F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
My memory cannot recall the typical give of the Hoover, but I do remember that it sipped its own fuel so could hang around for a long time before offloading its fuel. This gave much-needed flexibility during launch & recovery cycles and reduced its own deck-cycle count. When full of gas you could see them flying for the better part of 10 hours.
Multi-role is how you define it as you will not see SHornets chasing subs or irritating surface groups for an extended vul. Regarding extra F-18s, the US carrier groups have not expanded their strike aircraft numbers to fill the vacated space, they are just doing without. The SHornet is a big, modern, highly capable and reasonably expensive platform. Using a third of this capability as a terminal tanker whilst leaving other capability gaps open makes questionable sense. Of course, other new capability requirements come to the fore and a long endurance BACN / Link capable platform is sorely needed for the Growler, F-35 and the wider Fleet.
Multi-role is how you define it as you will not see SHornets chasing subs or irritating surface groups for an extended vul. Regarding extra F-18s, the US carrier groups have not expanded their strike aircraft numbers to fill the vacated space, they are just doing without. The SHornet is a big, modern, highly capable and reasonably expensive platform. Using a third of this capability as a terminal tanker whilst leaving other capability gaps open makes questionable sense. Of course, other new capability requirements come to the fore and a long endurance BACN / Link capable platform is sorely needed for the Growler, F-35 and the wider Fleet.
Last edited by Just This Once...; 24th Mar 2017 at 21:07.
All of which continues to re-inforce the logic for what was once the Common Support Aircraft (CSA), intended to replace E2/C2/S3 and the capability of the KA6D.
Whatever the CoD V22 ends up being, it won't do all that. MQ25 or whatever it is today won't do that either.
One wonders how much the relaunch of an S3-type, relatively low performance, simple aircraft might have cost if done at the right time.
Whatever the CoD V22 ends up being, it won't do all that. MQ25 or whatever it is today won't do that either.
One wonders how much the relaunch of an S3-type, relatively low performance, simple aircraft might have cost if done at the right time.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Well the MQ-25 is supposed to do the AAR and BACN in a hostile environment in the western Pacific and the Osprey the CAD. I doubt there is the funding for another platform on top those.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From that BD story:
“Blueprint for Affordability has been modestly effective."
I think we all know what that means in the argot of the Five-Sided Squirrel Cage, to wit,
-all measurable benefit. Which leaves us with two possible explanations:
1 - The JSFPO and LockMart didn't understand the cost structure of the program well enough (after >15 years) to design an effective cost-cutting program, or
2 - Blueprint for Affordability was a PR exercise and nothing else. Ha ha n00bs, got you again!
Maybe some of the F-35 enthusiasts here can come up with a third option, but I can't.
“Blueprint for Affordability has been modestly effective."
I think we all know what that means in the argot of the Five-Sided Squirrel Cage, to wit,
-all measurable benefit. Which leaves us with two possible explanations:1 - The JSFPO and LockMart didn't understand the cost structure of the program well enough (after >15 years) to design an effective cost-cutting program, or
2 - Blueprint for Affordability was a PR exercise and nothing else. Ha ha n00bs, got you again!
Maybe some of the F-35 enthusiasts here can come up with a third option, but I can't.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's your point? The crucial word is "reduce". Low observability isn't claimed to be the same as invisibility.
Thermal imaging might even 'see' an F-35's pilot for a fleeting moment at extremely close range but it wouldn't do any good. He/she and their aircraft have already moved on at Mach 1+ having seen and zapped (or ignored) you long before you saw them.
Thermal imaging might even 'see' an F-35's pilot for a fleeting moment at extremely close range but it wouldn't do any good. He/she and their aircraft have already moved on at Mach 1+ having seen and zapped (or ignored) you long before you saw them.
Keep dreaming pal.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spaz,
Some facts you might not be aware of not shown on You Tube:
- In 2001 the DoD budgeted the F-35 program at $233B for 2,866 planes. It now estimates the F-35 program will cost $391B (68% more) for 2,457 planes (14% fewer) with estimates of maintenance and parts over the life cycle of the program bringing the total costs to more than a trillion dollars.
