F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Wow, you guys are doing a lot of arithmetic just to try to prove a point. Sadly the assumptions are far to simplistic and, unfortunately, over-blowing the gains to UK plc. These jets will not be "free" no matter how you cook the books.
even if its not free, the returns will be quite impressive though if they make 3000 - thats is alot of tax.
the price of these things seems to vary so much i can't keep track - what is a,b or c version supposed to cost these days? i guess the uk content of the b is the one approaching 15/20%, and the a/c is lower? does baes still make the back ends of all 3000?
I guess the scottish eo/laser goes in all of them.
the price of these things seems to vary so much i can't keep track - what is a,b or c version supposed to cost these days? i guess the uk content of the b is the one approaching 15/20%, and the a/c is lower? does baes still make the back ends of all 3000?
I guess the scottish eo/laser goes in all of them.
CM - There's some industrial-base argument that you gain by buying into a 3000-aircraft program. In much the same way as the U.K. stopped building VC10s and Tridents and threw in its lot with Airbus, with the result that it made more money from commercial aviation and gained market share.
Of course, that all depends on whether you get to 3,000 aircraft - a distant and unlikely goal given that the acquisition and operating cost is no longer F-16-like, which was the business case at the start of the program.
I agree that the "it's free because of tax benefits" is bogus. You have to spend the money to get the money back, and just because your average tax burden is 39 per cent doesn't mean that 39 per cent of that particular revenue (which is in contract payments from LockMart and P&W) makes it back to HMG.
Of course, that all depends on whether you get to 3,000 aircraft - a distant and unlikely goal given that the acquisition and operating cost is no longer F-16-like, which was the business case at the start of the program.
I agree that the "it's free because of tax benefits" is bogus. You have to spend the money to get the money back, and just because your average tax burden is 39 per cent doesn't mean that 39 per cent of that particular revenue (which is in contract payments from LockMart and P&W) makes it back to HMG.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The industrial base argument is valid in the commercial instance, Low obs since a percentage of a big pie like Airbus is better than building all of 54 VC10's. But that argument doesn't extend to our F35's being"free" or even partly so. I agree that argument is bogus. Indeed that's an understatement....Churchill explained it by saying " trying to gain prosperity through taxation is like trying to lift a trunk while standing in it".
Whilst the sentiment about taxation is correct, there are rather interesting offset percentages at play for JSF - at least from the numbers presented.
If the UK really has 15-20% of the work on all JSFs, it could well end up free to buy (if not support) if they make 3000 and we only buy 48; 48 aircraft would only represent 1.6% of a total buy of 3000.
I would be very impressed if those percentages applied across all 3000 - I suspect UK content on the F35A for example must be much lower than 15%.
Thinking about it, key UK bits are on the smaller volume variants - liftfan & other STOVL bits obviously is only on B, refuelling probes are only on B/C, etc.
If the UK really has 15-20% of the work on all JSFs, it could well end up free to buy (if not support) if they make 3000 and we only buy 48; 48 aircraft would only represent 1.6% of a total buy of 3000.
I would be very impressed if those percentages applied across all 3000 - I suspect UK content on the F35A for example must be much lower than 15%.
Thinking about it, key UK bits are on the smaller volume variants - liftfan & other STOVL bits obviously is only on B, refuelling probes are only on B/C, etc.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to help a bit,
UK (BAES) builds the aft fuselage, fins and tails of all the variants. They also supply parts of the fuel systems. MB has the seat, Smiths have a fair amount of electrical gear. RR gets all the lift fans, rear swivel nozzles and the roll posts for the B variant. Probes for the B and the C from Cobham.
I believe that total UK share a few years ago was around 12% to 14%. However, these figures will already be out of date. Any figures will be less than exact, but at the time I was around the programme, for the SDD phase UK plc had already got about $10bn worth of work for a Government spend of around £2bn.
I'm not trying to argue that anything is free here - but F-35 is not the worst deal the taxpayer has had, so far.
Best Regards
Engines
UK (BAES) builds the aft fuselage, fins and tails of all the variants. They also supply parts of the fuel systems. MB has the seat, Smiths have a fair amount of electrical gear. RR gets all the lift fans, rear swivel nozzles and the roll posts for the B variant. Probes for the B and the C from Cobham.
