F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
It's usual Japanese practice. They did the same with the F-15s - built them all themselves under licence. IIRC the licence for each airframe was about the same as the price of an F-15. It kept Misubishi in work for a few years.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bastardeux, I put up the SAR fa-18ef costings link on the last page, the 2012$ is $66.6m and the 2012$ is $73.5m both in URF also from the SAR I put up for the F-35
Looking at the SAR it seems your "182 F18/EA18 came in at 2013$16 billion" or $88m is a combined PUC.. just to help your argument, the fa-18ef PUC is less and $84M a PUC for the f-35a $96m for year 2018... both in 2012 Y$
on a URF the difference is $6m
on a PUC for the difference is $12m
please show me where I am wrong if you disagree or accept that is the SAR price
CM, yes japan is funny, definitely need to see the spread sheet to see what the game is
Looking at the SAR it seems your "182 F18/EA18 came in at 2013$16 billion" or $88m is a combined PUC.. just to help your argument, the fa-18ef PUC is less and $84M a PUC for the f-35a $96m for year 2018... both in 2012 Y$
on a URF the difference is $6m
on a PUC for the difference is $12m
please show me where I am wrong if you disagree or accept that is the SAR price
CM, yes japan is funny, definitely need to see the spread sheet to see what the game is
Last edited by JSFfan; 29th Apr 2013 at 13:51.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Government Accountability Office
GAO Report: See Pgs. 69-70 for F-22, Pgs. 71-72 for F-35
The GAO Report on major defense acquisitions is prepared for the US Congress and the various Congressional Defense Committees, thereby providing guidance as to the program and cost statuses. I am sure an update will be provided as the budget process begins later this summer.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653379.pdf
In addition:
Institute For Defense Analysis Report:
See Pg. ES-13 F-35 Areas of Weakness
See Pg. ES-25 F-35 General Info.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a519883.pdf
There is a McKinsey Defense report that basically says the same as the above report. They also mention the fact the F-15 and F-16 development programs took 6 years each to complete, the F-22 development program, 20 years and the F-35 Development program 12 years so far but perhaps on track to equal the F-22 program.
TD
GAO Report: See Pgs. 69-70 for F-22, Pgs. 71-72 for F-35
The GAO Report on major defense acquisitions is prepared for the US Congress and the various Congressional Defense Committees, thereby providing guidance as to the program and cost statuses. I am sure an update will be provided as the budget process begins later this summer.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653379.pdf
In addition:
Institute For Defense Analysis Report:
See Pg. ES-13 F-35 Areas of Weakness
See Pg. ES-25 F-35 General Info.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a519883.pdf
There is a McKinsey Defense report that basically says the same as the above report. They also mention the fact the F-15 and F-16 development programs took 6 years each to complete, the F-22 development program, 20 years and the F-35 Development program 12 years so far but perhaps on track to equal the F-22 program.
TD
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see the point you're trying to make, if you look at the timeline and reports of the f-16, it's a brave call to say it was "development took 6 years to complete"
Last edited by JSFfan; 29th Apr 2013 at 14:18.
The F-16/JSF comparison is illuminating.
Demonstrator contracts were issued in 1972 for the F-16 and 1996 for the JSF - so we are now at D+16.5 for JSF, which would be some time in 1988 for the F-16.
By that time the F-16 had been successfully used in air-to-air and air-to-ground operations. The first major upgrade model (Block 25) had been developed, deployed and completed its production run. The alternate engine was in production for the Block 30/32 and the first precision-night-strike-capable Block 40s were being delivered.
Ah ha, say the JSF supporters, the JSF will have precision strike at IOC! But the difference is that LANTIRN was new technology back then, while the JSF doesn't offer much if anything on the offensive end (weapons and sensors) that isn't already in the field.
Demonstrator contracts were issued in 1972 for the F-16 and 1996 for the JSF - so we are now at D+16.5 for JSF, which would be some time in 1988 for the F-16.