- Of 63 largest DoD programs initiated before the beginning of Obama administration, only 13 were on budget. The remainder were over budget by a cumulative $296B. Putting this in perspective, $296B would give almost 3 million Americans a $100,000 college education.
- Defense contractors have thrived. Those delivering the 10 most costly programs, the F-35 program being the most costly, have seen cumulative total returns almost triple that of S&P 500 index between 2002 and November 2016. Since then the returns have increased even more with Trump proposing an additional $54B in DoD spending.
- The goal of DoD managers is always the same get a "go" decision. Push a great new program out into the field. Price it low enough that it doesn't get pushed behind another program. Present cutting-edge features. Have minimum knowledge as to what it will cost and whether the features are achievable so that the DoD is not deliberately deceiving anyone. Look at any of the 50 over budget programs and this has been the DoD operational methodology.
- The winners are the Contractors, the Lobbyists and members of Congress and their staffs that are gullible to both the lobbyists and DoD claims. The losers are the taxpayers and the end product users.
- The number of people in the Pentagon (DoD) Procurement and Acquisitions bureaucracy is 207,000 at this moment, give or take a thousand or so. The number of Marines currently on active duty is 163,375.
- Since 1959, 17 Defense Secretaries have committed to bring about effective and efficient management of the defense acquisition process. The F-35 Program is a poster child of success to date.
You Tube videos (PR) of F-35s in early stages of takeoffs, landings, firing rockets, etc., 16 years after program start are interesting. Everything depicted is expected of a fighter jet. What isn't depicted is the financial carnage and waste that has taken place until now.
Some facts you might not be aware of not shown on You Tube:
- In 2001 the DoD budgeted the F-35 program at $233B for 2,866 planes. It now estimates the F-35 program will cost $391B (68% more) for 2,457 planes (14% fewer) with estimates of maintenance and parts over the life cycle of the program bringing the total costs to more than a trillion dollars.
- Of 63 largest DoD programs initiated before the beginning of Obama administration, only 13 were on budget. The remainder were over budget by a cumulative $296B. Putting this in perspective, $296B would give almost 3 million Americans a $100,000 college education.
- Defense contractors have thrived. Those delivering the 10 most costly programs, the F-35 program being the most costly, have seen cumulative total returns almost triple that of S&P 500 index between 2002 and November 2016. Since then the returns have increased even more with Trump proposing an additional $54B in DoD spending.
- The goal of DoD managers is always the same get a "go" decision. Push a great new program out into the field. Price it low enough that it doesn't get pushed behind another program. Present cutting-edge features. Have minimum knowledge as to what it will cost and whether the features are achievable so that the DoD is not deliberately deceiving anyone. Look at any of the 50 over budget programs and this has been the DoD operational methodology.
- The winners are the Contractors, the Lobbyists and members of Congress and their staffs that are gullible to both the lobbyists and DoD claims. The losers are the taxpayers and the end product users.
- The number of people in the Pentagon (DoD) Procurement and Acquisitions bureaucracy is 207,000 at this moment, give or take a thousand or so. The number of Marines currently on active duty is 163,375.
- Since 1959, 17 Defense Secretaries have committed to bring about effective and efficient management of the defense acquisition process. The F-35 Program is a poster child of success to date.
You Tube videos (PR) of F-35s in early stages of takeoffs, landings, firing rockets, etc., 16 years after program start are interesting. Everything depicted is expected of a fighter jet. What isn't depicted is the financial carnage and waste that has taken place until now.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Turbine D' you say you live in Middle America. I do not. Moan to someone else thanks.
I do live in Middle America, I can tell, you don't. Middle America is where F-35s are built in the same factory where F-16s were built. There is a difference. The F-16s and F-15s were designed and built in Middle America to recover from a Washington, DC error at that time, whereas the F-35s have been designed in Washington, DC or surrounds, a historical repeat error in the making. The workers in the Middle America factory do their very best to provide F-35 aircraft to the design requirements they are provided and they do. I am not moaning, but you might be in the future.
If you truly live in Oz and are a taxpayer, you might be part of one of two things that are going to happen as a result of purchasing 72 highly expensive F-35s because of wasteful use of resources. Your personal taxes will go up or the Australian national debt will, neither of which are financially good for you.