I believe that total UK share a few years ago was around 12% to 14%. However, these figures will already be out of date. Any figures will be less than exact, but at the time I was around the programme, for the SDD phase UK plc had already got about $10bn worth of work for a Government spend of around £2bn.
I'm not trying to argue that anything is free here - but F-35 is not the worst deal the taxpayer has had, so far.
Best Regards
Engines
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
It seems that nobody here is following the latest events unfolding in the US, more specifically those between the partnering companies and the Pentagon/DoD.
General Bogdan and the other parties of the evaluation and acquisition departments are on the war pad against LM and consorts with the property rights as the big objective.
What they will do if they get what they want, be it partially or as a whole, is going to upset the work share among all partners drastically, 15% for the UK might be believable 10 years ago but it seems ever more likely that these "agreed upon " percentages and numbers are no longer guaranteed once full scale production comes into effect.
Basically the lowest bidders will win, thereby sharply reducing profit margins (and therefore also tax returns to the UK government) and making long term contracts (10-20-40 years) ever more unlikely for most of the F35 parts, certainly the more basic, simple pieces.
Like said before , the biggest winners might well be the later entries, non-tier customer-countries who can negotiate offset packages completely separate from the rest of the original partnering nations.
With a program of this size whereby much of the future of both the industry and Air Forces is betted on 1 single candidate many things can and will happen.
First and foremost, the biggest client, the US will simply not allow that the US work-share diminishes too much, much of the support in congress comes from the fact that 48 of the 50 states are actually getting work out of the F35, the support for this project is directly related to the work share these congressmen bring home.
Second, if the US can save billions by choosing alternate sources, something that can be triggered by such an arbitrary ,but almost non steerable, event like a high pound vs dollar price, they will not hesitate to pull work out of the UK, Bae might still get it but Bae can also mean Bae Australia or Bae Canada or Bae whereverelse.
Third,.. for those contracts that can be negotiated there are also the other Tier 2 and 3 nations that can and will bid, I doubt that they will simply roll over easily and leave the ever diminishing piece of the pie to the UK or any of the other competing partner countries/companies.
Believing that the F35 comes free is just wishful thinking, on the contrary, just look what happens when you don't support your own industry, today EADS announces big layoff rounds, jobs that will most likely never come back.
I won't go as far as saying that the F35 is to blame, but it certainly didn't help, the problem in the long run is that you loose this potential and it will be very hard, if not almost impossible to get it back.
Something the UK should know better than anyone else.
General Bogdan and the other parties of the evaluation and acquisition departments are on the war pad against LM and consorts with the property rights as the big objective.
What they will do if they get what they want, be it partially or as a whole, is going to upset the work share among all partners drastically, 15% for the UK might be believable 10 years ago but it seems ever more likely that these "agreed upon " percentages and numbers are no longer guaranteed once full scale production comes into effect.
Basically the lowest bidders will win, thereby sharply reducing profit margins (and therefore also tax returns to the UK government) and making long term contracts (10-20-40 years) ever more unlikely for most of the F35 parts, certainly the more basic, simple pieces.
Like said before , the biggest winners might well be the later entries, non-tier customer-countries who can negotiate offset packages completely separate from the rest of the original partnering nations.
With a program of this size whereby much of the future of both the industry and Air Forces is betted on 1 single candidate many things can and will happen.
First and foremost, the biggest client, the US will simply not allow that the US work-share diminishes too much, much of the support in congress comes from the fact that 48 of the 50 states are actually getting work out of the F35, the support for this project is directly related to the work share these congressmen bring home.
Second, if the US can save billions by choosing alternate sources, something that can be triggered by such an arbitrary ,but almost non steerable, event like a high pound vs dollar price, they will not hesitate to pull work out of the UK, Bae might still get it but Bae can also mean Bae Australia or Bae Canada or Bae whereverelse.
Third,.. for those contracts that can be negotiated there are also the other Tier 2 and 3 nations that can and will bid, I doubt that they will simply roll over easily and leave the ever diminishing piece of the pie to the UK or any of the other competing partner countries/companies.
Believing that the F35 comes free is just wishful thinking, on the contrary, just look what happens when you don't support your own industry, today EADS announces big layoff rounds, jobs that will most likely never come back.
