Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 6th Jun 2013, 09:55
  #2701 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 457
Thank you JSFfan. The first part of your final sentence is incorrect. That said, a rational discussion is clearly not within your vocabulary so I'll not bother you further.
cuefaye is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 10:09
  #2702 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
we have a budget of $16B/$160m ea, we have just costed it at $140m ea, so we are still under budget,
JSFfan is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 10:53
  #2703 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 48
Posts: 505
Can't quote from a link but word on the Tarmac ( CANSEC 2013) is that the Canadians are seriously considering the new Super Hornet in addition to the JSF whereby they can keep their original goal of operating 86 fighters.
F35's would then be delivered starting in the late 2020's after the SH are delivered (from 2016-17 onwards).

The Brazilians also are leaning towards the SH, which means production well into the 20's.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 11:25
  #2704 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
I can't see it myself, even though aussies have 24sh and a dozen growlers
canada have decent life left in their classic hornets and the cost of running 2 platforms exceed any benefit of the $10m URF difference between the sh and f-35.the extra capabilities are a bonus

Last edited by JSFfan; 6th Jun 2013 at 11:27.
JSFfan is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 11:45
  #2705 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,876
Leaving aside the pros & cons of selection for an uncertain future can anyone tell me who will manufacture the aircraft? I have seen recently a report that Turkey is expecting to do $12B worth of component manufacture, Israel will integrate their own EW and weapons suites, Japan will build their own wings. As a layman I see that the UK has invested a lot (several billion $) and been told it can't have access to certain technologies. Not a Daily Mail reader, but should I be trying to get on an outrage bus?

Last edited by Kitbag; 6th Jun 2013 at 11:46.
Kitbag is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 11:48
  #2706 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
Oz F-35 Budget OK

For 'cuefaye':

Australian Federal Parliament House of Representatives Thursday, 16 May 2013

PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
Department of Defence annual report 2011-12 (Public)

F-16.net
OR
Long Form PDF: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...d10cc710a/0000"

SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR: Welcome. Although the subcommittee does not require you to give evidence on oath, I should advise you that this hearing is a legal proceeding of the parliament and therefore has the same standing as proceedings of the respective houses. The giving of false or misleading evidence is a serious matter and may be regarded as contempt of parliament. The evidence given today will be recorded in Hansard and will attract parliamentary privilege. I invite you to make opening statements.

JONES, Vice Admiral Peter, Chief, Capability Development Group, Department of Defence:
"...From a cost perspective, the approved AIR 6000 phase 2A/B stage 1—that is, the 'first 14 aircraft'—remains within budget. The unapproved AIR 6000 2A and 2B stage 2—that is, the 'next 58 aircraft'—remains within its Defence Capability Plan provision.

There is now strong alignment between the aircraft acquisition cost estimates from the independent US Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Office, the US F-35A Joint Program Office, and the Australian New Air Combat Capability Project Office. However, the aircraft costs are sensitive to US and partner nation purchase profiles. The actual costs for each successive low-rate initial production lot continue to be below the US congressional estimates. Our first two aircraft are expected to be around, or less than, the $130 million estimate that Defence has had since before 2011. Overall, in 2012 dollars and exchange rate at A$1.03 to US dollars, 72 F35As are expected to cost an average of A$83.0 million—unit recurring flyaway cost—if ordered in the 2018-19 to 2023-24 time frame.

The latest official US congressional F-35A cost estimates, sourced from the publicly available Selected Acquisition Report of 2011, are consistent with the Australian estimates and indicate the cost of the F-35A—unit recurring flyaway cost—reducing from a price of about $130 million in US then dollars for aircraft delivered in 2014 reducing over time down to about $82 million in US then dollars for aircraft delivered in the 2020 time frame.

The sustainment costs are high but reducing, and we should see further refinement of these costs now that the F-35A has been fielded at several units in the US. This area is a particular focus of the US JSF Program Office at present, who have been implementing initiatives such as improving the supportability of high-value and high-usage aircraft components; opening up greater competition for sustainment work; and further developing programs to reduce the cost of ownership of F-35A support equipment....

...In conclusion, the New Air Combat Capability Program is progressing within the cost and schedule buffer available and Defence plans to bring forward a submission in 2014 for government consideration of the second pass approval for the next 58 F-35A aircraft...."

Last edited by SpazSinbad; 6th Jun 2013 at 11:54. Reason: Alt Orig URL
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 12:10
  #2707 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 48
Posts: 505
I think you are seriously underestimating the cost of ownership difference between the SH and the F35, certainly when we talk about those countries already operating the Hornet.

Besides the training and implementation which will be substantially cheaper for both ground and aircrews, there is also the fact that all of the weapons in stock remain usable, AAR infrastructure that needs no changes, much of the infrastructure that needs little change.etc... .

Also it would put the 1 vs 2 engines debate to rest and the avionics on the latest SH are at least equal to the F35 with the added benefit of having buddy to buddy refuelling option and the Growler upgrade.