F-35s are not going to be "gifted" to Australia as they might have been if the availability had been on time. But now, we have "The Art of The Deal" leader, and I don't think there will be any gifting going forward. He is a winner when it come to negotiations involving prices.
Keep showing the F-35 You Tubes, they are interesting, demonstrating the given, should be basic capabilities of fighter jets....
Thanks for your interesting, but misplaced viewpoint.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
'Turbine D' the money for the F-35s for Oz has already been set aside with a good margin for accounting for currency fluctuations. Thank goodness Oz is not like the USofA in many respects. Be condescending about YouTube Videos - no one forces you to watch them - have some respect for yourself and STOP!
President Frump has stopped tweeting about stuff so there is hope that is permanent.
President Frump has stopped tweeting about stuff so there is hope that is permanent.
To view, if only for the 'shopped' graphic
Next Big Future: Director of Testing says F35 needs years and billions to get near combat usable but DOD says US taxpayers should be fine with barely usable for $100+ billion and 12 years late
Truth in jest?
Next Big Future: Director of Testing says F35 needs years and billions to get near combat usable but DOD says US taxpayers should be fine with barely usable for $100+ billion and 12 years late
Truth in jest?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
POGO are good at getting the circle jerk of posts going. It is complete here with 'ORAC' posting the 'SNAFU BUNDY' article which references the original POGO here:
F-35 Continues to Stumble
Now the future has caught up with us and we are back there with the above URL:
Next Big Future: Director of Testing says F35 needs years and billions to get near combat usable but DOD says US taxpayers should be fine with barely usable for $100+ billion and 12 years late
POGO STICK IT I reckon....
F-35 Continues to Stumble
Now the future has caught up with us and we are back there with the above URL:
Next Big Future: Director of Testing says F35 needs years and billions to get near combat usable but DOD says US taxpayers should be fine with barely usable for $100+ billion and 12 years late
POGO STICK IT I reckon....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Turbine D' the money for the F-35s for Oz has already been set aside with a good margin for accounting for currency fluctuations. Thank goodness Oz is not like the USofA in many respects. Be condescending about YouTube Videos - no one forces you to watch them - have some respect for yourself and STOP!
(wellitisthef35threadsoitskindagrantedIsuppose)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
" New York, London, Paris, Munich..." everyones talkin' about - POP MUSIC - The TOE RAGS
SENATE - FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE - Estimates - (Public) 21 Oct 2015
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...d=156934&cat=3
SENATE - FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE - Estimates - (Public) 21 Oct 2015
"...Senator WHISH-WILSON: Could you tell us what you have budgeted for?
Air Vice Marshal Deeble: The current budget for the JSF program, including the infrastructure elements, is $17 million. That includes recent updates to exchange rate.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Seventeen billion or million?
Air Vice Marshal Deeble: Seventeen billion, sorry. That includes the purchase of 72 aircraft. The first aircraft were purchased in LRIP 6. The value of that was $126.7 million for those first two aircraft. Over the life of the production, which will go out to 2023, we are expecting the average cost of our aircraft to be $90 million each....
...Senator WHISH-WILSON: My next question was the time frame for delivery. You are saying four aircraft in the next—
Air Vice Marshal Deeble: The first two aircraft were purchased under LRIP 6, and they were delivered in 2014. The next aircraft that we will receive will be Low-Rate Initial Production 10. That will be in 2018. Eight aircraft will be purchased at that point in time. The following year, in LRIP 11, we will purchase another eight aircraft. Following that, on an annual basis, we will be purchasing 15 aircraft each year out to 2023, where we will purchase the last nine aircraft to take us to a total of 72 aircraft...."
Air Vice Marshal Deeble: The current budget for the JSF program, including the infrastructure elements, is $17 million. That includes recent updates to exchange rate.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Seventeen billion or million?
Air Vice Marshal Deeble: Seventeen billion, sorry. That includes the purchase of 72 aircraft. The first aircraft were purchased in LRIP 6. The value of that was $126.7 million for those first two aircraft. Over the life of the production, which will go out to 2023, we are expecting the average cost of our aircraft to be $90 million each....
