JSF and A400M at risk?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bristol
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A400M first flight will take place at 9am (GMT) on Friday 11th Dec. The 1 to 3 hour test flight will take place from Airbus Military site in Sevilla.
www.airbusmilitary.com
www.airbusmilitary.com
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BERLIN, Dec 9 (Reuters) - European aerospace group EADS is seeking 5 billion euros extra from the countries which have ordered the delayed Airbus A400M military transporter, a spokesman for the German defence ministry said on Wednesday. The spokesman said the German government was now assessing the request made by EADS. Earlier, a senior official said EADS had not made any additional requests for the A400M.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>If quantity ordered then the UK will have to pay an extra 700 million euros (@632 million in english money) or thereabouts. Great.
An increase of £632m the same day as the Chancellor indicated that Defence as not one of the exempted Departments (schools, health, police) will see its budget sink by 14% in the first three years of the next Parliament - or about £5.3bn p.a.
Nope don't see it!
And we say again, "B0LL0CKS"! Which part of fixed-price have I missed?
Tell Airbus to ram it and honour the existing contract.
S41
An increase of £632m the same day as the Chancellor indicated that Defence as not one of the exempted Departments (schools, health, police) will see its budget sink by 14% in the first three years of the next Parliament - or about £5.3bn p.a.
Nope don't see it!
And we say again, "B0LL0CKS"! Which part of fixed-price have I missed?
Tell Airbus to ram it and honour the existing contract. S41
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First flight
@ Squirrel 41
Whatever your (and others') understandable frustration in very straitened times, I'm sure you'll be with me (and others) in wishing the crew and aircraft a successful first (and subsequent) flight tomorrow morning.
The to-ings and fro-ings of negotiations (including any "get out" clauses the UK government may have to deal with, let alone how to pay for substitutes) will happen in the Ministerial stratosphere, and we poor mortals will just have to view (and accept) events from afar.
While I'm happily retired from the daily round of toil, you're clearly much more directly concerned - me, I just hope that the RAF will eventually get the Transport fleet it needs - if commitments in sandy places aren't found to be too expensive as well ...
Whatever your (and others') understandable frustration in very straitened times, I'm sure you'll be with me (and others) in wishing the crew and aircraft a successful first (and subsequent) flight tomorrow morning.
The to-ings and fro-ings of negotiations (including any "get out" clauses the UK government may have to deal with, let alone how to pay for substitutes) will happen in the Ministerial stratosphere, and we poor mortals will just have to view (and accept) events from afar.
While I'm happily retired from the daily round of toil, you're clearly much more directly concerned - me, I just hope that the RAF will eventually get the Transport fleet it needs - if commitments in sandy places aren't found to be too expensive as well ...
Last edited by Jig Peter; 10th Dec 2009 at 16:00. Reason: small afterthought
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Hmmm, the latest hearing on the JSF was suddenly switched from a public hearing to a secret hearing. See Sweetman in AWST below.
If you want to know why, I suspect it's the JET forecast in the second article, where they think there could be an up to 30 month additional slip as well as the additional 6 months already admitted.
That will put the price through the roof.
JSF Hearing Closed
At the last minute, the Senate canceled a public hearing on the Joint Strike Fighter program that was to have taken place today. Instead, the scheduled witnesses - including procurement chief Ashton Carter, JSF program director Mike Heinz and a representative from the Joint Estimating Team (in the role of Inspector Javert) - will brief the Armed Services Committee in closed session.
It's very generous of the Senate majority to spare program critics the humiliation of hearing witness after witness say that the program is in excellent shape, and that defense secretary Robert Gates' dismissal of the first JET report last year was an act of supreme foresight and wisdom.
Well, actually, my first response to the original hearing announcement was to quote Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "A spanking! A spanking!" But now we'll just have to wait for the leaks.
But the trade press will be breathing a sigh of relief - because the hearing clashed with the Aerospace Industries Association's big holiday luncheon at the Mayflower. Personal congratulations to Graham, by the way, on winning the AIA's Lyman Award - I would love to be there but I'm closing DTI's Defense 2010 special in New York.
By the way, yesterday marked a month since stealth paperweight BF-1 arrived at Patuxent River.
