F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken,
Spiro Agnew was an 
. He resigned as VPOTUS in disgrace and then was charged with extortion, tax fraud, bribery and conspiracy. He served time in jail, was disbarred as a lawyer and is considered by many to be the worst VPOTUS in American history.
I don't believe anyone on this thread or other threads are a least bit impressed with your sick need to research, develop and attach derogatory names to those that disagree with your statements and positions. So why don't you just give it up and stop the name calling - period?
In case you haven't figured it out yet, the F-35 Program is a disaster, it's late, it's not technically close to what was promised (including the engine), it's a poorly managed program and it's way, way, WAY over budget. IMHO, continuing on the track that it is on will weaken the US armed forces who will sacrifice sounder future programs and equipment while paying in years to come for this turkey, called the F-35. I don't think I can be much clearer in what I think of it.
I thought the term fit well to describe the many on this thread who have made a hobby (and apparently some a profession) of pronouncing doom of the F-35. I also liked Spiro's "4H Club: Hopeless, hysterical, hypochondriacs of history." I chose to use the nattering nabobs of negativism term in reply to the charge of me being an "F-35 fanboy." If nabob is considered offensive, maybe I should switch to "F-35 4H Club".
. He resigned as VPOTUS in disgrace and then was charged with extortion, tax fraud, bribery and conspiracy. He served time in jail, was disbarred as a lawyer and is considered by many to be the worst VPOTUS in American history.I don't believe anyone on this thread or other threads are a least bit impressed with your sick need to research, develop and attach derogatory names to those that disagree with your statements and positions. So why don't you just give it up and stop the name calling - period?
In case you haven't figured it out yet, the F-35 Program is a disaster, it's late, it's not technically close to what was promised (including the engine), it's a poorly managed program and it's way, way, WAY over budget. IMHO, continuing on the track that it is on will weaken the US armed forces who will sacrifice sounder future programs and equipment while paying in years to come for this turkey, called the F-35. I don't think I can be much clearer in what I think of it.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And in the meantime you have the USAF "Incredible Shrinking Fighter Force". For all the denials, the cuts are coming, and the spiral becoming recognisable - again.....
US Air Force Cuts Five F-35 Fighter Jets From Budget Request
US Air Force Cuts Five F-35 Fighter Jets From Budget Request
Turbine D, I'd like you to stop sugar coating it and tell us how you really feel. 
As to "progress" in the F-35, I recall a term from my acquisition days that "progress payments" is a term of art that means checks get approved to the supplier/contractor for work that meets program goals or contract requirements.
So here's my question: is the F-35 program making progress, or only making progress payments?
As to "progress" in the F-35, I recall a term from my acquisition days that "progress payments" is a term of art that means checks get approved to the supplier/contractor for work that meets program goals or contract requirements.
So here's my question: is the F-35 program making progress, or only making progress payments?
Lonewolf,
We had the same issue when I was involved in what was then called Eurofighter. Milestones met were supposed to equate to payments. Unfortunately, when milestones were not achieved the pressure was to make the payments anyway because the country couldn't afford to risk putting the companies out of business. I guess they became "lack of progress payments".
We had the same issue when I was involved in what was then called Eurofighter. Milestones met were supposed to equate to payments. Unfortunately, when milestones were not achieved the pressure was to make the payments anyway because the country couldn't afford to risk putting the companies out of business. I guess they became "lack of progress payments".
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf,
I would think the F-35 contract with L-M would be a progress payment type of contract. Certainly, the T&Cs would further define specific requirements. There is always a tug-a-war going on as you know, fiscal year money to be spent in the fiscal year and the question can it be spent or will it be lost if it isn't spent. So the push is on to spend the money while it is available and that is what I think you see going on, "Of course we are making progress". A classic progress payment plan example as defined in FAR regulations makes it more imperative get on with it to get the money spent (all within Federal laws):
Section I:
Contract price
$2,850,000
Change orders and unpriced orders
(to extent funds have been obligated)
$150,000
Revised contract price
$3,000,000
Section II:
Total costs incurred to date
$2,700,000
Estimated additional costs to complete
$900,000
Total costs to complete
$3,600,000
Loss ratio factor
$3,000,000/$3,600,000 = 83.3%
Total costs eligible for progress payments
$2,700,000
Loss ratio factor
× 83.3%
Recognized costs for progress payments
$2,249,100
Progress payment rate
× 80.0%
Alternate amount to be used
$1,799,280
Section III:
Factored costs of items delivered*
$750,000
Recognized costs applicable to undelivered items ($2,249,100–$750,000)
$1,499,100
*This amount must be the same as the contract price of the items delivered.
