than they do now.The performance requirements were eased to give it a passing grade. In past posts, forum members have rejected the assertion made by critics of the F-35 who say requirements were unrealistic; F-35 partisans defend those decisions. So in what light should you look at the required relaxation of those original performance goals? Either those requirements were set too high, and you are implicitly accepting that the requirements originators didn't know what they were talking about, or Lockheed wrote a check they couldn't cash. Risk assessment and risk mitigation is an integral part of a sound engineering process. Somebody made poor decisions in those areas, it's not like the F-35 delays are due to an unpredictable act of God...

Let me be clear: i don't want the F-35 program killed. That's not going to help anyone. That being said, we are paying the full price agreed and getting much less than what was promised, so if I feel like the F-35 program deserves criticism, be it on the government or contractor side, it damn does. Denying it only reinforces the death spiral of procurement, which the F-35 was supposed to stop but isn't.

Maybe in a decade, when we get serious about NGAD, the same dog and pony show won't happen. I know, hope springs eternal...

[edit]

It’s all about you is it? Do you really lack the imagination to see how giving every unemployed person $200,000 would result in total disaster on a community scale? People quitting their jobs to get the cash. Massive injection of cash into drug dependent communities. The list goes on.

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Mayor: All right, all right! I get the point!

C'mon, AG, I'm pretty sure you know this is not what Sundog was suggesting. Putting $200K in everyone's pockets won't solve anything (although curiously enough the US debt runs at about $150K per US citizen...don't get incensed, just stating a fact). You will also excuse Sundog for expressing his opinions from an informed point of view. I am pretty sure you would share similar sentiments of giving the bird if you were a hard working educated person whose livelihood was threatened by corporate interests that have nothing to do with your dedication.

 

[Magoodotcom]

*Grabbing popcorn and getting a comfy chair.*

Well, this should get interesting! B)

Or...we could leave our irrational and ridiculously overstated political opinions aside and just get back to the subject at hand!?!?

I like the $1.5 trillion figure... ...but I especially enjoyed that third poster which is a pic of an F/A-18... :

 

[lastdingo]

Oh, thanks for clearing that up. Silly me not recognizing that all the attention given to cost overruns, technical problems, and delays in the F-35 program were motivated purely out of envy. Nice to know it has nothing to do with how my tax dollars are spent or how my nation and its interests are protected. How could I have been so deceived by those shills from Boeing, Dassault, and the Eurofighter consortium.

Maybe you could direct me to another new fighter program that didn't have any cost increases, technical problems, or delays? Good hunting. Oh, and make sure to compare apples to apples.

To ask for no technical problems is strawmanning. To solve technical problems is the job of development.

Concerning cost overruns and delays; feel free to compare the F-35 with the Gripen and since you're interested in apples/apples, factor in the "Cold War has ended" peace dividend to the benefit of the Gripen program.
(You disqualify yourself automatically if you claim that Gripen isn't apples/apples enough, for there is no program exactly identical to F-35 and you asked him to provide an example.)


Besides, it doesn't really matter whether other programs are crap as well. The F-35 and U.S. military aviation industry in general are probably past the point of no net utility.
The whole United States might as of now be better off to destroy Lockheed Martin et al and just buy sufficient aircraft abroad.
There's no Soviet Union forcing the country or alliance into an arms technology race, after all.

Sounds crazy? Do a plausibility test: Is there a price tag at which domestic combat aircraft programs make no sense any more? Say, one trillion dollars per copy? Sure, there is such a threshold price tag. Think about where that might be in FY2013 $ per copy.

 

[sferrin]

To ask for no technical problems is strawmanning. To solve technical problems is the job of development.

ROFL! So what you're saying is the whole F-35 bitch-fest is a giant case of strawmanning. Couldn't agree more.

 

[Jemiba]

OK, as we had some reports about, what added together probably just could be called "bad
behaviour", I started to try to clean this thread. Not that easy, as one word led to the other,
so I simply deleted one or two posts, that may have been regarded as insulting, offending or
simply had nothing to do with the theme of this thread, which AFAIK still is the F-35 ...

This is the "F-35 No Holds Barred topic" and if someone calls that a/c the best or the worst, it's ok,
but please stay to the topic. It's still no arena for verbal gladiator fights ! Or perhaps it is,
but then it's my duty to allow some fighters for a little bit convalescence to cure their wounds !!

 

[lastdingo]

To ask for no technical problems is strawmanning. To solve technical problems is the job of development.

