F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
AW&ST: Did you see the one about the F-35 and F/A-18?
Here's a PR piece targeted at Canada's fighter competition, in case you haven't seen it yet.
The authors, RaceRocks 3D, work for Boeing but reportedly made this video on their own while pursuing a contract with a Boeing subsidiary. (The fact that the title says F-18 and not F/A-18 supports this idea.)
If you're interested, read more in Reuter's story: Video wades into Lockheed-Boeing battle over Canadian jet orders.
Here's a PR piece targeted at Canada's fighter competition, in case you haven't seen it yet.
The authors, RaceRocks 3D, work for Boeing but reportedly made this video on their own while pursuing a contract with a Boeing subsidiary. (The fact that the title says F-18 and not F/A-18 supports this idea.)
If you're interested, read more in Reuter's story: Video wades into Lockheed-Boeing battle over Canadian jet orders.
You have to admit, that is a brilliant ad! 
Yeah, but he is quite a well-informed and interesting ****head!
But you never miss the opportunity to demonstrate what a ****head you are, do you?
We, We, We....
You have a personal hatred for everything Lockheed and a corresponding love for Boeing don't you?
Wrong again, sunshine! F-16s, SH-60s, tactical missiles, U-2s and quite a few other things are out there staying within budget and doing what it says on the tin. And you have not heard my views on the 787. Nor is it "personal" when you're paying the bills for the F-35 overruns.
Anyone would think Boeing were paying your mortgage.
No, they're just making the payments on the second Lamborghini.
You have a personal hatred for everything Lockheed and a corresponding love for Boeing don't you?
Wrong again, sunshine! F-16s, SH-60s, tactical missiles, U-2s and quite a few other things are out there staying within budget and doing what it says on the tin. And you have not heard my views on the 787. Nor is it "personal" when you're paying the bills for the F-35 overruns.
Anyone would think Boeing were paying your mortgage.
No, they're just making the payments on the second Lamborghini.
The Navy plans to buy the last F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers, a radar-jamming variant, in the fiscal year 2014 budget now very much up in the air on Capitol Hill. “If nothing is done, the last order closes around 2016,” Aboulafia told me. The Saint Louis factory still has some guaranteed work through 2018, building F-15 Eagles for Saudi Arabia, though further F-15 sales are much in doubt. The Hornet/Growler production line shuts down in 2016, however, and the supplier base starts withering well before: Boeing told me they’ll have to make key decisions on long-lead items in early 2014. “When you lose a line,” said Aboulafia, “you almost never get it back.”
That’s why Forbes wants the Pentagon to consider keeping the line — and its options — open. Forbes doesn’t represent Missouri, where the Hornet is built, but his homestate of Virginia builds every Navy aircraft carrier and is homebase to half the fleet, so the he’s profoundly concerned about the aircraft those carriers launch. Once the Hornet/Growler line goes cold, he points out, “the Department will be left with a sole-source tactical aircraft program for the Navy.” In fact, when the F-15 line in Saint Louis shuts down in turn, Boeing will be out of the fighter business altogether, leaving a Lockheed Martin monopoly.
The F-35 is designed to replace the Hornet, the F-15, and a host of other US aircraft. But, as Forbes notes in his letter, the Navy F-35C variant won’t enter service until February 2019 — assuming no further delays. Boeing and its allies have taken repeated shots at the troubled Lockheed Martin program, including in the video above from a would-be Boeing supplier.
That’s why Forbes wants the Pentagon to consider keeping the line — and its options — open. Forbes doesn’t represent Missouri, where the Hornet is built, but his homestate of Virginia builds every Navy aircraft carrier and is homebase to half the fleet, so the he’s profoundly concerned about the aircraft those carriers launch. Once the Hornet/Growler line goes cold, he points out, “the Department will be left with a sole-source tactical aircraft program for the Navy.” In fact, when the F-15 line in Saint Louis shuts down in turn, Boeing will be out of the fighter business altogether, leaving a Lockheed Martin monopoly.
The F-35 is designed to replace the Hornet, the F-15, and a host of other US aircraft. But, as Forbes notes in his letter, the Navy F-35C variant won’t enter service until February 2019 — assuming no further delays. Boeing and its allies have taken repeated shots at the troubled Lockheed Martin program, including in the video above from a would-be Boeing supplier.
This (the bits in bold) is new or relevant exactly how?
Monopoly has been the JSF business plan for 18 years at least. And (from the full story) speaking of people who do get their mortgage payments from industry...
“Some Navy factions seem to be pretty impressed with the Advanced Super Hornet,” said [Loren] Thompson, “but it is a physical impossibility to make it as stealthy as the F-35.” Because even a souped-up Super Hornet would build on an airframe design dating back to the 1990s, he said, “it could never match the survivability of a plane that was conceived from day one to have integrated stealth.”