I would think the F-35 contract with L-M would be a progress payment type of contract. Certainly, the T&Cs would further define specific requirements. There is always a tug-a-war going on as you know, fiscal year money to be spent in the fiscal year and the question can it be spent or will it be lost if it isn't spent. So the push is on to spend the money while it is available and that is what I think you see going on, "Of course we are making progress". A classic progress payment plan example as defined in FAR regulations makes it more imperative get on with it to get the money spent (all within Federal laws):
Section I:
Contract price
$2,850,000
Change orders and unpriced orders
(to extent funds have been obligated)
$150,000
Revised contract price
$3,000,000
Section II:
Total costs incurred to date
$2,700,000
Estimated additional costs to complete
$900,000
Total costs to complete
$3,600,000
Loss ratio factor
$3,000,000/$3,600,000 = 83.3%
Total costs eligible for progress payments
$2,700,000
Loss ratio factor
× 83.3%
Recognized costs for progress payments
$2,249,100
Progress payment rate
× 80.0%
Alternate amount to be used
$1,799,280
Section III:
Factored costs of items delivered*
$750,000
Recognized costs applicable to undelivered items ($2,249,100–$750,000)
$1,499,100
*This amount must be the same as the contract price of the items delivered.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spiro Agnew was an . He resigned as VPOTUS in disgrace and then was charged with extortion, tax fraud, bribery and conspiracy. He served time in jail, was disbarred as a lawyer and is considered by many to be the worst VPOTUS in American history.
. He resigned as VPOTUS in disgrace and then was charged with extortion, tax fraud, bribery and conspiracy. He served time in jail, was disbarred as a lawyer and is considered by many to be the worst VPOTUS in American history.
I don't believe anyone on this thread or other threads are a least bit impressed with your sick need to research develop and attach derogatory names to those that disagree with your statements and positions. So why don't you just give it up and stop the name calling - period?
And since you missed my very transparent sarcasm last time and then denied it was sarcasm when I pointed it out, the last three items were sarcasm.
In case you haven't figured it out yet, the F-35 Program is a disaster, it's late, it's not technically close to what was promised (including the engine), it's a poorly managed program and it's way, way, WAY over budget. IMHO, continuing on the track that it is on will weaken the US armed forces who will sacrifice sounder future programs and equipment while paying in years to come for this turkey, called the F-35. I don't think I can be much clearer in what I think of it.
Now, excuse me if I repeat myself. Despite your deeply held and clearly stated opinion, several nations who understand the capabilities, the shortcomings, the problems, and the price of the F-35 much more deeply and extensively than you and every other person on this thread, and who understand the capabilities, lower prices, and availability of several alternatives to the F-35 have nevertheless chosen to buy the F-35. And are clearly doing so rather enthusiastically. That is a fact. Sorry if such facts offend you.
Well, Ken, you might be less open to being called a liar if you didn't make up, like the alleged 4gen helmet, or post questionable stuff like the extra apertures in the F-35I wing (which I haven't heard of anywhere and that you didn't back up).
Nor would you be called a "poser" if you didn't attempt to double down on your misinformation by bragging about your super secret brief with VSI.
And if you didn't keep repeating the thoroughly aired and very questionable argumentum ad verecundiam about the partner nations, which we've heard over and over again from the tedious kiddies who infest other forums, nobody would call you a fanboy.
up, like the alleged 4gen helmet, or post questionable stuff like the extra apertures in the F-35I wing (which I haven't heard of anywhere and that you didn't back up). Nor would you be called a "poser" if you didn't attempt to double down on your misinformation by bragging about your super secret brief with VSI.
And if you didn't keep repeating the thoroughly aired and very questionable argumentum ad verecundiam about the partner nations, which we've heard over and over again from the tedious kiddies who infest other forums, nobody would call you a fanboy.
To whom this applies:
Half of the current page of this thread, and I suppose a pretty healthy fraction of the entire thread is devoted to name-calling and cat-fighting. Why?
For those who prefer to express negative comments about one another rather than talk about the intended topic of this thread, why not do it somewhere else? If you need to, do it by private message. Failing that, start a new thread about how awful and stupid "experts" other than yourself are.
There's plenty to discuss about the pro's and con's of airplanes, programs and such, and some of the rest of us are actually interested in military aviation.
For those who prefer to express negative comments about one another rather than talk about the intended topic of this thread, why not do it somewhere else? If you need to, do it by private message. Failing that, start a new thread about how awful and stupid "experts" other than yourself are.