I won't go as far as saying that the F35 is to blame, but it certainly didn't help, the problem in the long run is that you loose this potential and it will be very hard, if not almost impossible to get it back.
Something the UK should know better than anyone else.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“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.
- Examine Breaking Defense's "Board of Contributors," and you will find several LM-friendly proponents. Following the money, you can figure out where BD will land on issues surrounding the F-35 program.
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.
- Examine Breaking Defense's "Board of Contributors," and you will find several LM-friendly proponents. Following the money, you can figure out where BD will land on issues surrounding the F-35 program.
As I understand it, the original USAF plan was to buy enough F-22's (i.e. replace F-15's near one for one) so that the F-35 could happily be a bomb truck that could just defend itself to some extent.
With the F-22 order slashed and the USAF still flying lots of F-15s to make up the numbers it does seem the F-35 will have to take up the slack in Air Superiority by default.
I doubt Lockheed envisioned that the F-16 replacement would also have to be an F-15 replacement also!
I think they need some Typhoons to help out the F-22's in A2A?
With the F-22 order slashed and the USAF still flying lots of F-15s to make up the numbers it does seem the F-35 will have to take up the slack in Air Superiority by default.
I doubt Lockheed envisioned that the F-16 replacement would also have to be an F-15 replacement also!
I think they need some Typhoons to help out the F-22's in A2A?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
They'd be really handy right up to the edge of the MEZ.
I wonder if they'll bring back the XB-70. My favourite airplane of all time....
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
VIDEO: Shalal-Esa Interviews Gen. Bogdan
Good to put faces to names....
Inside the Pentagon's $1 trillion jet-fueled piñata (5:33) VIDEO Interview by Andrea Shalal-Esa
Reuters TV | Inside the Pentagon's $1 trillion jet-fueled piñata
Inside the Pentagon's $1 trillion jet-fueled piñata (5:33) VIDEO Interview by Andrea Shalal-Esa
"The F-35 fighter jet has drawn heavy fire from critics, not the least of whom was Pentagon program chief Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan. Now he says the plane is on track to be combat-ready in 2015."
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Magnetogorsk
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading from the script
I suggest we make a note in our diaries then, because I think those words will come back to haunt the General just as they have every other well-briefed individual making confident prophesies about this programme.
He should know better. We are told that he does.
Let's see...
Because as Yogi Berra famously said; it's tough to make predictions – especially about the F-35.
He should know better. We are told that he does.
Let's see...
Because as Yogi Berra famously said; it's tough to make predictions – especially about the F-35.
Combat-ready? As long as the combat in question doesn't require anything smaller than a 500 pound bomb, or AIM-9s, or a gun (funny that the last two are shown in the image when Shalal-Esa is asking about IOC), or more than two AIM-120s, or Rover compatibility. I don't, incidentally, recall too many fighters (not bombers) going into action in the last 20 years without one or more of those things.
The comments get controversial towards the end. First he downplays maneuver and kinematics. So the F-22 was a huge mistake, and everyone else in the fighter business is wrong?
Second, unless you have some kind of flying gateway, the F-35 doesn't "make everyone else in the battlespace smarter". Without breaking its own stealth bubble, it can't talk to anything except another F-35.
The comments get controversial towards the end. First he downplays maneuver and kinematics. So the F-22 was a huge mistake, and everyone else in the fighter business is wrong?
Second, unless you have some kind of flying gateway, the F-35 doesn't "make everyone else in the battlespace smarter". Without breaking its own stealth bubble, it can't talk to anything except another F-35.
Last edited by LowObservable; 10th Dec 2013 at 13:27.
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:
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'.
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'.
Original Quote by kbrockman:
First and foremost, the biggest client, the US will simply not allow that the US work-share diminishes too much, much of the support in congress comes from the fact that 48 of the 50 states are actually getting work out of the F35, the support for this project is directly related to the work share these congressmen bring home.
First and foremost, the biggest client, the US will simply not allow that the US work-share diminishes too much, much of the support in congress comes from the fact that 48 of the 50 states are actually getting work out of the F35, the support for this project is directly related to the work share these congressmen bring home.
Original Quote by kbrockman:
General Bogdan and the other parties of the evaluation and acquisition departments are on the war pad against LM and consorts with the property rights as the big objective.