ROFL! So what you're saying is the whole F-35 bitch-fest is a giant case of strawmanning. Couldn't agree more.

The only complaints about technical problems that make sense are about

(1) persistent technical problems (such as the drag issue with Super Hornet wing/pylons) which reduce performance
(best discussed as failure to meet the required specs)

(2) technical problems causing cost overruns
(best discussed as cost overruns)

(3) technical problems which cause excessive loss of life (example tilt-rotor crashes)


It makes no sense to expect no technical problems at all, though, for solving the ordinary technical problems on schedule and on budget is the purpose of testing.
So far the F-35 has technical problems of category (2), and likely also technical problems of category (1) (we won't know about (1) until the type enters unrestricted service).

 

[Triton]

"All Eyes on F-35: Threats from China Shape Conflicting Priorities Throughout Asia-Pacific"
Feb. 10, 2014 - 12:07PM |
By WENDELL MINNICK

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140210/DEFREG03/302100033/All-Eyes-F-35?odyssey=nav|head

TAIPEI — Lockheed Martin’s fifth-generation multirole joint strike fighter has all of the problems one could expect from a program with 11 total partner/participant nations: cost overruns, technical difficulties, espionage, delays and persistent rumors of desertion by various members.

Pentagon cost-cutters might be forced to save the F-35 program by wounding others, which could mean the defunding of the US Air Force’s combat avionics programmed extension suite (CAPES) program to upgrade radars and avionics on 300 F-16 fighter jets, and the end of production for Boeing’s F/A-18E Super Hornet.

“We really need [CAPES],” said Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, commander of US Pacific Air Forces, in an interview. “I will tell you that as we looked at trying to make decisions, there were cases where to keep the new procurement systems like the F-35 and KC-46 [aerial refueling plane] on track … we may have to slow the upgrades on some of our legacy platforms to make sure we get the proper investment in procuring the new systems, i.e. the F-35.”

Despite these issues, Asia-Pacific nations appear set on procuring the single-engine stealth fighter for a variety of reasons: as a guarantor of interoperability with US forces; a hedge against the rise of China’s military and its own stealth fighters, the J-20 and J-31; and fears the US is losing its security grip on the Asia-Pacific region as China continues to push forward on plans to dominate its near seas and break through the first island chain into the Pacific.

“China has turned into Lockheed’s greatest salesman ever,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis with the Virginia-based Teal Group.

The Chinese military’s aggressive posturing and the leadership’s rhetoric, coupled with the Chinese Air Force’s and Navy’s somewhat premature efforts to field stealth fighters and an aircraft carrier, have highlighted East Asian interest in fifth-generation fighters.
Australia

Following earlier signs that Australia might reduce its F-35 order, the government is expressing growing confidence in the program. In December, the program achieved a milestone with the transition of the first aircraft from the electronic mate and assembly system to the final assembly line at Fort Worth, Texas.

Australia’s first two F-35s, AU-1 and AU-2, are currently being assembled in Fort Worth and deliveries are scheduled for this year, said Eric Schnaible, F-35 international communications manager.

The milestone increased confidence in Australian military circles that the New Air Combat Capability program will deliver under the latest deadline. The combat capability program was created in 1999 to find a replacement for Australia’s F/A-18 Hornet and the now-retired F-111.

Still, Australia has only two F-35As on order, both of which are due to go to the international F-35 training center being established at Arizona’s Luke Air Force Base next January.

There, they will be used to train the initial cadre of Australian pilots before delivery to Williamtown Royal Australian Air Force base in late 2018.

This is a relatively disappointing number, as Australia is the only partner nation involved in the development of the F-35 with Lockheed. The only other nation in the region that comes close is Singapore, which is a participant nation.

A further 12 aircraft have been committed to, commencing with low-rate initial production lot 10 (LRIP-10) in mid-2015. But if the Hornet is to be retired on schedule, three squadrons and a training unit are required by the end of 2022. This will require purchasing 72 aircraft, with a further decision to be made sometime in the next decade on a final batch of 28 to replace Australia’s newer F/A-18F Super Hornets.

“The next lots deliver in LRIP-10 [eight aircraft for delivery in 2018] and LRIP-11 [four aircraft for delivery in 2019],” Schnaible said. “The Australian government reaffirmed its commitment to procuring up to 100 aircraft.”