-----------------------------------------------------
Pentagon Eyes More Cautious JSF Test Plan
Officials at the Pentagon appear poised to take a more conservative approach to the $300-billion Joint Strike Fighter program after design changes, parts shortages and out-of-sequence work severely delayed completion of development aircraft.
Officials at Lockheed Martin maintain the problems are finally under control and they expect a six-month slip in completing development deliveries.
But Pentagon leaders project this could slide six months more, while up to 30 extra months could be needed to complete development, now planned for October 2014. In this, they appear to be siding with the independent Joint Estimate Team’s (JET) “worst-case” projections.
If you want to know why, I suspect it's the JET forecast in the second article, where they think there could be an up to 30 month additional slip as well as the additional 6 months already admitted.
That will put the price through the roof.
JSF Hearing Closed
At the last minute, the Senate canceled a public hearing on the Joint Strike Fighter program that was to have taken place today. Instead, the scheduled witnesses - including procurement chief Ashton Carter, JSF program director Mike Heinz and a representative from the Joint Estimating Team (in the role of Inspector Javert) - will brief the Armed Services Committee in closed session.
It's very generous of the Senate majority to spare program critics the humiliation of hearing witness after witness say that the program is in excellent shape, and that defense secretary Robert Gates' dismissal of the first JET report last year was an act of supreme foresight and wisdom.
Well, actually, my first response to the original hearing announcement was to quote Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "A spanking! A spanking!" But now we'll just have to wait for the leaks.
But the trade press will be breathing a sigh of relief - because the hearing clashed with the Aerospace Industries Association's big holiday luncheon at the Mayflower. Personal congratulations to Graham, by the way, on winning the AIA's Lyman Award - I would love to be there but I'm closing DTI's Defense 2010 special in New York.
By the way, yesterday marked a month since stealth paperweight BF-1 arrived at Patuxent River.
-----------------------------------------------------
Pentagon Eyes More Cautious JSF Test Plan
Officials at the Pentagon appear poised to take a more conservative approach to the $300-billion Joint Strike Fighter program after design changes, parts shortages and out-of-sequence work severely delayed completion of development aircraft.
Officials at Lockheed Martin maintain the problems are finally under control and they expect a six-month slip in completing development deliveries.
But Pentagon leaders project this could slide six months more, while up to 30 extra months could be needed to complete development, now planned for October 2014. In this, they appear to be siding with the independent Joint Estimate Team’s (JET) “worst-case” projections.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
United Kingdom Announces Approval of Third F-35B Joint Strike Fighter Purchase
The Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) program has announced that the United Kingdom has received financial approval to purchase its third Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II operational test aircraft, reinforcing the U.K.'s continued commitment to the Joint Strike Fighter program's upcoming Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E).
"The U.K. this week received financial approval to go ahead and purchase the third U.K. STOVL OT&E aircraft that is planned within LRIP 4. Given the extremely tight financial climate in the U.K. government and the consequent impact across public spending, especially defence, this is a significant achievement," said Air Commodore Graham Farnell, the U.K.'s Joint Combat Aircraft Team head. "I believe it reflects well upon the JSF program and it is a measure of the confidence that the U.K. has in both the F-35 Lightning II and the program to deliver this capability."
This approval follows recent F-35 down-select or procurement commitments by Australia, Norway, the Netherlands, Italy and the United States. The strength of the F-35 business case has enabled program suppliers to obtain the capital financing needed to recapitalize the industrial base and produce the F-35 in high quantities over the next 30 years.
"The United Kingdom's participation in F-35 Operational Test and Evaluation, and the associated commitment to purchase F-35s in early production lots, help ensure production stability as we move from the current assembly rate of one aircraft per month to our goal of one per day," said Matt Maxwell, Lockheed Martin director for F-35 Low Rate Initial Production.......
The Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) program has announced that the United Kingdom has received financial approval to purchase its third Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II operational test aircraft, reinforcing the U.K.'s continued commitment to the Joint Strike Fighter program's upcoming Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E).
"The U.K. this week received financial approval to go ahead and purchase the third U.K. STOVL OT&E aircraft that is planned within LRIP 4. Given the extremely tight financial climate in the U.K. government and the consequent impact across public spending, especially defence, this is a significant achievement," said Air Commodore Graham Farnell, the U.K.'s Joint Combat Aircraft Team head. "I believe it reflects well upon the JSF program and it is a measure of the confidence that the U.K. has in both the F-35 Lightning II and the program to deliver this capability."