Operating 2 types does make sense starting from a certain number of planes.
they basically can put one type on each base and build its infrastructure around it while keeping an operational centre for the other type on the other base(s).
Arctic patrols with SH aided by the A310's makes a hell of a lot more sense than doing it with the F35.
Also landing on emergency airfields or suitable roads, frozen rivers, etc... will be much more doable with the SH wich basically has the NAVY specced gear.

Also the SH has a lot of growth left in it, the engines are now 22,000lbs but can easily deal with 20%more power.
It can also load up to 8T of weapons and with the new stealthy weapon pod it has the added benefit (contrary to the f35) that it can jettison superfluous loads (tanks, weapon pods, bombs) when it needs to so it can bravely but quickly and light leave the battle-scene heroically to fight another day.

If it was up to me I would go all SH, but the Canadians seem to be holding on to the F35 jobs program no matter what.
This is basically the only way they can keep their position in the F35 program while at the same time keep a credible and sizeable air force.

Besides all that,
It seems that the US Navy is still not giving up on the idea of scrapping the F35C altogether.
Averting the Navy's Tactical Aircraft Crisis | U.S. Naval Institute
kbrockman is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 12:17
  #2708 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
'kbrockman', I guess a USN Ensign knows the 'F-35C for USN' score - however I do not have a subscription to the USNI article you have linked. Care to elaborate.

Averting the Navy's Tactical Aircraft Crisis by Ensign Anthony C. Robinson, U.S. Navy Proceedings Magazine - June 2013 Vol. 139/6/1,324

Also your statement above [quote] needs some explanation I think:

"...[Shornet] it has the added benefit (contrary to the f35) that it can jettison superfluous loads (tanks, weapon pods, bombs) when it needs to so it can bravely but quickly and light leave the battle-scene heroically to fight another day...." [cannot the F-35 dump internal/external loads?]

Last edited by SpazSinbad; 6th Jun 2013 at 12:22.
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 12:24
  #2709 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Janes said the aussies costed the 24 SH at $24k and the 75 f-35 at $21k per hour
when we had 24 sh we were getting rid of them ~2025, because 24 wasn't viable. now with the added growlers we are keeping to ~2030

If they wanted heavy landing, they'd buy the C

the USN isn't supporting the SH after 2030, so canada will have to foot the R&D upgrade bill for 20 years, it may be shared with brazil if they buy.
JSFfan is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 12:30
  #2710 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,470
he USN isn't supporting the SH after 2030, so canada will have to foot the R&D upgrade bill for 20 years, it may be shared with brazil if they buy.
JSFfan, I am skeptical of your assertion there. In that amount of time, program decisions can change. It is now 2013, with FY 2014 around the corner. A wide variety of aircraft were extended well beyond projected retirement dates (SH-2, T-2, F-4, F-14, among others) as program decisions changed over time.

We shall see.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 6th Jun 2013 at 12:30.
Lonewolf_50 is online now  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 12:36
  #2711 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 48
Posts: 505
Originally Posted by SpazSinbad
"...[Shornet] it has the added benefit (contrary to the f35) that it can jettison superfluous loads (tanks, weapon pods, bombs) when it needs to so it can bravely but quickly and light leave the battle-scene heroically to fight another day...." [cannot the F-35 dump external loads?]
A SH, like most other fighters besides the F35, can pretty much clean up, meaning optimize performance by minimizing drag and weight by jettison unwanted loads in the heat of combat when all things start going wrong and a quick exit strategy is needed.
The F35 can lose its loads also but it will still be a very drag prone fighter that, even without weapons and such.
It's like the saying goes, "all that empty space certainly adds a lot of weight and volume".

Originally Posted by SpazSinbad
....SNI article you have linked. Care to elaborate.....
It basically shows that it would be cheaper for the US NAVY to buy F35A's iso F35C and have money left to buy an equal number of NG SHornets.
The SH's would be deployed and the F35A's sold of later to other customers.
This would mean that the original production numbers don't need to go down and money can be saved by the US NAVY because they operate with a much cheaper fighter for which all infrastructure is already in place.
No need for ship mods, base mods and a separate training line (F35).
Basically acc to the study it would be cheaper owning both the F35A and F18SH, while only using 1 of both operationally.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 12:44
  #2712 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 48
Posts: 505
Originally Posted by JSF
the USN isn't supporting the SH after 2030, so canada will have to foot the R&D upgrade bill for 20 years, it may be shared with brazil if they buy.
I think you misread that somewhere.
The F18A/D in the NAVY is supported by Boeing up until 2030, the international F18A/D support is guaranteed by Boeing beyond 2030.
they (Boeing) are not talking about the Super Hornet which will likely be supported at least as long as the EF, meaning at least 2045-2050.