The Royal Australian Air Force will submit its recommended purchase profile for government consideration early this year, with a decision expected around April. Options include a single tranche of 72 aircraft or a phased approach, which will require a series of government approvals.

“The hardest part of the F-35A is not the development program, it is getting a competent workforce to be able to operate an F-35A. The critical aspect is actually the pilot and maintenance training,” said Air Marshal Geoff Brown, Australia’s Air Force chief. “If we go for one tranche, we will better be able to plan out the retirement of the ‘classic’ F/A-18A/B [Hornet] and the transition of those personnel.”
Japan

If one country in the region has been shaken to the core by Chinese military activity in the East China Sea, it’s Japan.

China declared an air defense identification zone effective Nov. 23 over a group of disputed islands. The announcement took Tokyo and the US by surprise, as leaders in both countries breathed in details of the new identification zone map that overlapped Japan’s and covered the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands, which China claims as its own.

Despite a 2011 decision by Tokyo to procure the F-35A to replace its 1960s-era F-4EJ Kai Phantoms, Japan has made little progress on a buy that would include 28 to 42 fighter jets by 2021.

Lockheed’s Schnaible said that for Japan, “contractual agreements were completed, and we’re progressing toward the construction of their final assembly and check out facility.”

Under a June foreign military sales agreement with the US, Japan committed to purchase the first four F-35As at US $124 million each, when the exchange rate was 82 yen to the dollar. Since then, the yen’s value has fluctuated between 95 and 105 to the dollar.

The price of the first two fighters climbed to ¥29.9 billion, and the cost for the next four for fiscal 2014 has risen to ¥63.8 billion, representing a price of nearly 160 billion yen per fighter.

Added to this are plant and tooling-up costs as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), Mitsubishi Electric and IHI establish assembly and production lines. Japan plans to assemble 38 F-35s in country.

Bearing in mind the rising costs of the F-35 program, the Defense Ministry is still figuring out what it can do about the long-term replacement of about 200 F-15J and 90 F-2 fighters.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that the MoD still purchases fighters based on an annual budget, meaning that it cannot lock in a price.

“The first four Japanese F-35A aircraft will be delivered from Lockheed Martin’s aircraft production line in Fort Worth, Texas, beginning in 2016 as part of [LRIP] lot 8,” Schnaible said. “The subsequent deliveries of 38 aircraft, beginning in 2017, will come from MHI’s Nagoya [final assembly and check out facility], which will deliver aircraft exclusively for Japan.”

Despite actions by Lockheed to help lower costs, the Japanese media has come out opposing the F-35A by retelling the classic Japanese victimization story, which is deep in the Japanese psyche, of how Japanese are misled by foreign intruders.

Some in the Japanese military are comparing it to a “bottakuri bar,” in which customers are lured in, only to be charged heavy fees later.

Defense analyst Shinichi Kiyotani said the ministry is being vague about the F-15J replacement program because it genuinely does not know if Japan could afford more F-35s, especially as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Mitsubishi Electric Corp. and IHI will be assembling and producing parts locally.

Pointing out that locally produced versions of US gear generally cost double their original versions — for example, Kawasaki Heavy Industry’s version of the MCH-101 airborne mine countermeasures helicopter costs about $60 million per unit compared to $30 million for the UK version — Kiyotani said the F-35’s costs could climb.
Singapore

Singapore is a participant nation in the F-35 development program and has special rights to the procurement of the stealth fighter not shared with Japan and South Korea.

“Singapore joined the F-35 program in 2004 as a security cooperation participant, which has enabled Singapore to receive detailed program status and performance information,” Lockheed’s Schnaible said. “The government of Singapore has not announced their specific F-35 acquisition plans or timelines.”

A decision to procure the F-35 is expected to be made in the immediate future, with the possibility the announcement could come at the Singapore Airshow.

In December, Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen visited Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., where two F-35Bs belonging to the US Marine Corps were on display. Singapore has one squadron of F-16 fighters permanently based at Luke for training. Upon his return to Singapore, Ng said the city-state was considering the F-35 to replace its F-16s, but was in no hurry.

On Jan. 14, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announced the decision to sell Singapore a program to upgrade 60 F-16C/D models for $2.43 billion. The program would include 70 active electronically scanned array radars.

However, with reports that the CAPES F-16 upgrade program might be defunded by the US military in the fiscal 2015 budget, Singapore could delay a decision on whether it goes with the CAPES framework or chooses the F-16 upgrade program selected by South Korea, which includes the Northrop Grumman scalable agile beam radar with BAE Systems as the integrator.