This approval follows recent F-35 down-select or procurement commitments by Australia, Norway, the Netherlands, Italy and the United States. The strength of the F-35 business case has enabled program suppliers to obtain the capital financing needed to recapitalize the industrial base and produce the F-35 in high quantities over the next 30 years.
"The United Kingdom's participation in F-35 Operational Test and Evaluation, and the associated commitment to purchase F-35s in early production lots, help ensure production stability as we move from the current assembly rate of one aircraft per month to our goal of one per day," said Matt Maxwell, Lockheed Martin director for F-35 Low Rate Initial Production.......
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FT.com / Companies / Aerospace & Defence - Airbus threatens to scrap A400M aircraft
Bad new for airbus, great news for more C-17 and 130J. Sounds more like posturing by EADS/Airbust TBH, turkeys dont vote for christmas and Politicians certainly dont vote for job losses in the middle of a recession.
Airbus is threatening to scrap its €20bn ($28.8bn) programme to build the A400M military aircraft, Europe’s most high profile defence project, unless governments agree to come up with more money for it before the end of this month.
“We need to stop this constant drain on resources,” Airbus said on Tuesday. “We’ve asked the governments to take their share of the burden and this needs to be done as soon as possible.”
The threat is seen as a last desperate bid by the European aircraft maker to increase the pressure on the European partner governments that have signed up to the programme, particularly Berlin, to finance the cost overrun on the troubled project.
German is the largest customer for the aircraft and has so far taken a hard line in long-running negotiations to address the rising costs.
Analysts warned that abandoning the programme would be costly for the aircraft maker, which would have to repay €5.7bn in development funding under the original programme contract.
Cancelling the project would also prove hugely embarrassing for Airbus, which exclusively makes commercial airlines and is aiming to break into the defence procurement market via the A400M.
It would also prove a big setback for the main European partners in Nato, the transatlantic military alliance. The impetus for the A400M, which was first conceived in the early 1980s, came after the Kosovo conflict in 1999 which sorely exposed the lack of European military transport capacity.
The contract for the programme was signed in 2003 after Germany budgetary constraints had threatened to kill the programme. The US had strongly opposed the programme at the time in part to protect its near-hegemony over military tranport aircraft. Washington also argued that the funds would be put to better use in other areas addressing the large technology gap between US and other Nato forces.
“We need to stop this constant drain on resources,” Airbus said on Tuesday. “We’ve asked the governments to take their share of the burden and this needs to be done as soon as possible.”
The threat is seen as a last desperate bid by the European aircraft maker to increase the pressure on the European partner governments that have signed up to the programme, particularly Berlin, to finance the cost overrun on the troubled project.
German is the largest customer for the aircraft and has so far taken a hard line in long-running negotiations to address the rising costs.
Analysts warned that abandoning the programme would be costly for the aircraft maker, which would have to repay €5.7bn in development funding under the original programme contract.
Cancelling the project would also prove hugely embarrassing for Airbus, which exclusively makes commercial airlines and is aiming to break into the defence procurement market via the A400M.
It would also prove a big setback for the main European partners in Nato, the transatlantic military alliance. The impetus for the A400M, which was first conceived in the early 1980s, came after the Kosovo conflict in 1999 which sorely exposed the lack of European military transport capacity.
The contract for the programme was signed in 2003 after Germany budgetary constraints had threatened to kill the programme. The US had strongly opposed the programme at the time in part to protect its near-hegemony over military tranport aircraft. Washington also argued that the funds would be put to better use in other areas addressing the large technology gap between US and other Nato forces.
Has Airbus ever repaid the government loans for the development / start up of the airliners? ie the money that Boeing moan about (not that they've also had (diguised) government launch aid)
If Airbus hasn't repaid, maybe its time for the Governments to ask for it.
It was very frustrating to go to A400M meetings and be told that manpower had been transfered to the A380F and the A350 projects at a time when neither had orders and it was plain to all that the A400M was slipping.
If Airbus hasn't repaid, maybe its time for the Governments to ask for it.