Originally Posted by From Boeing
Additionally, current modernization and service life extension programs for U.S. Navy fleets are planned through 2030 and international F/A-18A-D Hornet fleets are plannedbeyond 2030
BTW,
The MYP-II contract ran from 2005-2009, and was not renewed because the Pentagon intended to focus on the F-35 fighter program. When it became clear that the F-35 program was going to be late, and had serious program and budgetary issues, pressure built to abandon year-by-year contracting, and negotiate another multi-year deal for the current Super Hornet family. That deal is now final. This entry covers the program as a whole, with a focus on 2010-2015 Super Hornet family purchases. It has been updated to include all announced contracts and events connected with MYP-III, including engines and other separate “government-furnished equipment” that figures prominently in the final price.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...ntracts-06392/


You guys realy think support only lasts until 2030 for the SH?
The geriatric TORNADO is still getting a final upgrade to be able to operate until at least 2019-2022 as we speak, almost 40 years past its IOC

Last edited by kbrockman; 6th Jun 2013 at 12:58.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 13:57
  #2713 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
nope, that's the boeing dream, australia is getting rid of classics ~2020, canada is looking at extending to around 2025? date needs to be confirmed, it was one of the options presented to this rethink and is on the net.
usn has stated they want a SH replacement by 2030

usn support meant to be upgrades R&D after 2030, not that there wont be any USN sh flying after 2030

Last edited by JSFfan; 6th Jun 2013 at 14:13.
JSFfan is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 14:02
  #2714 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 1,549
It seems that the US Navy is still not giving up on the idea of scrapping the F35C altogether.
Averting the Navy's Tactical Aircraft Crisis | U.S. Naval Institute
Averting the Navy's Tactical Aircraft Crisis by Ensign Anthony C. Robinson, U.S. Navy Proceedings Magazine - June 2013 Vol. 139/6/1,324
It basically shows that it would be cheaper for the US NAVY to buy F35A's iso F35C and have money left to buy an equal number of NG SHornets.
The SH's would be deployed and the F35A's sold of later to other customers.
This would mean that the original production numbers don't need to go down and money can be saved by the US NAVY because they operate with a much cheaper fighter for which all infrastructure is already in place.
No need for ship mods, base mods and a separate training line (F35).
Basically acc to the study it would be cheaper owning both the F35A and F18SH, while only using 1 of both operationally.
I'd be really careful about ascribing USN policy to a USNI article written by an Ensign.

Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 6th Jun 2013 at 14:03.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 14:46
  #2715 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,470
It basically shows that it would be cheaper for the US NAVY to buy F35A's iso F35C and have money left to buy an equal number of NG SHornets.
kbrockman, the A isn't carrier capable. There is no point in the Navy buying the A's. At all.
There was in fact no reason for the USAF to ever buy A's, as this was supposed to be a JOINT strike fighter. You can fly C's from carrier or land base, but the same can't be said of the A.
Lonewolf_50 is online now  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 14:57
  #2716 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
The current Boeing push towards the Navy seems to involve (1) extending the SH/Growler with the aid of FMS, until the JSF is ready for prime time and (2) developing the upgrade package, which is all retrofittable to most SHs (not the early jets with the C/D front fuselage) and all Growlers.

Let's remember what the shills don't - the F-35C was not planned as an SH replacement, but as a replacement for the last C/Ds. The Navy has already put plans in place for nearly 700 SH/Growler and has 340 F-35Cs on the books, so the type will be flying well into the 2030s, and its OSD depends on plans that haven't been formulated.

Consequently (argues Boeing) it makes sense to upgrade the jet. CFTs are very nice for the Growler, and the claims are that an engine upgrade is self-funding because the improved engine is more durable. This does not entail scrapping the F-35C - the ASH/Growler is complementary.

Mind you, if the C flunks its carrier tests next year, all bets are off again, and I suspect that Boeing and the Navy's Rhino/Growler mafia are lighting candles in church and sacrificing goats to Cthulhu in hopes that it will do so.

LW - The C is 5500 lb heavier (OEW) than the A, even without an internal gun, and with its monster wing its acceleration is much slower than the A. Jointness my .

Last edited by LowObservable; 6th Jun 2013 at 15:01.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 14:59
  #2717 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 1,549
Lonewolf

According to Mr Brockman, the Ensign who wrote this "piece of USN policy" which appears in the USNI based it on buying F35As to avoid dropping the overall production numbers and thereby increasing the unit costs. He appears to believe the USN could then sell them on to other nations, rather than operate them. The money recouped buys more Rhinos.......

A procurement genius in waiting....

Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 6th Jun 2013 at 15:01.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 15:14
  #2718 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
Mind you, when the Noggies quoted a $52 million unit cost for JSF, there were those who suggested that they should buy 1700 of them at that price and sell them back to the USAF at a 100 per cent profit margin.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 17:06
  #2719 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Durham
Age: 45
Posts: 29
So in a round about way the choice for B was correct?
Tinman74 is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2013, 18:23
  #2720 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
The most expensive model.
Courtney Mil is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.