If the F-16 upgrade plan falls apart, Singapore could go forward more quickly with the procurement of the F-35.
South Korea

South Korea is moving forward on its initial purchase of 40 F-35A fighters amid growing worries over stories about the fifth-generation fighter’s technical glitches.

The country’s Joint Chiefs of Staff met Nov. 22 in Seoul and formally approved an updated set of required operational capabilities for its F-X III competition, Lockheed’s Schnaible said.

“The [Joint Chiefs] also announced a plan to move forward with an initial procurement of 40 aircraft with deliveries from 2018-2021, followed up with a possible order of 20 more aircraft in the 2023-2024 timeframe,” he said.

The updated requirements state that South Korea needs an aircraft with “the most advanced stealth capabilities possible.”

South Korea was planning to buy 60 F-15 Silent Eagle fighters from Boeing to replace its aging fleet of F-4 Phantoms and F-5 Tigers. But citing stealth as the priority, the military decided to procure the F-35A. However, due to the higher costs, South Korea could afford only 40.

“The F-35A is available to meet the Republic of Korea’s 2018 delivery requirements and is offered in a Block 3F configuration,” Schnaible said. “Korea’s acquisition process, however, first requires a feasibility study to approve this new acquisition plan before the F-35 can be formally source-selected through their acquisition board.”

In terms of interoperability with the regional and US military’s F-35s, “I think the F-35 decision for the Koreans was the right one,” Carlisle said. “Purchasing the same fifth-generation advanced capability will pay great dividends for the Koreans.”

However, some in South Korea’s defense establishment are not sold on the F-35. Kim Dae-young, a research member of the Korea Defense and Security Forum, is skeptical about the plane’s technical problems.

“The F-35 technical glitches are not expected to affect the deal set for the third quarter immediately,” Kim said. “But if the technical problems are raised continuously, we can’t rule out the possibility that the Korean government may delay the deal or have a second thought on the procurement of the F-35, especially when the public sentiment on the Lockheed Martin jet is getting worse.”
Taiwan

Though Taiwan has a fighter requirement that includes fifth-generation jets, the US appears reluctant to sell the self-governing island new fighters, despite repeated requests since 2006 for 66 F-16C/Ds.

Taiwan officials must contemplate a reversal of a decision to upgrade its remaining fleet of 146 F-16A/B fighters under the US Air Force’s CAPES program, as news spreads that CAPES could be defunded in the next Pentagon budget.

In the past, Taiwan has voiced interest in the F-35B, a short takeoff and vertical landing version of the fighter, to cope with the projected destruction of conventional runways by China’s arsenal of 1,300 short-range ballistic missiles aimed at the island.

In 2002, Taiwan submitted a letter of intent for a briefing on future price and availability data for the F-35. In the letter, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office requested data for 120 F-35B aircraft. The office is Taiwan’s de facto embassy in Washington.

The letter said China’s missiles threatened Taiwan’s air superiority.

“The primary purpose of this acquisition is to provide a credible response capability in the event that our air bases become non-functional due to initial air, missile and special operations force attack,” the letter said.

In 2004, Taiwan military sources indicated a bolder request was made for 60 F-35Bs and 150 F-35A conventional fighters. The F-35B would help to overcome the damage caused to runways by China’s missiles in case of an attack.

Ed Ross, a former principal director of Security Cooperation Operations at DSCA, said he doubted the US would risk selling Taiwan the F-35 due to concerns over technology theft by China. Ross also cited the betterment of cross-Strait relations between Beijing and Taipei as another reason the US would be wary of selling them to Taiwan.

 

[Triton]

"Taiwan rejects report on decade-old request to purchase F-35s"
by Tony Liao and Y.F. Low
2014/02/11

Source:
http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201402110010.aspx

Taiwanese officials based in Washington on Monday denied a U.S. news report that Taiwan asked to buy F-35 fighters from the United States a decade ago.

The officials familiar with foreign and defense affairs described the report as "totally untrue."

Given that the F-35 only flew for the first time in 2006, it is impossible that Taiwan could have submitted a letter of intent to buy the aircraft as early as 10 years ago, they said.

According to the report published on DefenseNews.com, Taiwan submitted a letter of intent through its representative office in the United States for a briefing on future price and availability data for 120 F-35B aircraft in 2002.

A "bolder request" for 60 F-35Bs and 150 F-35A conventional fighters was made in 2004, the report said.