It was very frustrating to go to A400M meetings and be told that manpower had been transfered to the A380F and the A350 projects at a time when neither had orders and it was plain to all that the A400M was slipping.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
AWST (Ares): Live or Let Die: the A400M Debate Continues
The future of Europe’s military airlifter, the Airbus Military A400M, has been up in the air for so long, it may be surprising anybody still gets exercised over the issue.
However, with another meeting of government officials pending to discuss the way forward, and Airbus boss Tom Enders signaling he is starting to think about how to wind down the program if there is no future, Europe is stirring once again about what should be done. But, little surprise, there’s no consensus from the commentator circle.
For instance, the Financial Times’s Paul Betters, in his well respected European View column, today argues Airbus should ground “its military albatross.” Betts has an interesting argument: the A400M has been a drag on Airbus’s commercial business and getting rid of the program would allow the company “to do what it does best – building civil aircraft.”
But the German Sueddeutsche Zeitung, in its A400M commentary today, argues that alternative procurements would likely not be cheaper and that the job losses would be considerable.
Government officials will meet mid-January to address the issue once more.
Although previous rounds have failed to bring about a resolution, Airbus is making clear it needs a decision either way, now. That, at least, is a fair position. The financial burn-rate on the program is considerable. And in the unlikely event governments would terminate the A400M, they do owe companies involved the courtesy of doing so promptly to minimize the considerable financial pain.
The future of Europe’s military airlifter, the Airbus Military A400M, has been up in the air for so long, it may be surprising anybody still gets exercised over the issue.
However, with another meeting of government officials pending to discuss the way forward, and Airbus boss Tom Enders signaling he is starting to think about how to wind down the program if there is no future, Europe is stirring once again about what should be done. But, little surprise, there’s no consensus from the commentator circle.
For instance, the Financial Times’s Paul Betters, in his well respected European View column, today argues Airbus should ground “its military albatross.” Betts has an interesting argument: the A400M has been a drag on Airbus’s commercial business and getting rid of the program would allow the company “to do what it does best – building civil aircraft.”
But the German Sueddeutsche Zeitung, in its A400M commentary today, argues that alternative procurements would likely not be cheaper and that the job losses would be considerable.
Government officials will meet mid-January to address the issue once more.
Although previous rounds have failed to bring about a resolution, Airbus is making clear it needs a decision either way, now. That, at least, is a fair position. The financial burn-rate on the program is considerable. And in the unlikely event governments would terminate the A400M, they do owe companies involved the courtesy of doing so promptly to minimize the considerable financial pain.
News from Airbus Military
8 January 2010
A400M flies for third time
The Airbus Military A400M airlifter has flown for the third time as the flight-test programme for the type picks up pace after the year-end break.
In a two hour 25 minute sortie from Seville, Spain on 7th January the test crew concentrated on exploring flight in different aircraft configurations.
The aircraft, known as MSN1, has now completed x hr y min total flying. (sic)
Test pilot Michel Gagneux became the third pilot to fly the aircraft, supporting aircraft captain Nacho Lombo. Airbus head of flight operations Fernando Alonso also flew on the aircraft for the first time, acting as flight test engineer.
Mr Alonso said: “It was a very satisfying moment to take part in this successful third flight. We made considerable progress in further exploring the aircraft’s behaviour in different configurations and were pleased with what we saw. The flight programme is progressing well and in the days ahead, now that the operational flight envelope has been cleared, we will be flying regularly further evaluating the aircraft's handling characteristics and doing initial systems evaluations .”
The rhythm of flight testing is expected to increase substantially in the coming days. Overall, this first aircraft is expected to fly for some 1,200 hours during the 3,700hr test programme involving five aircraft which will lead to first delivery of the type in late 2012.
A400M flies for third time
The Airbus Military A400M airlifter has flown for the third time as the flight-test programme for the type picks up pace after the year-end break.
In a two hour 25 minute sortie from Seville, Spain on 7th January the test crew concentrated on exploring flight in different aircraft configurations.
The aircraft, known as MSN1, has now completed x hr y min total flying. (sic)
Test pilot Michel Gagneux became the third pilot to fly the aircraft, supporting aircraft captain Nacho Lombo. Airbus head of flight operations Fernando Alonso also flew on the aircraft for the first time, acting as flight test engineer.