Freedberg's kinda slipping there, since even Dr T concedes that he's getting cash from LockMart.
Monopoly has been the JSF business plan for 18 years at least. And (from the full story) speaking of people who do get their mortgage payments from industry...
“Some Navy factions seem to be pretty impressed with the Advanced Super Hornet,” said [Loren] Thompson, “but it is a physical impossibility to make it as stealthy as the F-35.” Because even a souped-up Super Hornet would build on an airframe design dating back to the 1990s, he said, “it could never match the survivability of a plane that was conceived from day one to have integrated stealth.”
Freedberg's kinda slipping there, since even Dr T concedes that he's getting cash from LockMart.
The F-35 is designed to replace the Hornet, the F-15, and a host of other US aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct Cm - teh problem is that the F-35 just takes a bigger and bigger slice of the budget and so it has to "replace" more and more types ......
I'm waiting for it to take over the C-135's as well...........................
I'm waiting for it to take over the C-135's as well...........................
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F35 as is said, is going to take over everything, the problem is some aircraft may be sacrificed to fund the development, there was talk of the A10 being retired early to release funds for F35 development. If there are then no A10 squadrons or bases left, there is less demand for the F35, or is my logic non LM?
there was talk of the A10 being retired early to release funds for F35
They say the F-35 will be the last to go, so if its not the A-10, what fleet to you want to drop? The F-16? F-18? other? Which one to save the A-10?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a champion of the A10, the point I was trying to make was that if you get rid of classes of aircraft, then it looks a bit strange to expand the USAF once the F35 gets to a reasonable IOC..
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it won't expand - they'll just say "we've scrapped all those cranky A-10's to pay for 150 F-35's - but they can do all they A-10's did and more so we don't plan any direct replacement numbers... make do with the 150 we've got for strike/ASW/air defence..."
Something like this happened with the F-18 TBH - which seems to have "replaced " all just about everything but AEW and COD on USN carriers
Something like this happened with the F-18 TBH - which seems to have "replaced " all just about everything but AEW and COD on USN carriers
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Original Quote by Peter We: LO:
You have a personal hatred for everything Lockheed and a corresponding love for Boeing don't you?
Anyone would think Boeing were paying your mortgage.
You have a personal hatred for everything Lockheed and a corresponding love for Boeing don't you?
Anyone would think Boeing were paying your mortgage.
Then President Eisenhower foretold of today's problem back in 1961 when he said: "We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations."
"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted."
Sadly, Eisenhower was correct and Lockheed-Martin together with an inept United States DoD have proven his point in three of the most recent large military procurements. It is well documented here and everywhere the missed cost targets and technological shortcomings of the F-22 and F-35 "frontline fighter" aircraft. In fact, the F-35 remains unproven technology relative to what had been promised and what it will cost. To illustrate this point, look no further than Lockheed's performance on the LCS USN Ship building program when real testing begins (sorry for the diversion here):
After the USN accepted the USS Freedom, an inspection discovered 2,600 total discrepancies, of which 21 were considered high-priority deficiencies.
USS Freedom experienced three electrical power outages in March 2013 and one further power outage in July 2013.
During trials in 2011, the USS Freedom experienced 17 known cracks in its hull. These cracks limited the ship to a speed of 20 knots as opposed to its designated speed of 40 knots. Many of the cracks were identified in identical locations on either side of the hull. This suggested that the cracks were due to flawed ship design.
In September 2010, the starboard Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbine broke down and the ship had to use diesel engines to return to port.
USS Freedom experienced three electrical power outages in March 2013 and one further power outage in July 2013.
The congressional cost cap per ship has increased from $220 million in FY2006 to $480 million in FY2010.
The per ship price goal of $400 million, including mission modules, has been exceeded significantly. In FY2010 a single Freedom seaframe excluding mission modules cost $637 million.
Building all of the planned 52 ships will cost the Navy at least $35 billion.
Each ship is expected to cost around $36.6 million to operate and support.
In total, the LCS program will cost taxpayers over $120 billion over its lifetime.
But here is the real clincher:
On 15 January 2013, the Defense Department’s director of operational test and evaluation released a judgement of the LCS in an annual study. The report said that the USS Freedom was "not expected to be survivable" in combat.
At the moment, it is only United States' tax money being pissed down the drain by the military-industrial complex. When the UK takes delivery of the F-35, you will share in the cost burden of the most expensive aircraft program, ever.
Originally Posted by Turbine D
At the moment, it is only United States' tax money being pissed down the drain by the military-industrial complex. When the UK takes delivery of the F-35, you will share in the cost burden of the most expensive aircraft program, ever.