DefenseNews has reported the existence of Taiwan's letter of intent in the past, and quoted a passage from the letter in its most recent article.

"The primary purpose of this acquisition is to provide a credible response capability in the event that our air bases become non-functional due to initial air, missile and special operations force attack," DefenseNews quoted the letter as saying.

F-35B is a short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft and would help overcome the damage caused to runways by China's missiles in case of an attack, the report said.

 

[Triton]

"The ACE That Ate the Marine Corps"
by LtCol James W. Hammond III, USMC(Ret)

Source:
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/ace-ate-marine-corps

 

[sferrin]

"Aircraft are currently built for about a 20-year lifecycle, while ships are planned to last 40 years. - "

AV-8B - entered service in 1985. Will still be using in 2015 - 30 years.

F/A-18 Hornet - entered service with the USMC in 1983. Still using. 30+ years.
Hmmm. . . :

With more and more time passing between generations I'd think the F-35 would be around a minimum of 40 years. I'd also disagree with the 40 year figure across the board for ships. How long were the California and Virginia class cruisers in service? How 'bout the Spruance class DDGs or the Tarawa class LHDs?

 

[CJGibson]

Anybody in the UK see Newsnight on BBC2 last night?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26124894

Also on Iplayer but not available to Johnnie Foreigner unless by other means.

Mods - feel free to move this to the News Only thread, I wasn't sure if this was news or more fuel.

Chris

 

[Thorvic]

Yeap watched it with interest and then groaned at the usual sniping from Paxman and how crap the RUSI representative was. At least the actual Defence correspondent was up to the task in hand and knew his stuff.
Yes it is more expensive than we had hoped for, no the £2.5billion is not just for 14 aircraft but also to establish the support for the full 48 initially earmarked for Carrier Strike, yes it late as original expectations was a 2012 in-service date 2014 at sea and that is now going to be 2018/2020 instead. However we know there are still issues to be resolved which is why we are only ordering 14 now to form the first training unit and the next 30 will be ordered circa 2017 when we should have full production aircraft coming off the production line and ready for service on the QEC carriers.
That RUSI guy was a prat, using Australia and Canada as example of other customers deferring orders till they had matured the product and reduced the costs, Australia bought the Super Hornet to bridge the gap between the F-111 and the F-35A, its doing the same as us in sorting out its first order. Canada is in shambles as its only got old legacy hornets with no stopgap capacity and is in turmoil after being forced to cancel F-35A selection due to the lack of an accountable selection process so their procurement is in effective chaos at the moment !
Ironically the British have actually factored in the F-35 delays with our defensive strategy, we accepted the capability gap as the Typhoon is our primary combat aircraft and have aligned our Carrier Strike capability for Force 2020 in line with our F-35B deliveries so that its available for standard deployment from 2023 when our JCA deliveries have been completed.

 

[Triton]

"UK F-35 order seen next month, U.S. orders seen down: sources"
Tue Feb 11, 2014 8:47pm EST

Source:
http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABREA1B03T20140212?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

(Reuters) - Britain is still expected to order 14 F-35 fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) although the $5 billion deal may not be finalized until next month, several sources familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.

The UK deal, which includes fuel, hangars, training and operational support for the jets, was initially expected this week but British authorities put off the announcement to avoid overlapping with the release of a major assessment of weapons systems by Britain's National Audit Office, the sources said.

A spokesman for Britain's Ministry of Defense said the agency expected "an announcement relating to future investment" in the F-35 program soon. "It is not appropriate to comment on speculation while negotiations are ongoing," he said.

The United States is counting on orders from Britain and other countries that helped pay for development of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to offset a series of delays in U.S. orders caused by mounting pressure on military spending.

The U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps had been slated to order a total of 42 jets in fiscal 2015, which begins October 1, up from 29 in fiscal 2014. But mandatory budget cuts will force the Pentagon to scale back those orders once again, according to the sources.

Several sources said they expected the fiscal 2015 budget request to call for three to six fewer F-35s than expected.

The Pentagon's top arms buyer Frank Kendall told reporters at the Singapore air show earlier Tuesday that tighter budgets would force tough decisions about research and procurement, but the F-35 fighter and other key arms programs remained a top priority.

"The F-35 remains - despite its relatively high cost - a premier, number-one priority conventional warfare program for us, so we're going to continue that under almost any budget level I would imagine that we would have to live with," he said.

Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, Japan and Israel are also ordering F-35 fighters in fiscal 2015 as part of the ninth batch of jets to be built. Turkey is expected to order two jets in coming weeks.

U.S. and foreign orders were initially expected to swell the ninth batch of jets to a new high around 70 planes, but the number will likely come in closer to 65, said one of the sources who was not authorized to speak publicly.

The Pentagon's F-35 program office is expected to award Lockheed a large contract for advanced procurement of titanium and other long-lead materials needed for those jets later this month or early next, according to the sources.

Lockheed and the Pentagon are currently in contract negotiations about the eighth batch of jets, which were funded by the fiscal 2014 budget.

Canada was initially slated to order 4 F-35s as part of the ninth production batch, but officials are rethinking the decision after procurement controversies. Ottawa has also been talking with the makers of four other fighters, including Boeing Co (BA.N) and Dassault Aviation (AVMD.PA).

Canada is wrestling with the need to extend the service life of the aging fleet of F/A-18A fighters that it bought from Boeing in the early 1980s.

Ottawa is expected to decide in coming weeks whether to proceed with an F-35 order or launch a fresh competition.

Australia, faced with the same issues several years ago, had estimated the total cost of service life extension and upgrade programs for its F/A-18 A- and B-model planes at over $3.2 billion from 1995 to 2015.

The UK order, when it comes, will include some funding for Lockheed and the other key contractors on the F-35 program, as well as work to be done in Britain on building the infrastructure for the new warplanes.

British Defense Minister Philip Hammond told the BBC on Tuesday that he was not worried about technical issues on the F-35, and remained confident the plane would be fitted with the weapons it needs in time for early operational use in 2020.

(Additional reporting by Brenda Goh in London; Editing by Stephen Coates)

 

[F-14D]

"Aircraft are currently built for about a 20-year lifecycle, while ships are planned to last 40 years. - "

AV-8B - entered service in 1985. Will still be using in 2015 - 30 years.

F/A-18 Hornet - entered service with the USMC in 1983. Still using. 30+ years.
Hmmm. . . :

With more and more time passing between generations I'd think the F-35 would be around a minimum of 40 years. I'd also disagree with the 40 year figure across the board for ships. How long were the California and Virginia class cruisers in service? How 'bout the Spruance class DDGs or the Tarawa class LHDs?

With those USMC aircraft, since they were flown more and not replaced as was envisioned, a lot more has gone into rebuilding than was originally envisioned. Such is the way of the world.

In the case of those ships, in a number of cases they were retired more for budget or policy reasons rather than completely wearing out. In fact, if current Administration policies continue, CVN-74 may be retired at half her useful life.

 

[Triton]

Meanwhile in Canada...

"F-35s controversy back on the horizon for federal government"

Lee Berthiaume
Published: January 22, 2014, 4:53 pm

Source:
http://o.canada.com/news/f-35s-controversy-back-on-the-horizon-for-federal-government/

OTTAWA — The highly charged debate over whether Canada should buy the F-35 stealth fighter is set to fly back onto the political radar as defence officials wrap up a review of the stealth fighter and its competitors in the coming weeks.

The federal Conservative government was able to put a lid on the controversy in late 2012 when it ordered National Defence back to the drawing board following revelations the F-35 would cost $45 billion between now and 2052.

Since then, Defence officials have been quietly talking with, and collecting information from, F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin and three other companies that build jet fighters so the government can make an informed decision on how to proceed.

Sources say the review is now complete and a final report is almost ready for senior bureaucrats, who will use it to formulate recommendations for cabinet in the next few months.

That means the issue will once again become a political football.

The two main options are expected to be an open competition or simply proceeding with sole-sourcing the F-35 purchase.

Either choice is fraught with controversy. A competition could drag the process out for years, given the government’s recent record on military procurements, and potentially increase the price Canada would have to pay for the F-35 should the stealth fighter win out. But moving ahead on the F-35 without a competition would resurrect many of the same controversies that have plagued the project since then-defence minister Peter MacKay announced in 2010 that Canada was buying 65 of the aircraft without a competition.

“If they think that the so-called reset button has been pushed by producing a same report that comes out with the same conclusion,” said NDP defence critic Jack Harris, “if that’s all it is, then it clearly would have been a farce.

“The only sensible way for the government to go is for an open competition.”

The final report hasn’t even been delivered, but pressure is already mounting for a quick decision.