Mr Alonso said: “It was a very satisfying moment to take part in this successful third flight. We made considerable progress in further exploring the aircraft’s behaviour in different configurations and were pleased with what we saw. The flight programme is progressing well and in the days ahead, now that the operational flight envelope has been cleared, we will be flying regularly further evaluating the aircraft's handling characteristics and doing initial systems evaluations .”
The rhythm of flight testing is expected to increase substantially in the coming days. Overall, this first aircraft is expected to fly for some 1,200 hours during the 3,700hr test programme involving five aircraft which will lead to first delivery of the type in late 2012.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: United States of Bradford
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EADS CEO: Clients Must Share A400M Funding Burden
By PIERRE TRAN
SEVILLE, Spain - EADS Chief Executive Louis Gallois set a Jan. 31 deadline for agreement on a funding pact to finance cost overruns on the A400M, and he said the European aerospace group would not risk its future for the sake of the troubled military airlifter
link: Air Warfare - Defense News
Jan 31st eh? Watch and shoot....
By PIERRE TRAN
SEVILLE, Spain - EADS Chief Executive Louis Gallois set a Jan. 31 deadline for agreement on a funding pact to finance cost overruns on the A400M, and he said the European aerospace group would not risk its future for the sake of the troubled military airlifter
link: Air Warfare - Defense News
Jan 31st eh? Watch and shoot....
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSF order...
Guardian story here MoD to slash jet fighter orders as it struggles to save aircraft programme | UK news | The Guardian
Sowing the seeds for drastic cuts to the planes and the carriers - however it then suggests A or C for the RAF and even 'cheaper catapult launched' Fast Air for the FAA.
Obviously a good source, but not too much exact detail so they have had to pad he story with supposition.
Maybe ZNL should just announce that they are going to close down the military and turn the pilot light out on public service.
Still at least I was able to see the end of boom and bust
Sowing the seeds for drastic cuts to the planes and the carriers - however it then suggests A or C for the RAF and even 'cheaper catapult launched' Fast Air for the FAA.
Obviously a good source, but not too much exact detail so they have had to pad he story with supposition.
Maybe ZNL should just announce that they are going to close down the military and turn the pilot light out on public service.
Still at least I was able to see the end of boom and bust
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF will have no use for JSF. Let those good old chaps use their "ultimate" now rated, air-to-ground Typhoons for that and leave the Navy with either cat-launched or STOVL JSF.
If JSF is required from a land base, I'm sure the guys who are used to landing on a tiny carrier can handle landing on a non-moving, well-lit, "in the same place when I left it" 8000ft runway.
Navy can then specialise in CAS and air-ground, and RAF can sit and drink tea in crewrooms as per.
Ouch! No jokes aside. We cannot be a powerful country without control of the sea. We cannot do that effectively without carriers; and carriers don't serve much purpose without jets. If you don't get carriers what was the point in the 6bn worth of T45 destroyers.
I guess the simple fact is that losing carriers/JSF will mean losing massive capabilities - and therefore unless suitable alternatives are found cannot happen without narrow minded MPs focussing on the short-term. It happened before.... surely not again.
If JSF is required from a land base, I'm sure the guys who are used to landing on a tiny carrier can handle landing on a non-moving, well-lit, "in the same place when I left it" 8000ft runway.
Navy can then specialise in CAS and air-ground, and RAF can sit and drink tea in crewrooms as per.
Ouch! No jokes aside. We cannot be a powerful country without control of the sea. We cannot do that effectively without carriers; and carriers don't serve much purpose without jets. If you don't get carriers what was the point in the 6bn worth of T45 destroyers.
I guess the simple fact is that losing carriers/JSF will mean losing massive capabilities - and therefore unless suitable alternatives are found cannot happen without narrow minded MPs focussing on the short-term. It happened before.... surely not again.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
AWST (Ares):
CHART: F-35B/C operating costs versus Hornets, Harriers
A Pentagon briefing dated 4 January shows a larger number F-35B/Cs in 2029 will cost more to operate over dramatically fewer flying hours than today's fleet of AV-8Bs and F/A-18C/Ds.
The presentation is authored by David E. Burgess, director of the cost department for the Naval Air Systems Command. The chart shows predictions that the F-35B/C fleet will cost more to operate from Fiscal 2020 to FY2045 than the aircraft they replace. The data could be significant as the F-35 program has been justified primarily as a cost-saving effort, with three variants sharing a common design.