By that time the F-16 had been successfully used in air-to-air and air-to-ground operations. The first major upgrade model (Block 25) had been developed, deployed and completed its production run. The alternate engine was in production for the Block 30/32 and the first precision-night-strike-capable Block 40s were being delivered.
Ah ha, say the JSF supporters, the JSF will have precision strike at IOC! But the difference is that LANTIRN was new technology back then, while the JSF doesn't offer much if anything on the offensive end (weapons and sensors) that isn't already in the field.
Last edited by LowObservable; 29th Apr 2013 at 14:27.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, the old build it now and we'll fix it later
smsgtmac wrote
For instance I did note the Block 10s were when the F-16 became nominally ‘useful’ militarily. I’ve described it elsewhere as a WVR “knife-fighter”. It is just that the first ‘full’ capabilities, the ones the AF as an institution wanted all along, came with the Block 30/32.
Oddly, though FSD was turned on in ’75, as late as 1977 there were still NO formal requirements that had been finalized. From the April GAO report "Status of the F-16 Aircraft Program. PSAD-77-41" (which BTW also expresses concerns over F-16 'vulnerability' and other seemingly familiar concerns):
Quote:
In January 1975, the Air Force selected a derivative of the General Dynamics prototype to be the Air Combat Fighter or the F-16. On January 13, 1975, the Air Force awarded a F-16 full-scale development contract to General Dynamics. At that time, the using command, Tactical Air Command, had no specific requirement (Required Operational Capability (ROC)) for the lightweight fighter aircraft…
…Although the Secretary of Defense signed the Memorandum of Understanding and the preliminary contracts, he has not signed the F-16 Decision Coordinating Paper (DCP) which becomes an agreement between the Air the Force and the Office of Secretary of Defense for program cost, schedule and performance goals, and thresholds. As of January 31, 1977, the Air Force has prepared three drafts of DCP 143 for the F-16 aircraft program. The latest DCP draft, dated May 18, 1976, is being reviewed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Although an F-16 DCP has not been signed, the draft version is used as a source document for program management.
But within the same document, the GAO does note the 'planned' armament and mission:
Quote:
Air-to-air mission armament
The F-16 air-to-air armament consists of the 20--mm M61A1 cannon and up to six AIM-9J/L Sidewinder missiles. The Sidewinder is a short range infrared guided missile. In anticipation of the development of a new, more effective radar missile, the Air Force has directed the F-16 contractor to provide the space, weight, power, and cooling provisions necessary for such incorporation.
Air-to-surface mission armament
The F-16 air-to-surface armament includes the Maverick missile, a close air support antiarmor weapon. It will also carry a variety of guided and unguided bombs and will be certified to carry nuclear weapons. Currently, the Air Force considers the F-16's mission mix to be 50 percent air-to-air and 50 percent air-to-surface
.
And even later, the report gets more specific as to what TAC was preparing to levy as requirements:
Quote:
POTENTIAL NEW REQUIREMENTS
The Tactical Air Command did not have a ROC prepared for the F-16 when full-scale development was started in January 1975. The Tactical Air Command's ROC document for the F-16 is still being reviewed by Headquarters USAF. We are unable to comment on the reasonableness of the requirement, however, because Headquarters USAF denied us access to the document.
Tactical Air Command officials stated that the F-16 needs the following equipment to enhance its mission effectiveness or to reduce life cycle costs: an internal rather than a podded external electronic countermeasures set, a Joint Tactical Information Distribution System terminal, a new beyond-visual range air-to-air missile, an engine diagnostic system, a global positioning system receiver, and a video tape recorder..
Farther down in the details that followed, the GAO mentions the expected need for a radar upgrade to replace the original one:
Quote:
New beyond-visual-range missile
Tactical Air Command in conjunction with the Navy has developed a Joint Service Operational Requirement (JSOR) for a lightweight, beyond visual range missile that can be carried in the F-16, F-15, F-18, and F-14.
SPO officials said incorporation of a radar missile in the F-16 would probably require a modification of the F-16 radar and the stores management system, incorporation of missile interface units, and new pylons.