“I personally am not aware of any obstacle for the Canadian government to take a decision, based on the work that has been done, within the next four to five months,” said Yves Robins, vice-president of French aircraft manufacturer Dassault.

“What other obstacles would there be? I don’t know, but I don’t see any.”

Dassault builds the Rafale fighter, which is up against the F-35 as well as the Eurofighter Typhoon and Boeing’s Super Hornet.

Lockheed Martin is planning an online seminar for the public later this month as part of an extensive public relations campaign aimed at combating the years of bad publicity that have plagued the F-35.

 

[sferrin]

"Aircraft are currently built for about a 20-year lifecycle, while ships are planned to last 40 years. - "

AV-8B - entered service in 1985. Will still be using in 2015 - 30 years.

F/A-18 Hornet - entered service with the USMC in 1983. Still using. 30+ years.
Hmmm. . . :

With more and more time passing between generations I'd think the F-35 would be around a minimum of 40 years. I'd also disagree with the 40 year figure across the board for ships. How long were the California and Virginia class cruisers in service? How 'bout the Spruance class DDGs or the Tarawa class LHDs?

With those USMC aircraft, since they were flown more and not replaced as was envisioned, a lot more has gone into rebuilding than was originally envisioned. Such is the way of the world.

In the case of those ships, in a number of cases they were retired more for budget or policy reasons rather than completely wearing out. In fact, if current Administration policies continue, CVN-74 may be retired at half her useful life.

It was more a rhetorical question to illustrate that reality doesn't really match the years they were using.

 

[F-14D]

It was more a rhetorical question to illustrate that reality doesn't really match the years they were using.

Understood. I was just showing there are plans and then there is reality. Of course the youngest Phabulous Phantom is 33 years old, and if we're talking type rather than individual aircraft it's been flying for 56 years and in frontline service for 53. Then there's the C-130...

Planning vs. reality indeed.

 

[Triton]

Well, I didn't expect the article by LtCol James W. Hammond III to generate a nit-picking discussion regarding the service-lives of aircraft versus amphibious ships. Hammond does make an interesting point regarding how the Air Combat Element (ACE), particularly the F-35B and the MV-22, is taking a larger portion of the budget of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF). He argues that the "MAGTF [is] dangerously over-optimized for aviation-centric missions and capabilities—thus resulting in a fifth-generation ACE and a second- or third-generation ground combat element."

Hammond writes:

Competition for blue dollar resources also affects funding for naval surface fire support, mine countermeasure ships and equipment, surface connectors, defensive countermeasures installed on amphibious ships, and amphibious training exercises. For instance, the number of naval guns 5-inches and larger has decreased by 65 percent since the end of the Cold War, from 307 to 106.14 15 It is natural for naval surface fire support to be seen as competing with close air support capabilities and, therefore, aviation funding, particularly among those most closely engaged in the blue dollar budgeting process.

Similarly, in the area of connectors between amphibious ships and the shore, vertical lift aircraft and surface connectors are in direct competition. For instance, take the case of the LCAC replacement, another blue dollar ticket item. As noted above, the cost for 360 MV–22Bs and 200 CH–53Ks is $68.59 billion. In comparison, the cost for 73 ship-to-shore connector craft (the LCAC replacement) is estimated to be about $4.07 billion, approximately 6 percent of the cost of the airlift ship-to-shore connector investment.16 In some respects, funding for the AAV replacement, as a key ship-to-shore connector, should also be considered and balanced with the cost of vertical lift connectors. While one is normally binned under green dollars and the other under blue dollars, in the end they both come out of DoN dollars.

 

[sferrin]

It was more a rhetorical question to illustrate that reality doesn't really match the years they were using.

Understood. I was just showing there are plans and then there is reality. Of course the youngest Phabulous Phantom is 33 years old, and if we're talking type rather than individual aircraft it's been flying for 56 years and in frontline service for 53. Then there's the C-130...

Planning vs. reality indeed.

The newest Minutman III rolled off the line in 1977. Then there's the U-2. . .

 

[Triton]

In the case of those ships, in a number of cases they were retired more for budget or policy reasons rather than completely wearing out. In fact, if current Administration policies continue, CVN-74 may be retired at half her useful life.

Such is the joy of sequestration. Looks like the U.S.S. George Washington (CVN-74) is saved from the budget axe for now.

 

[F-14D]

In the case of those ships, in a number of cases they were retired more for budget or policy reasons rather than completely wearing out. In fact, if current Administration policies continue, CVN-74 may be retired at half her useful life.