JSF Jumping, but How High?
The F-35B STOVL test plane down at Pax has been busy since the new year, spooling up its lift fan and thrusting its nozzle in near-hover tests that engage the one of the most complex propulsion systems since the Yak-38.
We wish Lockheed Martin the best of luck in its tests, but as they go on, Defense Tech and it’s sister sites are starting to wonder if all this effort will be worth it. In a brilliant stroke, the Marine Corps maneuvered to get the B-version of the Lightning tested before the C model. In their quest for an “all STOVL force,” the Corps insists it needs the jump jet F-35. We understand the rational in the abstract, but practically, it makes no sense and sucks resources away from other efforts that could pay off much bigger.
And, ironically, the Navy was smart to shoe horn in their Super Hornet as a hedge against delays in the JSF program back in 1999. And now, as our boys over at DoD Buzz report, the Navy is getting soft on the carrier Lightning as the technical delays mount and the costs soar.
“I’m growing more and more convinced that the Navy variant of the F-35 might not be worth buying. The program is sliding further and further to the right, as costs increase. When we have an 80 percent solution in active production, and significantly cheaper, the F-35C looks like a great candidate for cancellation,” said one congressional aide. “Gates has talked about choosing 75 percent solutions over expensive ‘exquisite’ systems and this is a perfect candidate.”
As big a fan as we are of the MV-22, the analogy of an expensive, technically complex experiment being used for run-of-the mill operations has merit and can be transferred to the JSF as well. Why not replace Harriers with Super Hornets? Really, the Corps rarely operates its jets in true STOVL mode except for flights off an amphib. But that lack of jet capability can be worked around for ARGs (or whatever they’re called now).
Anyway, as the F-35B program progresses and the money people start to take notice of its complexity and cost, there’s going to be a fierce debate over whether giving the Corps its hovering toy is worth it. The Navy might have to abandon its F-35C ambitions (to the extent that they actually wanted that version of the Lightning) and go straight to the UCAS…?
CHART: F-35B/C operating costs versus Hornets, Harriers
A Pentagon briefing dated 4 January shows a larger number F-35B/Cs in 2029 will cost more to operate over dramatically fewer flying hours than today's fleet of AV-8Bs and F/A-18C/Ds.
The presentation is authored by David E. Burgess, director of the cost department for the Naval Air Systems Command. The chart shows predictions that the F-35B/C fleet will cost more to operate from Fiscal 2020 to FY2045 than the aircraft they replace. The data could be significant as the F-35 program has been justified primarily as a cost-saving effort, with three variants sharing a common design.
JSF Jumping, but How High?
The F-35B STOVL test plane down at Pax has been busy since the new year, spooling up its lift fan and thrusting its nozzle in near-hover tests that engage the one of the most complex propulsion systems since the Yak-38.
We wish Lockheed Martin the best of luck in its tests, but as they go on, Defense Tech and it’s sister sites are starting to wonder if all this effort will be worth it. In a brilliant stroke, the Marine Corps maneuvered to get the B-version of the Lightning tested before the C model. In their quest for an “all STOVL force,” the Corps insists it needs the jump jet F-35. We understand the rational in the abstract, but practically, it makes no sense and sucks resources away from other efforts that could pay off much bigger.
And, ironically, the Navy was smart to shoe horn in their Super Hornet as a hedge against delays in the JSF program back in 1999. And now, as our boys over at DoD Buzz report, the Navy is getting soft on the carrier Lightning as the technical delays mount and the costs soar.
“I’m growing more and more convinced that the Navy variant of the F-35 might not be worth buying. The program is sliding further and further to the right, as costs increase. When we have an 80 percent solution in active production, and significantly cheaper, the F-35C looks like a great candidate for cancellation,” said one congressional aide. “Gates has talked about choosing 75 percent solutions over expensive ‘exquisite’ systems and this is a perfect candidate.”
As big a fan as we are of the MV-22, the analogy of an expensive, technically complex experiment being used for run-of-the mill operations has merit and can be transferred to the JSF as well. Why not replace Harriers with Super Hornets? Really, the Corps rarely operates its jets in true STOVL mode except for flights off an amphib. But that lack of jet capability can be worked around for ARGs (or whatever they’re called now).