So while the program proceeded into FSD without any real requirements (a lesson for the future?) much of the capabilities sought with the first official requirements list would not come until the Block 30/32.
What is most interesting to me about the F-16 birth and development is how the popular myth of an AF command structure being “dragged to the altar” to buy the F-16 was created in the process. It was really a case of the AF leadership at the highest levels deciding to pursue the LWF the AF wanted (versus the one that had been pushed by the LWF Mafia and was at the time dead in the water) to complement the F-15, because the AF could get more bang for the buck with a ‘high-low’ fleet than they would have gotten with an all F-15 force. Young-uns never hear about how the high-low mix was designed to replace the F-4s because we couldn’t replace the F-4s one for one with all F-15s. As the F-4 was a Fighter-Bomber, and as the F-15 development team’s initial creed was ‘not a pound for air-to-ground’, why would any reasonable person declare the F-16 should not have had air-to-mud capability from the start? The simpler-cheaper, maneuverability ‘uber alles’ crowd has been crowing from the time the F-16’s Configuration Control Committee (that was working on what the AF wanted to put in the requirements mentioned above) was formed under Gen. Alton Slay (the ‘mafia’ disparagingly called it the Configuration Add-On Committee) down to the present day.
The LWF Mafia didn’t get the plane THEY wanted, and woe be unto those who might question their original vision as being desirable. Yet they struggle mightily when asked to account for the incredible success of the planes they’ve denigrated over the years (they usually discount the opposition).
I hate stretched development timelines as well, but the Customer is getting what they want. They want lower annual costs to fit within annual budgets that increase costs and schedule overall.
smsgtmac wrote
For instance I did note the Block 10s were when the F-16 became nominally ‘useful’ militarily. I’ve described it elsewhere as a WVR “knife-fighter”. It is just that the first ‘full’ capabilities, the ones the AF as an institution wanted all along, came with the Block 30/32.
Oddly, though FSD was turned on in ’75, as late as 1977 there were still NO formal requirements that had been finalized. From the April GAO report "Status of the F-16 Aircraft Program. PSAD-77-41" (which BTW also expresses concerns over F-16 'vulnerability' and other seemingly familiar concerns):
Quote:
In January 1975, the Air Force selected a derivative of the General Dynamics prototype to be the Air Combat Fighter or the F-16. On January 13, 1975, the Air Force awarded a F-16 full-scale development contract to General Dynamics. At that time, the using command, Tactical Air Command, had no specific requirement (Required Operational Capability (ROC)) for the lightweight fighter aircraft…
…Although the Secretary of Defense signed the Memorandum of Understanding and the preliminary contracts, he has not signed the F-16 Decision Coordinating Paper (DCP) which becomes an agreement between the Air the Force and the Office of Secretary of Defense for program cost, schedule and performance goals, and thresholds. As of January 31, 1977, the Air Force has prepared three drafts of DCP 143 for the F-16 aircraft program. The latest DCP draft, dated May 18, 1976, is being reviewed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Although an F-16 DCP has not been signed, the draft version is used as a source document for program management.
But within the same document, the GAO does note the 'planned' armament and mission:
Quote:
Air-to-air mission armament
The F-16 air-to-air armament consists of the 20--mm M61A1 cannon and up to six AIM-9J/L Sidewinder missiles. The Sidewinder is a short range infrared guided missile. In anticipation of the development of a new, more effective radar missile, the Air Force has directed the F-16 contractor to provide the space, weight, power, and cooling provisions necessary for such incorporation.
Air-to-surface mission armament
The F-16 air-to-surface armament includes the Maverick missile, a close air support antiarmor weapon. It will also carry a variety of guided and unguided bombs and will be certified to carry nuclear weapons. Currently, the Air Force considers the F-16's mission mix to be 50 percent air-to-air and 50 percent air-to-surface
.