Such is the joy of sequestration. Looks like the U.S.S. George Washington (CVN-74) is saved from the budget axe for now.

That just puts Harry Truman under the gun since CVN-74 and -75 are so close in their overall lives, and if you're going to retire a CVN early, the best place to do it is when she's due for RCOH (the recent delays on CVN-71 &-72 has created a "traffic jam" of sorts. Also, a good portion of the Nimitz class was built when we were basing on a larger fleet of carriers. So, unless there is a change at the top which allows us to keep more carriers, we're going to have to prematurely retire one or two (and ironically they'll be newer carriers) if we want to build any more Ford carriers (and if we don't they'll be even more expensive than what they've been driven to by their drawn out procurement) and we may even lose the expertise on how.

Oh yeah, this could affect how many F-35s get bought (got to tie into the topic somehow). More carrier talk probably belongs in another topic.

 

[Triton]

"The Navy soars while the Army is in danger of sinking"

Source:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/defence-and-security-blog/2014/feb/12/armed-forces-defence-army-navy

You have to admire the chutzpah of the first sea lord, Admiral Sir George Zambellas.

The Royal Navy faced "the fight of our generation" to ensure it remained credible, he told an audience of sailors earlier this month at Trinity House, London, which is responsible for lighthouses and other aids to navigation.

Britain must commit to using its two new aircraft carriers and replace its nuclear deterrent or fall out of the first division of global military powers, he warned.

The navy needed submarines, fighter jets, Royal Marine vessels and surveillance aircraft at a "sensible and credible level of scale", he said.

"Make the Royal Navy 'uncredible', and we cease to be a first division player," he said. "Our responsibility to the Navy we command and lead, our responsibility to defence, and our responsibility to the nation we serve, is to fight to deliver a credible Navy."

The two carriers are being built in Scotland, and the Queen is due to launch the first , the Queen Elizabeth, in July though it will not be fully operational until the end of the decade. The fate of the second carrier, to be named Prince of Wales, will be decided in the next defence review, after the 2015 general election. The cost of the two carriers are now said to be £6.2bn, nearly twice the original estimate.

Unsurprisingly, Zambellas also made clear that in his view Britain should continue to maintain a continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent (CASD, as it is known) with a new Trident fleet of four submarines.

There is growing scepticism about whether Britain now needs such a nuclear force (with the subs alone estimated to cost at least £20bn) since the country is not being threatened with attack by a nuclear power, and its nuclear weapons are not likely to deter what are regarded as its main enemies, ie terrorists.

Hence the first sea lord welcomed the commitment by David Cameron last month to a "full spectrum" navy, which he said should include "proper carriers with credible numbers of jets, properly supported [by] credible numbers of people".

Unashamedly, Zambellas continued: "We must argue relentlessly that if we want to be a credible nation, then we need a credible Navy."

Perhaps the first sea lord was stung into such fighting talk by suggestions at the end of last year by General Sir Nick Houghton, the chief of defence staff, that Britain has increasingly spent money on large capital programmes to provide the shipbuilding industry with work rather than the military with what it needed.

After referring to "exquisite equipment, but insufficient resources to man that equipment or train on it", Houghton added that "across defence I would identify the Royal Navy as being perilously close to its critical mass in manpower terms".

Now the government is close to a deal to buy the first batch of fourteen F35 Lightning jets to fly from the carriers at an estimated £58m each.

If long-term running costs for Britain's Lightning fleet are also taken into account, the deal will cost some £2.5bn, according to Mark Urban, BBC Newsight's defence and diplomatic editor.

The Ministry of Defence wants to buy 48 Lightnings to start flying from at least one of the carriers from 2020, eight years later than they were originally due to start flying.

The deal is unsurprisingly enthusiastically backed by Sir Jonathon Band, a former first sea lord and now non-executive director of the UK arm of Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the Lightnings.

The MoD do not deny reports that the plane still has technical problems, mainly to do with software, which could further delay their entry into service.

Some defence analysts say the planes will also be slower, and with a more limited range, than first anticipated, and vulnerable to the increasing sophistication and range of missiles being developed by potentialy hostile countries, including China.

And while the Navy prepares to get the largest ships in its history, and the most expensive jets, the Army, which is to be shrunk from more than 100,000 to 82,000 by 2020, and is under severe budgetary pressure, is engaged in immediate, vital, work - saving British homes from floods.