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 14th Jun 2016, 21:43
  #9341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 73
Posts: 1,032
Paragraph from a Flight Global article on the Dutch F-35s.
Since the Dutch air force will use hardened aircraft shelters for its F-35s, the first deployment has also been used to trial operations from these types of hangars. In the USA, the aircraft are operated from sun shelters or larger hangars, and the confined space in a smaller shelter increases the sound and vibration levels placed on the airframe. Emission levels from the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine also needed to be monitored, to ensure ground crews can perform their work safely.
Somewhat surprised that it is only now that the effects of HAS operations are being checked-out.
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2016, 04:22
  #9342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
Originally Posted by MSOCS View Post
...but it isn't a job creation scheme ORAC. It's a Fighter creation scheme. Those who secured the lucrative industrial contracts to manufacture and supply bring money to the country. Ergo, the Fighter creation scheme is (for some countries at least) a money creation scheme to one's treasury.

If Canada "wants in" on that great sounding deal, they have to maintain their desire to procure their 60-odd F-35. If Canada doesn't care about that deal and wants to commit itself to a sticking plaster solution for its future combat aircraft requirement, then that's their (Liberal PM's) choice....buuuut, the extant Canadian contracts will be re-competed amongst the committed partner nations if it turns its back completely. Being Liberal, there's a certain centricity to this issue. Canada may not turn completely, but may instead keep feeding the JPO the holding response that it's still considering a buy. There was a time only a year or so ago where every partner could have hidden behind the language of non-committal but, now that jets are being built and flown by many of those same partners, that tactic no longer works.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Quoted in all it's pomposity
glad rag is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2016, 11:30
  #9343 (permalink)  
Registered User *
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 65
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me glad.
Canute is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2016, 14:05
  #9344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Canute, Glad Rag suffers the ailment of "playing the man, not the ball" - a posting history of snark and tenuous-at-best internet pictures/GIFs with scant contribution to the debate at hand instantly proves that accusation.

I enjoy engaging with those who challenge the viewpoints I make, using their professional knowledge, reasoning and irrefutable logic, rather than label and lambast the style in which I make those viewpoints. One of those approaches is widely considered the essence of meaningful debate. The other is not - call it antagonising, inflaming, trolling or whatever. It's just a shame GR fails to grasp that fundamental difference but he's in a very small percentage of folk here who argue consistently from a known repertoire of logical fallacies. I'm by no means whiter than white but I try to inform where I can and express my opinion where I think it adds to a side of the argument, as long as it actually adds that is.

Last edited by MSOCS; 15th Jun 2016 at 16:25.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2016, 14:23
  #9345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 470
It would be interesting to know if the money spent in Canada would mostly stay there or if some of the companies are owned e.g. in the US and send their profit back. Presumably salaries and tax are the only benefits that one can bank on?
t43562 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2016, 16:22
  #9346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,393
Originally Posted by t43562 View Post
It would be interesting to know if the money spent in Canada would mostly stay there or if some of the companies are owned e.g. in the US and send their profit back. Presumably salaries and tax are the only benefits that one can bank on?
And calculating how many times an earned dollar circulates locally.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2016, 16:29
  #9347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 75
Posts: 6,385
LW50 - the bit that Lawson forgot!
Wander00 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2016, 17:48
  #9348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 73
Posts: 1,032
Originally Posted by t43562 View Post
It would be interesting to know if the money spent in Canada would mostly stay there or if some of the companies are owned e.g. in the US and send their profit back. Presumably salaries and tax are the only benefits that one can bank on?
According to this article, US companies are taxed heavily on profits earned in other countries as soon as those profits are repatriated. Hence the enormous holdings stashed abroad by companies such as Microsoft...
Microsoft?s tax saver in LinkedIn deal | | The Times & The Sunday Times
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2016, 18:16
  #9349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,149
So you would like to buy a 2019 Cadillac?