General Bogdan and the other parties of the evaluation and acquisition departments are on the war pad against LM and consorts with the property rights as the big objective.
Original Quote by Violet Club:
I suggest we make a note in our diaries then, because I think those words will come back to haunt the General just as they have every other well-briefed individual making confident prophesies about this program me.
I suggest we make a note in our diaries then, because I think those words will come back to haunt the General just as they have every other well-briefed individual making confident prophesies about this program me.
Thank you, Turbine. A number of points there that quite a few others here have been trying to make for a while. Hopefully a lot of optimistic claims put to bed. Now we can get on with (again, hopefully) watching the programme progress.
For us in the UK, we are in the programme and we need it to be successful.
Fingers crossed.
For us in the UK, we are in the programme and we need it to be successful.
Fingers crossed.
It comes as no surprise to see above that the UK workshare could be under serious pressure.
But then again there are other drivers that could see it retained - at the end of the day the incumbent suppliers should be able to offer the ability to fulfill production orders at the most competitive price (as they understand the property rights the best, even if the DoD offers those rights to the lowest bidder) - so if price is a driver, the UK suppliers may do well.
Also the level of profit UK suppliers make is not the primary concern for taxpayers - even if e.g. $5m of work per aircraft goes to UK suppliers with absolutely minimal margins, that work will still be used to pay the wages of thousands of UK employees who:
a. will pay tax, many probably at 40%
b. will spend the remainder in the UK economy
(with only 2000 aircraft that is still $10Bn, though I wouldn't expect UK share of the F35A to be near $5m)
Whilst superficially, 'just' making the fins, rear fuse, refuelling probe, ejector seat, bits of one engine variant and other bits and bobs doesn't sound like much, it could prove to be a really 'good thing' for the UK, in a similar way to the A350 with Trents (>50% British....).
But then again there are other drivers that could see it retained - at the end of the day the incumbent suppliers should be able to offer the ability to fulfill production orders at the most competitive price (as they understand the property rights the best, even if the DoD offers those rights to the lowest bidder) - so if price is a driver, the UK suppliers may do well.
Also the level of profit UK suppliers make is not the primary concern for taxpayers - even if e.g. $5m of work per aircraft goes to UK suppliers with absolutely minimal margins, that work will still be used to pay the wages of thousands of UK employees who:
a. will pay tax, many probably at 40%
b. will spend the remainder in the UK economy
(with only 2000 aircraft that is still $10Bn, though I wouldn't expect UK share of the F35A to be near $5m)
Whilst superficially, 'just' making the fins, rear fuse, refuelling probe, ejector seat, bits of one engine variant and other bits and bobs doesn't sound like much, it could prove to be a really 'good thing' for the UK, in a similar way to the A350 with Trents (>50% British....).
Turbine D - When I see Bogdan and others suggest that they may be about to try and wrest the intellectual property (IP) rights from the primes, in order to allow competitors to break into the logistics services end, I shake my head.
The F404 case notwithstanding, the government's ownership of the designs that it has paid for has not been established by law, as far as I know. The contractors maintain that the IP does not reside in the design but in the heads of their employees and in the processes that they have invented to make airplanes and engines happen.
Given the amount of dosh involved in F-35 lifetime support, the watchword for LM and PW lawyers will be that of Verdun: Ils ne passeront pas.
The F404 case notwithstanding, the government's ownership of the designs that it has paid for has not been established by law, as far as I know. The contractors maintain that the IP does not reside in the design but in the heads of their employees and in the processes that they have invented to make airplanes and engines happen.
Given the amount of dosh involved in F-35 lifetime support, the watchword for LM and PW lawyers will be that of Verdun: Ils ne passeront pas.
the government's ownership of the designs that it has paid for has not been established by law, as far as I know.
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
One thing is certain, the first party of real winners are already identified, the lawyers who can now begin to battle it out in the courtroom(s).
80+ billion $ spend so far by the US DoD and for the first time since many decades they somehow forgot to legally obtain the proprietary rights for one of their most important weapon systems from the getgo.