And even later, the report gets more specific as to what TAC was preparing to levy as requirements:
Quote:
POTENTIAL NEW REQUIREMENTS
The Tactical Air Command did not have a ROC prepared for the F-16 when full-scale development was started in January 1975. The Tactical Air Command's ROC document for the F-16 is still being reviewed by Headquarters USAF. We are unable to comment on the reasonableness of the requirement, however, because Headquarters USAF denied us access to the document.
Tactical Air Command officials stated that the F-16 needs the following equipment to enhance its mission effectiveness or to reduce life cycle costs: an internal rather than a podded external electronic countermeasures set, a Joint Tactical Information Distribution System terminal, a new beyond-visual range air-to-air missile, an engine diagnostic system, a global positioning system receiver, and a video tape recorder..
Farther down in the details that followed, the GAO mentions the expected need for a radar upgrade to replace the original one:
Quote:
New beyond-visual-range missile
Tactical Air Command in conjunction with the Navy has developed a Joint Service Operational Requirement (JSOR) for a lightweight, beyond visual range missile that can be carried in the F-16, F-15, F-18, and F-14.
SPO officials said incorporation of a radar missile in the F-16 would probably require a modification of the F-16 radar and the stores management system, incorporation of missile interface units, and new pylons.
So while the program proceeded into FSD without any real requirements (a lesson for the future?) much of the capabilities sought with the first official requirements list would not come until the Block 30/32.
What is most interesting to me about the F-16 birth and development is how the popular myth of an AF command structure being “dragged to the altar” to buy the F-16 was created in the process. It was really a case of the AF leadership at the highest levels deciding to pursue the LWF the AF wanted (versus the one that had been pushed by the LWF Mafia and was at the time dead in the water) to complement the F-15, because the AF could get more bang for the buck with a ‘high-low’ fleet than they would have gotten with an all F-15 force. Young-uns never hear about how the high-low mix was designed to replace the F-4s because we couldn’t replace the F-4s one for one with all F-15s. As the F-4 was a Fighter-Bomber, and as the F-15 development team’s initial creed was ‘not a pound for air-to-ground’, why would any reasonable person declare the F-16 should not have had air-to-mud capability from the start? The simpler-cheaper, maneuverability ‘uber alles’ crowd has been crowing from the time the F-16’s Configuration Control Committee (that was working on what the AF wanted to put in the requirements mentioned above) was formed under Gen. Alton Slay (the ‘mafia’ disparagingly called it the Configuration Add-On Committee) down to the present day.
The LWF Mafia didn’t get the plane THEY wanted, and woe be unto those who might question their original vision as being desirable. Yet they struggle mightily when asked to account for the incredible success of the planes they’ve denigrated over the years (they usually discount the opposition).
I hate stretched development timelines as well, but the Customer is getting what they want. They want lower annual costs to fit within annual budgets that increase costs and schedule overall.
Last edited by JSFfan; 29th Apr 2013 at 15:19.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
where the heck did you imagine japan are making an F35 production line?
Japan?s Next Fighters, From F-X Competition to F-35 Buys
they are buying them like everyone else!
Japan?s Next Fighters, From F-X Competition to F-35 Buys
they are buying them like everyone else!
Well, the bit that said,
Seems to suggest a sort of halfway house.
Media reports aren’t completely precise, but they seem to suggest that Japanese F-35As could eventually fly with up to 40% Japanese manufactured content. Reports and documents indicate that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. will be involved in work on aircraft bodies, Mitsubishi Electric Corp. on mission-related avionics, and IHI Corp. on engines.
I thought someone might quote Sgt Walt.
Given the combat use and extensive frontline deployment of the F-16A, the argument that the 30/32 was the first full-capability jet is a bit like claiming that the Spitfire IX was the first "real" Spitfire. Yes, the USAF did have improvements and add-ons planned early on, but that's simply common sense - and many of the As are still flying with upgrades.
Elsewhere, Sgt Walt argues that the reference F-16 program start date should be the first flight of the YF, but that the equivalent for the JSF is the first flight of AA-1 in 2006 - which makes the JSF program has been as fast as the F-16... Utterly ludicrous. He baffles the kiddies with the usual but makes no sense at all if you know the first thing about history.