MSOCS,
...but it isn't a job creation scheme ORAC. It's a Fighter creation scheme. Those who secured the lucrative industrial contracts to manufacture and supply bring money to the country. Ergo, the Fighter creation scheme is (for some countries at least) a money creation scheme to one's treasury.
Good new! Cadillac has a new purchasing scheme tailored for your needs. In that we, at Cadillac, don't know yet what the cost of 2019 car is, we would like to make you a Cadillac participating partner. Then, we will a bill you occasionally for development and long lead-time items and as time goes on we will send you bills for manufacturing and parts that you must pay. Then, when your new Cadillac is ready for delivery in 2019, you can just add up the bills you paid so you know how much it cost. Good deal, eh? Ready to sign up?

That is what the USAF, USN, USMC and all participating partners have done. In fact, nobody knows what the cost of an F-35, or price if you would, really is. Everything is an estimate to this day. Everyone believes it is expensive. Only US Foreign Military Sales countries, Israel, Japan & Korea know, because they are buying their F-35s at a negotiated price with the US government, not LM.

Now Frank Kendall, bless his soul, swore on his grandmother's bible that F-35 contracts would be changed from cost plus to fixed price contracts with the transition starting in Lot 4 sometime ago. Lot 5 was to be even more fix price than Lot 4. We are now up to Lot 9 and the transition is still in process. But, there is no indication any meaningful fixed cost price contracts have been applied to the airframe (prime contractor), for the engine, the first move was late 2014
To give you an example as to how this all sorts out, first of 15 manufacturing contracts (of 30) issued for Lot 8 (43 jets).
2013
Feb 28 $333,786,000 fixed-price-incentive -- parts
Mar 25 $40,200,000 fixed-price-incentive -- parts
May 2 $20,100,000 fixed-price-incentive -- parts
Jul 18 $70,358,000 modification to previous contract-- parts
Sep 18 $99,010,000 modification
Oct 18 $30,000,000 fixed-price-incentive modification

2014
Mar 18 $65,280,712 modification to cost-plus
Mar 26 $10,242,104 modification - engine [ERROR NOTE: There was no previous contract to modify.]
May 13 $101,900,000 modification
Jun 6 $122,099,075 cost-plus modification -- parts
Aug 11 $46,197,710 cost-plus modification -- tech assist
Sep 11 $65,566,174 modification - engine parts
Sep 25 $331,408,457 cost-plus modification -- tooling
Oct 30 $793,051,336 modification to fixed-price -- engine
Nov 21 $4,123,746,486 [$4B] modification -- primary
[NOTE: Finally 21 months after the first Lot 8 contract they specify how many planes are being bought.]
Nov 2014- Dec 2015 -- fifteen more F-35 "modification" contracts

Contracts

Now if you were in charge of F-35 procurement, being a participating partner and having already paid millions of dollars in development costs to remain at the table, what would you do, having no clue, what the F-35 cost/price is ten years or more into the program? Like the country & western gambler's song, would you hold them or fold them? As far as the money creation scheme is concerned, LM is the treasury...
Turbine D is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2016, 19:12
  #9350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Nobody said this is cheap!

It's worth it though, IMHO.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2016, 19:20
  #9351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,393
Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post
To give you an example as to how this all sorts out, first of 15 manufacturing contracts (of 30) issued for Lot 8 (43 jets).
2013
Feb 28 $333,786,000 fixed-price-incentive -- parts
Mar 25 $40,200,000 fixed-price-incentive -- parts
May 2 $20,100,000 fixed-price-incentive -- parts
Jul 18 $70,358,000 modification to previous contract-- parts
Sep 18 $99,010,000 modification
Oct 18 $30,000,000 fixed-price-incentive modification
2014
Mar 18 $65,280,712 modification to cost-plus
Mar 26 $10,242,104 modification - engine [ERROR NOTE: There was no previous contract to modify.]
May 13 $101,900,000 modification
Jun 6 $122,099,075 cost-plus modification -- parts
Aug 11 $46,197,710 cost-plus modification -- tech assist
Sep 11 $65,566,174 modification - engine parts
Sep 25 $331,408,457 cost-plus modification -- tooling
Oct 30 $793,051,336 modification to fixed-price -- engine
Nov 21 $4,123,746,486 [$4B] modification -- primary


Nov 2014- Dec 2015 -- fifteen more F-35 "modification" contracts
You add a few hundred million here and a few hundred million that and all of a sudden, you are talking serious money.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2016, 21:06
  #9352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,149
MSOCS,
Nobody said this is cheap!