Just remember a couple of years ago when EADS/Northrop won the KC-45 competition and how people got upset of the possibility to be dependant on the wims and wishes of a foreign supplier/country and how this could possibly hamper supplies of parts in case there would be conflict between the US and one or more of the EADS nations which was complete BS because all rights would belong to the DoD anyway.
One wonders what the DoD and the government where thinking when they agreed on these JSF contract terms.
About the General Bogdan video, who I regard very highly btw, look at what he says in the last part of the video, this is something I've seen happening more than once in programs that start to derail and have to be put on its tracks again.
First set a clear set of performance goals, after things go seriously haywire lower the performance bar enough for the items that are deemed unsolvable (in the F35 case => kinematic performance) and than reason yourself out of it by claiming that these goals are no longer important because the rest of the project makes up for it.
Fact is that the original JSF was meant to be a nimble fighter, something that was obviously originally an important part of its philosophy, now that this seems impossible to achieve it miraculously becomes a non-issue.
Looking at the set-up and mission profile of the stealthy F35 some serious questions remain, on a VLO mission (which it will have to be able to do with minimal direct support) probably in the first days of war against a serious contender it has a very limited amount of defensive weapons ,max 4 but probably only 2 rockets, a cannon with a very limited amount of rounds for a Gatling type of gun, an enormous non stealthy, big IR signature backside with no where near enough speed, acceleration or manoeuvrability to get heroically but quickly out of the danger zone.
Sure the sensor suite is fantastic when it works (and I'm sure it will) but let's call a cow a cow and a cat a cat, nobody buys an expensive car just because it has the coolest sound system, it is (by Northrop's own account) a subsystem that can be used on a myriad of other platforms including other fighter jets.
sensor fusion, datalink , etc are the future, I completely agree, but that goes for basically every other new or upgraded weapons system.
About fusion and linking, they must realize that it is both a big potential force multiplier and a big potential danger.
Multi static radar tech will become more mobile when not just ground radars link up but also all kind of different arrays on a multitude of platforms, air, sea and land based, when that happens (and this is something for the next decade) stealth will be almost a non issue.
80+ billion $ spend so far by the US DoD and for the first time since many decades they somehow forgot to legally obtain the proprietary rights for one of their most important weapon systems from the getgo.
Just remember a couple of years ago when EADS/Northrop won the KC-45 competition and how people got upset of the possibility to be dependant on the wims and wishes of a foreign supplier/country and how this could possibly hamper supplies of parts in case there would be conflict between the US and one or more of the EADS nations which was complete BS because all rights would belong to the DoD anyway.
One wonders what the DoD and the government where thinking when they agreed on these JSF contract terms.
About the General Bogdan video, who I regard very highly btw, look at what he says in the last part of the video, this is something I've seen happening more than once in programs that start to derail and have to be put on its tracks again.
First set a clear set of performance goals, after things go seriously haywire lower the performance bar enough for the items that are deemed unsolvable (in the F35 case => kinematic performance) and than reason yourself out of it by claiming that these goals are no longer important because the rest of the project makes up for it.
Fact is that the original JSF was meant to be a nimble fighter, something that was obviously originally an important part of its philosophy, now that this seems impossible to achieve it miraculously becomes a non-issue.
Looking at the set-up and mission profile of the stealthy F35 some serious questions remain, on a VLO mission (which it will have to be able to do with minimal direct support) probably in the first days of war against a serious contender it has a very limited amount of defensive weapons ,max 4 but probably only 2 rockets, a cannon with a very limited amount of rounds for a Gatling type of gun, an enormous non stealthy, big IR signature backside with no where near enough speed, acceleration or manoeuvrability to get heroically but quickly out of the danger zone.
Sure the sensor suite is fantastic when it works (and I'm sure it will) but let's call a cow a cow and a cat a cat, nobody buys an expensive car just because it has the coolest sound system, it is (by Northrop's own account) a subsystem that can be used on a myriad of other platforms including other fighter jets.
sensor fusion, datalink , etc are the future, I completely agree, but that goes for basically every other new or upgraded weapons system.
About fusion and linking, they must realize that it is both a big potential force multiplier and a big potential danger.
Multi static radar tech will become more mobile when not just ground radars link up but also all kind of different arrays on a multitude of platforms, air, sea and land based, when that happens (and this is something for the next decade) stealth will be almost a non issue.