Not so, around 20% of the work is done in the UK. The tax take from this more than pays for the UK purchase of F-35's. They are 'free'.
Originally Posted by Peter WE
around 20% of the work is done in the UK
https://www.f35.com/global/participa...ted-kingdom-ip
I know we had this discussion here a few months ago. It takes a lot of creative accounting to call them "free", but you are right to point out that there will tax revenue for the UK.
15 per cent of the work is in the UK, right. So how much of that ends up as additional government tax revenue? Say one-quarter, so 3-4 per cent of the cost ends up in the government coffers. So your magic break-even occurs at 3400-4600 aircraft for the UK's 138-jet buy. That's what I call a long-term investment.
By the way, there is an economic fallacy here: The government might get better or equal returns spending the money another way.
By the way, there is an economic fallacy here: The government might get better or equal returns spending the money another way.
Last edited by LowObservable; 9th Dec 2013 at 12:17.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC 20% of the B version, less for the other 2.
Also these are numbers from the early days of the F35 program, without the later entry of ISRAEL as an unforeseen major supplier of some of the most advanced and highest value systems (eg, ELBIT).
The truth is that it is Bae systems (+RR on the F35B) that are the only ones that are given the assurance of a certain part of the work, it remains to be seen how much work they will actually offset in the UK, much will depend on where it is cheapest for them to produce these parts (labour costs, exchange rates, ....).
Non of the other ones is certain of their part of the work-share, the only thing they are certain of is that they have a right to bid on work, the lowest bidder that can deliver is going to be the winner, losses generated by unforeseen costs and fluctuating exchange rates after the
bidding and signing of the contract are all taken by the bidders, never by LM.
With the entry of new possible clients it could very well be that work share will decay even further, just look at Japan (a non tier partner) who have the right to produce up to 40% of the Japanese parts in their own industry, Korea will probably also demand something similar , same for other possible new clients.
The only ones who can be certain on a ROI are first and foremost LM and P&W, Northrop, Bae systems and RR and now also ELBIT who factually became a new tier 1 partner because some very crucial things cannot be done without them.
Countries outside the US will not benefit nearly as much as all contracts are in US $.
The notion that they will be free for any nation is just plain ridiculous.
Just read this one year old article and then combine it with what General Bogdan was saying about property rights and the possibility to always go for the lowest bidder in the future and conclude yourself how much anybody will be making outside the key companies.
F-35 Reality Check Ten Years On, Part 2: The Jobs Mirage and Other Stories
Also these are numbers from the early days of the F35 program, without the later entry of ISRAEL as an unforeseen major supplier of some of the most advanced and highest value systems (eg, ELBIT).
The truth is that it is Bae systems (+RR on the F35B) that are the only ones that are given the assurance of a certain part of the work, it remains to be seen how much work they will actually offset in the UK, much will depend on where it is cheapest for them to produce these parts (labour costs, exchange rates, ....).
Non of the other ones is certain of their part of the work-share, the only thing they are certain of is that they have a right to bid on work, the lowest bidder that can deliver is going to be the winner, losses generated by unforeseen costs and fluctuating exchange rates after the
bidding and signing of the contract are all taken by the bidders, never by LM.
With the entry of new possible clients it could very well be that work share will decay even further, just look at Japan (a non tier partner) who have the right to produce up to 40% of the Japanese parts in their own industry, Korea will probably also demand something similar , same for other possible new clients.
The only ones who can be certain on a ROI are first and foremost LM and P&W, Northrop, Bae systems and RR and now also ELBIT who factually became a new tier 1 partner because some very crucial things cannot be done without them.
Countries outside the US will not benefit nearly as much as all contracts are in US $.
The notion that they will be free for any nation is just plain ridiculous.
Just read this one year old article and then combine it with what General Bogdan was saying about property rights and the possibility to always go for the lowest bidder in the future and conclude yourself how much anybody will be making outside the key companies.
F-35 Reality Check Ten Years On, Part 2: The Jobs Mirage and Other Stories
Originally Posted by LO
15 per cent of the work is in the UK, right. So how much of that ends up as additional government tax revenue? Say one-quarter, so 3-4 per cent of the cost ends up in the government coffers. So your magic break-even occurs at 3400-4600 aircraft for the UK's 138-jet buy. That's what I call a long-term investment.
So 138 would equal 2400 aircraft, but only 48 aircraft are definitely going to be ordered, the 138 number is a 'long term investment'.
Is it 15% or 20%? as the Lift-fan is an expensive add on (as you said) and its 100% UK manufactured.
Originally Posted by LO
By the way, there is an economic fallacy here: The government might get better or equal returns spending the money another way.