Anyway, as the F-35B program progresses and the money people start to take notice of its complexity and cost, there’s going to be a fierce debate over whether giving the Corps its hovering toy is worth it. The Navy might have to abandon its F-35C ambitions (to the extent that they actually wanted that version of the Lightning) and go straight to the UCAS…?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good, cancel F-35B
ORAC,
Thanks for this. It's increasingly unclear to me what the strategic point of the F-35B is for the US, to be frank. I understand that the USMC want their own toy, and remember the battle when the USN took their carriers away, and the USMC said "Never Again" etc etc.
But why is the US taxpayer is being asked to fund the most expensive and least capable (payload / range) version of JSF? Presumably because in the depths of the USMC HQ, they can envisage a day when a MEU / ARG (or whatever it's called this week) will have to storm ashore against a credible air to air and double-digit surface to air threat without a CVBG to help.
Ummm....
It just doesn't add up. I get the scenario in which:
(a) a MEU would do its thing with AV-8Bs against the local not very impressive air force and (maybe) some low grade SAM threat.
(b) USMC assets would be involved in first night of the war high intensity stuff.
What I can't see is (b) happening without the support of one of the 11 CVNs.
If this is the case, why press on with the F-35B? Bin it now, and if this means that the USMC needs some new build AV-8B++, fine. But it doesn't need stealth and all the other gubbins from the JSF. For those capabilities, F-35C off the CVNs should be fine.
S41
Thanks for this. It's increasingly unclear to me what the strategic point of the F-35B is for the US, to be frank. I understand that the USMC want their own toy, and remember the battle when the USN took their carriers away, and the USMC said "Never Again" etc etc.
But why is the US taxpayer is being asked to fund the most expensive and least capable (payload / range) version of JSF? Presumably because in the depths of the USMC HQ, they can envisage a day when a MEU / ARG (or whatever it's called this week) will have to storm ashore against a credible air to air and double-digit surface to air threat without a CVBG to help.
Ummm....
It just doesn't add up. I get the scenario in which:
(a) a MEU would do its thing with AV-8Bs against the local not very impressive air force and (maybe) some low grade SAM threat.
(b) USMC assets would be involved in first night of the war high intensity stuff.
What I can't see is (b) happening without the support of one of the 11 CVNs.
If this is the case, why press on with the F-35B? Bin it now, and if this means that the USMC needs some new build AV-8B++, fine. But it doesn't need stealth and all the other gubbins from the JSF. For those capabilities, F-35C off the CVNs should be fine.
S41
USN officials raise concern about F-35 affordability
Article in the latest Flight newsletter
My bold/italics.
I wonder how $30,700 per hour compares with figures in the UK MoD reckoning? More grist for the post-election defence cuts mill?
The US Naval Air Systems Command's top cost estimator has warned in a new internal briefing obtained by Flight International that the Lockheed Martin F-35B/C variants are getting harder to afford.
Lockheed continues to insist, however, that cost estimates within the programme have not changed since 2007, which it says is supported by its recent contractual performance.According to NAVAIR's cost department, the F-35's total ownership costs, including development, production and sustainment, has doubled to $704 billion since Lockheed won the contract eight years ago.
Moreover, NAVAIR estimates the total of 680 short take-off and vertical landing F-35Bs and carrier-variant F-35Cs, ordered by the US Marine Corps and USN, respectively, will cost $30,700 to fly each hour. This compares to $18,900 for the Boeing AV-8B Harrier II and Boeing F/A-18A-D, the aircraft types the Joint Strike Fighter will replace.
Lockheed continues to insist, however, that cost estimates within the programme have not changed since 2007, which it says is supported by its recent contractual performance.According to NAVAIR's cost department, the F-35's total ownership costs, including development, production and sustainment, has doubled to $704 billion since Lockheed won the contract eight years ago.
Moreover, NAVAIR estimates the total of 680 short take-off and vertical landing F-35Bs and carrier-variant F-35Cs, ordered by the US Marine Corps and USN, respectively, will cost $30,700 to fly each hour. This compares to $18,900 for the Boeing AV-8B Harrier II and Boeing F/A-18A-D, the aircraft types the Joint Strike Fighter will replace.
I wonder how $30,700 per hour compares with figures in the UK MoD reckoning? More grist for the post-election defence cuts mill?