Given the combat use and extensive frontline deployment of the F-16A, the argument that the 30/32 was the first full-capability jet is a bit like claiming that the Spitfire IX was the first "real" Spitfire. Yes, the USAF did have improvements and add-ons planned early on, but that's simply common sense - and many of the As are still flying with upgrades.
Elsewhere, Sgt Walt argues that the reference F-16 program start date should be the first flight of the YF, but that the equivalent for the JSF is the first flight of AA-1 in 2006 - which makes the JSF program has been as fast as the F-16... Utterly ludicrous. He baffles the kiddies with the usual but makes no sense at all if you know the first thing about history.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this 'halfway house' actually happens, it will be interesting to see which parts of the airframe Mitsubishi actually produces, I'm assuming the BAE Systems production allocation is ring fenced?
-RP
-RP
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HalloweenJack, can you do me a favour and google what you want to say first, it will save me correcting you and save us both a lot of time..split hairs if you want to production/assembly line
LM may throw some stuff for their frames or subcontract some longer stuff, they are also looking at some Euro stuff...I think the partners will dummy spit if contracts are awarded, but they can subcontract I suppose
LM may throw some stuff for their frames or subcontract some longer stuff, they are also looking at some Euro stuff...I think the partners will dummy spit if contracts are awarded, but they can subcontract I suppose
Last edited by JSFfan; 29th Apr 2013 at 16:16.
RP - As far as I know, yes. BAE/RR have a higher status than subs and most of their work is too complex to be realistically reallocated at this point.
In cases such as Israel, LockMart has, so far, sold off its own share of the work (or it may be planning to transfer work from Italy).
In the past, Japan has been willing to pay the costs of doing work in Japan, even where it is duplicative, and in any case has been prohibited under its constitution from building parts for export. However, they are in the process of amending this law, presumably so they can compete for F-35 work.
It's pretty much impossible to tell in Japan whether the government subsidizes this sort of thing, and how much. However, it is likely that Japan and other FMS nations will be extracting direct offsets from LMT, which will eventually reduce the workshare available to Tier 2/3 partner nation industries. The latter will continue to fight one another on a best-value basis for a shrinking piece of the pie. What was it that PT Barnum said?
In cases such as Israel, LockMart has, so far, sold off its own share of the work (or it may be planning to transfer work from Italy).
In the past, Japan has been willing to pay the costs of doing work in Japan, even where it is duplicative, and in any case has been prohibited under its constitution from building parts for export. However, they are in the process of amending this law, presumably so they can compete for F-35 work.
It's pretty much impossible to tell in Japan whether the government subsidizes this sort of thing, and how much. However, it is likely that Japan and other FMS nations will be extracting direct offsets from LMT, which will eventually reduce the workshare available to Tier 2/3 partner nation industries. The latter will continue to fight one another on a best-value basis for a shrinking piece of the pie. What was it that PT Barnum said?
Originally Posted by JSFfan
it will save me correcting you and save us both a lot of time.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jsffan said "japan is setting up their own production line"
HalloweenJack said "where the heck did you imagine japan are making an F35 production line?"
instead of calling BS, a simple google would have told him and I suggested he fact check in future..
HalloweenJack said "where the heck did you imagine japan are making an F35 production line?"
instead of calling BS, a simple google would have told him and I suggested he fact check in future..
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,583
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
USMC Develop EW Pod for F-35B
Will the UK buy whatever 'EW pod' the USMC develop for their F-35Bs?
Beyond F-35: Rep. Forbes & Adm. Greenert on Cyber, Drones & Carriers
29 Apr 2013 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
Beyond F-35: Rep. Forbes & Adm. Greenert on Cyber, Drones & Carriers
"...Jamming, Cyber, and the Great Convergence...