There's plenty to discuss about the pro's and con's of airplanes, programs and such, and some of the rest of us are actually interested in military aviation.
GN - It's messy, I know. But if you pass through the history of this thread, you'll find people whose entire MO is to disrupt the discussion by making the same tired arguments over and over again.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
several nations who understand the capabilities, the shortcomings, the problems, and the price of the F-35 much more deeply and extensively than you and every other person on this thread, and who understand the capabilities, lower prices, and availability of several alternatives to the F-35 have nevertheless chosen to buy the F-35. And are clearly doing so rather enthusiastically. That is a fact. Sorry if such facts offend you.
Defense News quoted an official in the IDF General Staff as saying that:
“It’s unbelievable, first it was $40 million to $50 million, and then they [the IAF] told us $70 million to $80 million. Now, we’re looking at nearly three times that amount, and who’s to say it won’t continue to climb?”
“It’s unbelievable, first it was $40 million to $50 million, and then they [the IAF] told us $70 million to $80 million. Now, we’re looking at nearly three times that amount, and who’s to say it won’t continue to climb?”
Not to worry, though, the American taxpayers will make up the overrun to the Israelis...
Last edited by Turbine D; 5th Feb 2016 at 16:38. Reason: spelling
This thread does have a certain "hamster wheel" quality to it. I've probably repeated myself or my position more than once over the course of the years it has been open ... but I don't think that has disrupted any discussion (other than inducing a few of our esteemed colleagues to spray on their screens with coffee/bee while exclaiming "has LW lost the plot, again?" in the privacy of their own homes ... )
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbine D : The above statement is for their first 75 F-35s. Sounds like they are having the same credibility problem with their air force (IAF) we are having with ours.
Not to worry, though, the American taxpayers will make up the overrun to the Israelis...
Not to worry, though, the American taxpayers will make up the overrun to the Israelis...
this is the package cost for the FMS so far.
Korea 9/14/2014 40 units $6277.0 All 40 aircraft will be the F-35A aircraft.
Japan 5/23/2014 10 units $2263.4 Japan signed an amendment to add four F-35A's delivered from a Japan F-35 Final Assembly and Checkout facility in 2018. There is an option to purchase 32 additional F-35A aircraft.
Israel 9/30/2010 19 units $2623.3 All 19 aircraft will be the F-35A aircraft.
@TD, aren't you in the back channel planning CONOPS PM's, I was included when the plan to 'deal' with KenV was being hatched. I found it all both enlightening and very amusing
Last edited by a1bill; 5th Feb 2016 at 22:36.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a1bill:
I was not, you need to tell me about the details as you apparently were.
The Israelis always know the history (dates) and what costs were supposed to be and now are. Believe me, they would be out of the F-35 program if it were not for the amount of money expended at IAI in support of the F-35 program, the technology that is contained within the F-35s they want to learn more about and if the costs keep going up, they will reconsider what to do, less F-35s and new orders for less expensive aircraft.
@TD, aren't you in the back channel planning CONOPS PM's, I was included when the plan to 'deal' with KenV was being hatched.
The Israelis always know the history (dates) and what costs were supposed to be and now are. Believe me, they would be out of the F-35 program if it were not for the amount of money expended at IAI in support of the F-35 program, the technology that is contained within the F-35s they want to learn more about and if the costs keep going up, they will reconsider what to do, less F-35s and new orders for less expensive aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf,
The hamster wheel potential is kept alive by statements like this in rebuttal to the DOT&E report. The second sentence is but one that keeps it going. I don't think it was the intention to have given JPO either the time or budget they run on. The engine fix is another.
This thread does have a certain "hamster wheel" quality to it. I've probably repeated myself or my position more than once over the course of the years it has been open ...
Although the DOT&E report is factually accurate, it does not fully address program efforts to resolve known technical challenges and schedule risks. It is the F-35 Joint Program Office’s responsibility to find developmental issues, resolve them and execute with the time and budget we have been given. Our government and industry team has a proven track record of overcoming technical challenges discovered during developmental and operational testing and fleet operations, and delivering on program commitments. A few recent examples of issues that are resolved include the F-35C tailhook, the F135 engine rub, and F-35B STOVL Auxiliary Air Inlet door. The F-35C has now “caught the wire” more than 200 times at sea, the engine rub fix is incorporated on the production line and delivered engines are being retrofitted, and the F‑35B has performed more than 1,000 vertical landings safely.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@TD, I think that would be inappropriate. I didn't say to Ken about the contents, so I wouldn't say the details on open forum.