It's worth it though, IMHO.
Well, nobody said blank taxpayer checks would be issued to pay for it, either. As far as it being worth it or not, that has been decided a long time ago when it didn't come to market when it was promised along with all the bells and whistles which worked. Think much broader, where is the money going to come from to evolve and production fund a new B-21 bomber fleet? Where is the money going to come from to evolve and production fund the next new fighter interceptor fleet?

There are many Department of Defense programs that are worthy of fully funding, will they be affected by the out of control spending on the F-35 program? If you don't know what something costs, you are out of control.

The longer the F-35 program goes on in time before the planes are fully capable and work as promised, the lesser value they become. Conversely, the more expensive they become.
Turbine D is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2016, 22:15
  #9353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Turbine, I'm not going to question your issue with the cost. I also never said, nor implied, that public blank cheques were acceptable. This Program is expensive. What is appropriated to B-21 is of no direct concern of mine. That's a DoD and Capitol Hill issue that's frankly out of my area. If B-21 is vital, you'll find the money. Of that, I am sure.

I've never denied F-35 is late, and over budget (hold the front page!!!!). It's here to stay and will remain for 3 or 4 more decades. Fact.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2016, 03:21
  #9354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
Originally Posted by MSOCS View Post
Turbine, I'm not going to question your issue with the cost. I also never said, nor implied, that public blank cheques were acceptable. This Program is expensive. What is appropriated to B-21 is of no direct concern of mine. That's a DoD and Capitol Hill issue that's frankly out of my area. If B-21 is vital, you'll find the money. Of that, I am sure.

I've never denied F-35 is late, and over budget (hold the front page!!!!). It's here to stay and will remain for 3 or 4 more decades. Fact.
Facts.

Yes there are facts, most of which are completly at odds with the project that the nations signed up to, blank cheques and all.

glad rag is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2016, 20:11
  #9355 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,118
And remember Boeing have their entire civil order book to provide offset work from, orders of magnitude more airframes than the F-35 over the next few decades. Do you prefer a piece of the F-35 or the 737Max, 777 or 787?

CF-18 airframes approaching their age limits as replacement debate rages - Politics - CBC News

"....Last week Lockheed Martin warned it would pull hundreds of millions of dollars in F-35 related work out of the country unless its jet was selected to replace Canada's CF-18s. On Wednesday, rival aerospace company Boeing tried to paint that notion as an empty threat and promised to match or even exceed the value of lost contracts should Canada go with it instead......

Boeing vice-president Roger Schallom also attempted Wednesday to put to rest the notion that Canadian aerospace jobs would be lost if the F-35 isn't selected.

Many of the 110 Canadian companies doing business with Lockheed Martin are also working for Boeing on separate contracts. If Boeing's plane is chosen, Schallom said, the company could replace or even exceed the current $825 million in contracts and the up to $10 billion lifetime value of industrial benefits. "We will put in much more work than those numbers. I can't quantify it until we see what the [air force] requirement is, but we will definitely trump those numbers......"
ORAC is online now  
Old 22nd Jun 2016, 12:15
  #9356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 61
Posts: 524
Meanwhile, the US marines seem to start re-using a good old stuff from an Arizona desert: https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-mari...d64#.a8lkq1d29
A_Van is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2016, 18:12
  #9357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,115
Lockheed Martin and Israel Celebrate Rollout of Israel?s First F-35 ?Adir? · Lockheed Martin

chopper2004 is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2016, 23:42
  #9358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,876
Looks like the RAF will have to rely on US repair contracts for some avionics systems

Hope they have bought enough spares to deal with postal delays.
Kitbag is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2016, 23:48
  #9359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,206
This is already true of many items today - it's not a new phenomenon.

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2016, 01:35
  #9360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,339
If the Fox News technical specs are to be believed the shortage of range has been well and truly cured

Marine Corps looks to fighter jet 'boneyard' after new fleet delay | Fox News

Max Range: 50,000 nautical miles
NutLoose 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.