..."It's out of Schlitz," Gen. James Amos, the Marine Corps Commandant, said of the Prowler in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee. In the near term, as Prowlers retire, the Marines are adding ground-based electronic warfare systems to help fill the gap, he said, "but I think the real replacement for us is the F-35B." The Marines will develop an electronic warfare pod to augment their F-35s, Amos said, but even without such additional equipment -- just using the plane's standard built-in systems -- an F-35B "has about, probably, 85 percent" of the capability of the latest Prowler.
The problem with that plan is that the Marines retire their last Prowler in 2019, while the F-35B squadrons are still building up.
"As we look forward to the F-35 coming into the inventory, there are a lot of capabilities we'll be able to leverage... to offset the sundowning of the Prowlers," said Marine Lt. Gen. Richard Tryon, Amos's deputy commandant for plans, policies, and operations, at the Navy League's Sea-Air-Space Symposium earlier this month...."
Beyond F-35: Rep. Forbes & Adm. Greenert on Cyber, Drones & Carriers
29 Apr 2013 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
Beyond F-35: Rep. Forbes & Adm. Greenert on Cyber, Drones & Carriers
"...Jamming, Cyber, and the Great Convergence...
..."It's out of Schlitz," Gen. James Amos, the Marine Corps Commandant, said of the Prowler in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee. In the near term, as Prowlers retire, the Marines are adding ground-based electronic warfare systems to help fill the gap, he said, "but I think the real replacement for us is the F-35B." The Marines will develop an electronic warfare pod to augment their F-35s, Amos said, but even without such additional equipment -- just using the plane's standard built-in systems -- an F-35B "has about, probably, 85 percent" of the capability of the latest Prowler.
The problem with that plan is that the Marines retire their last Prowler in 2019, while the F-35B squadrons are still building up.
"As we look forward to the F-35 coming into the inventory, there are a lot of capabilities we'll be able to leverage... to offset the sundowning of the Prowlers," said Marine Lt. Gen. Richard Tryon, Amos's deputy commandant for plans, policies, and operations, at the Navy League's Sea-Air-Space Symposium earlier this month...."
The Marines will develop an electronic warfare pod to augment their F-35s, Amos said, but even without such additional equipment -- just using the plane's standard built-in systems -- an F-35B "has about, probably, 85 percent" of the capability of the latest Prowler.
Some capability similar to Growler? (F-18G) OK, I'll bite, but I am still skeptical.
EW for JSF? Surely some here have been assuring us all that the STEALTH fighter was the only thing that would do day one missions because it is the only stealthily option. Now we're going to need EW as well to get it through, what was it all about?
Devil's advocate, but it's question that someone needs to answer.
Oh, by the way. For those that haven't been involved, the first guy I'd like to shoot down is the one emiting all the RF - the jammer. That's why the Soviets made theirs really powerful so that they could stand off. Putting the EW emitter on your supposedly stealth guy who is in the thick of it is like wearing a huge great neon sign saying, "Shoot me!"
Devil's advocate, but it's question that someone needs to answer.
Oh, by the way. For those that haven't been involved, the first guy I'd like to shoot down is the one emiting all the RF - the jammer. That's why the Soviets made theirs really powerful so that they could stand off. Putting the EW emitter on your supposedly stealth guy who is in the thick of it is like wearing a huge great neon sign saying, "Shoot me!"
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 29th Apr 2013 at 21:39.
I should think that the F-35 may in future (when it works in service) have some good receive (ESM) capability. However, what use it makes of it will depend on automation and be limited by the frequency and aspect coverage of whatever active devices it may have.
But Amos has to sell this capability, because eventually you have to ask: where is it that I need a stealthy, supersonic aircraft, but I don't need EA and AEW?
Moreover, developing a stealth-compatible escort-jammer pod won't be cheap, but I suppose the Marines will, as usual, thcream and thcream and thcream until the Navy is told to fund it.
But Amos has to sell this capability, because eventually you have to ask: where is it that I need a stealthy, supersonic aircraft, but I don't need EA and AEW?
Moreover, developing a stealth-compatible escort-jammer pod won't be cheap, but I suppose the Marines will, as usual, thcream and thcream and thcream until the Navy is told to fund it.