Other than the super hornet, that is very close to the F-35 in price when you add the pods etc. I'm having trouble finding cheaper fighters. Which one/s are you thinking of? That's not even allowing for the superiority of the F-35's capability.
Other than the super hornet, that is very close to the F-35 in price when you add the pods etc. I'm having trouble finding cheaper fighters. Which one/s are you thinking of? That's not even allowing for the superiority of the F-35's capability.
Last edited by a1bill; 6th Feb 2016 at 03:56.
Ha, our sub-pontine Digger surfaces just in time to be proved wrong about future USAF buys...
Exclusive: Pentagon's budget plan funds 404 Lockheed F-35 jets - sources | Reuters
Doesn't look as if there will be many more than 48 any time in the FYDP. As reported in November.
But never fear. It will get to 80 in the 2020s after the BCA caps expire, the Pentagon wins the lottery and President Cyrus appoints Lena Dunham as SecAF.
Exclusive: Pentagon's budget plan funds 404 Lockheed F-35 jets - sources | Reuters
Doesn't look as if there will be many more than 48 any time in the FYDP. As reported in November.
But never fear. It will get to 80 in the 2020s after the BCA caps expire, the Pentagon wins the lottery and President Cyrus appoints Lena Dunham as SecAF.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a1bill,
Lets look at the superiority of the F-35As, but only the typical USAF version.
First of all, Lockheed-Martin (LM for short), upon winning the JSF award said verbally and in their advertising, their F-35 fighter was going to be the best all around fighter in the world, unmatched by any, anywhere. Then as their boasting slowly melted away over 15 years of continued development, it was announced the F-35 was never planned to be an air to air fighter, it was only planned to be an air to ground attack fighter. So how does the superior F-35 and its capabilities stack up with the free world's comparable aircraft?
A. Surprising the enemy without being surprised Best to worst rating:
1. Rafale, 2. Typhoon, 3. F-22, 4. F-35, 5. Gripen, 6. F-16, 7. F-18, 8. F-15.
B.Outnumbering the enemy in the air
Depends on various factors:
B1. Costs
Unit flyaway costs when adjusted for inflation to FY 2013 USD are 126 million USD for F-15C, 70 million USD for F-16C, 68 million USD for F-18C, 273 million USD for F-22A, 188 million USD for F-35A, 127 million USD for Typhoon, 95 million USD for Rafale C and 44 million USD for Gripen C, all in FY2013 USD. As a result, 10 billion USD gives 79 F-15Cs, 142 F-16Cs, 147 F-18Cs, 36 F-22As, 53 F-35As, 78 Typhoons, 105 Raffles and 227 Gripens.
B2. Downtime for maintenance or resulting sorties per day
Number of sorties per aircraft per day is 1 for F-15, 1,2 for F-16 and F-18, 0,5 for F-22, 0,3 for F-35.
Overall best to worst rating:
1. Gripen, 2. Rafale, 3. F-18, 4. F-16, 5. Typhoon, 6. F-15, 7. F-22, 8. F-35.
C. Outmaneuvering the enemy
Now I know this is contentious as the F-35 isn't an air to air dog fighter, but there comes a time when the two air to air missiles have been expended and there is no supporting coverage from one or more of the 200 or so F-22s. So looking at 5 maneuvering characteristics, Overall best to worst rating:
1. Gripen, 2. Rafale, 3. F-18, 4. F-16, 5. Typhoon, 6. F-15, 7. F-22, 8. F-35.
D. Outlasting the enemy, Fuel Fraction: Best to worst rating
1. Rafale, 2. Typhoon, 3. F-22, 4. F-16C, 5. Gripen C, 6. F-15C, 7. F-35A, 8. F-18C.
E. Achieving reliable kills : Best to worst
Guns: Rafale 5, Gripen/Typhoon 4, F-15/16/18 3, F-35 2, F-22 1.
WVR missiles: Gripen/Typhoon 5, Rafale 4, F-15/16/18 3, F-22/35 2.
BVR missiles: Rafale 5, others 4.
Overall reliable kills rating:
1. Rafale, 2. Gripen, Typhoon, 3. US teen-series fighters, 4. F-35, 5. F-22.
So, looking at everything, although no one fighter is perfect, the best to worse:
1. Rafale, 2. Typhoon, 3. Gripen, 4. F-22, 5. F-16, 6. F-15, F-35, 7. F-18.
However, all of this info is nice to know but will not make an iota of difference as we plod along the path of the superior F-35 saga, mile to go before we sleep, miles to go before we sleep. BTW, JPO leader General Bogdan is having trouble sleeping thinking about how much the maintenance costs are going to be for the F-35...
That's not even allowing for the superiority of the F-35's capability.
First of all, Lockheed-Martin (LM for short), upon winning the JSF award said verbally and in their advertising, their F-35 fighter was going to be the best all around fighter in the world, unmatched by any, anywhere. Then as their boasting slowly melted away over 15 years of continued development, it was announced the F-35 was never planned to be an air to air fighter, it was only planned to be an air to ground attack fighter. So how does the superior F-35 and its capabilities stack up with the free world's comparable aircraft?
A. Surprising the enemy without being surprised Best to worst rating:
1. Rafale, 2. Typhoon, 3. F-22, 4. F-35, 5. Gripen, 6. F-16, 7. F-18, 8. F-15.
B.Outnumbering the enemy in the air
Depends on various factors:
B1. Costs
Unit flyaway costs when adjusted for inflation to FY 2013 USD are 126 million USD for F-15C, 70 million USD for F-16C, 68 million USD for F-18C, 273 million USD for F-22A, 188 million USD for F-35A, 127 million USD for Typhoon, 95 million USD for Rafale C and 44 million USD for Gripen C, all in FY2013 USD. As a result, 10 billion USD gives 79 F-15Cs, 142 F-16Cs, 147 F-18Cs, 36 F-22As, 53 F-35As, 78 Typhoons, 105 Raffles and 227 Gripens.
B2. Downtime for maintenance or resulting sorties per day
Number of sorties per aircraft per day is 1 for F-15, 1,2 for F-16 and F-18, 0,5 for F-22, 0,3 for F-35.
Overall best to worst rating:
1. Gripen, 2. Rafale, 3. F-18, 4. F-16, 5. Typhoon, 6. F-15, 7. F-22, 8. F-35.
C. Outmaneuvering the enemy
Now I know this is contentious as the F-35 isn't an air to air dog fighter, but there comes a time when the two air to air missiles have been expended and there is no supporting coverage from one or more of the 200 or so F-22s. So looking at 5 maneuvering characteristics, Overall best to worst rating:
1. Gripen, 2. Rafale, 3. F-18, 4. F-16, 5. Typhoon, 6. F-15, 7. F-22, 8. F-35.
D. Outlasting the enemy, Fuel Fraction: Best to worst rating
1. Rafale, 2. Typhoon, 3. F-22, 4. F-16C, 5. Gripen C, 6. F-15C, 7. F-35A, 8. F-18C.
E. Achieving reliable kills : Best to worst
Guns: Rafale 5, Gripen/Typhoon 4, F-15/16/18 3, F-35 2, F-22 1.
WVR missiles: Gripen/Typhoon 5, Rafale 4, F-15/16/18 3, F-22/35 2.
BVR missiles: Rafale 5, others 4.
Overall reliable kills rating:
1. Rafale, 2. Gripen, Typhoon, 3. US teen-series fighters, 4. F-35, 5. F-22.
So, looking at everything, although no one fighter is perfect, the best to worse:
1. Rafale, 2. Typhoon, 3. Gripen, 4. F-22, 5. F-16, 6. F-15, F-35, 7. F-18.
However, all of this info is nice to know but will not make an iota of difference as we plod along the path of the superior F-35 saga, mile to go before we sleep, miles to go before we sleep. BTW, JPO leader General Bogdan is having trouble sleeping thinking about how much the maintenance costs are going to be for the F-35...
You have to admire the optimism in that report.
With a bottom line that the US will be buying fewer aircraft than planned, even with the program slippage, they still throw around numbers about that reflect that the international customers will still buy all of theirs…. on time, at the vastly increased price, but with a lower capability than envisaged, at a slower paced capability growth path, with less work for their own industry base and with a-yet-unspecified amount of blank-cheque depot-level recovery work at a date TBD.
There is a chance that their optimism about the deep pockets and blind faith required of these customers may be misplaced.
With a bottom line that the US will be buying fewer aircraft than planned, even with the program slippage, they still throw around numbers about that reflect that the international customers will still buy all of theirs…. on time, at the vastly increased price, but with a lower capability than envisaged, at a slower paced capability growth path, with less work for their own industry base and with a-yet-unspecified amount of blank-cheque depot-level recovery work at a date TBD.
There is a chance that their optimism about the deep pockets and blind faith required of these customers may be misplaced.