...Senator WHISH-WILSON: My next question was the time frame for delivery. You are saying four aircraft in the next—
Air Vice Marshal Deeble: The first two aircraft were purchased under LRIP 6, and they were delivered in 2014. The next aircraft that we will receive will be Low-Rate Initial Production 10. That will be in 2018. Eight aircraft will be purchased at that point in time. The following year, in LRIP 11, we will purchase another eight aircraft. Following that, on an annual basis, we will be purchasing 15 aircraft each year out to 2023, where we will purchase the last nine aircraft to take us to a total of 72 aircraft...."
About the multinational F-35 program [25 Sep 2014]
In 2001 and 2002 a total of nine nations agreed to participate in the development of the F-35. In addition to the United States this included the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Turkey, Australia, Denmark and Norway. Of the nine countries in the program, seven have now made a final decision to buy the F-35. In 2007 the partners then signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the continued production, development and sustainment of the aircraft, and this agreement also established the management structure for the program that exists today.
Another important feature of the multinational program is that it negotiates joint contracts on behalf of all the partner nations. The various partner countries therefore have no separate contract with Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney for the purchase of the F-35. This is negotiated by the program office and the PEO, Lieutenant General Bogdan. This helps ensure that countries are able to negotiate with industry as one single entity...."
In 2001 and 2002 a total of nine nations agreed to participate in the development of the F-35. In addition to the United States this included the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Turkey, Australia, Denmark and Norway. Of the nine countries in the program, seven have now made a final decision to buy the F-35. In 2007 the partners then signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the continued production, development and sustainment of the aircraft, and this agreement also established the management structure for the program that exists today.
Another important feature of the multinational program is that it negotiates joint contracts on behalf of all the partner nations. The various partner countries therefore have no separate contract with Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney for the purchase of the F-35. This is negotiated by the program office and the PEO, Lieutenant General Bogdan. This helps ensure that countries are able to negotiate with industry as one single entity...."
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spaz,
That is interesting. How much money has been set aside for maintenance, fix-it programs and spare parts for the 72 jets? I think Oz will be getting the same F-35s the US will be getting, no better. Do you think the 2015 estimates are still valid?
An MOU is exactly that, it isn't a firm fixed contract. It expresses intent to buy or sell and identifies other side items, maybe.
So the US DoD is negotiating the price of the F-35s bound for Oz. How hard do you think they will negotiate with Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney verses if Oz were to do their own negotiating? L-M says they aren't making money on the F-35s, P&W definitely aren't making money on the engines, so how can those loss gaps be closed? If Bogdan and the DoD squeeze L-M and P&W really hard to lower the price of F-35s going to US Services, does Oz and others get the benefit of that squeeze? Think about it... The goal of offering F-35s to other friendly countries is to offset the cost of F-35s to the USN (USMC included) and the USAF. It would seem to me the higher the price to Oz and others results in lowered procurement costs to the US, wouldn't you think? Since there isn't a catalogue price listing, is Oz really getting a good deal compared to the exact same aircraft going to Israel?
Relative to YouTube videos, I said they were interesting. Matter of fact, YouTube is a US company now owned by Google and are easily accessed here, in Middle America.
Turbine D' the money for the F-35s for Oz has already been set aside with a good margin for accounting for currency fluctuations. Thank goodness Oz is not like the USofA in many respects.
An MOU is exactly that, it isn't a firm fixed contract. It expresses intent to buy or sell and identifies other side items, maybe.
So the US DoD is negotiating the price of the F-35s bound for Oz. How hard do you think they will negotiate with Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney verses if Oz were to do their own negotiating? L-M says they aren't making money on the F-35s, P&W definitely aren't making money on the engines, so how can those loss gaps be closed? If Bogdan and the DoD squeeze L-M and P&W really hard to lower the price of F-35s going to US Services, does Oz and others get the benefit of that squeeze? Think about it... The goal of offering F-35s to other friendly countries is to offset the cost of F-35s to the USN (USMC included) and the USAF. It would seem to me the higher the price to Oz and others results in lowered procurement costs to the US, wouldn't you think? Since there isn't a catalogue price listing, is Oz really getting a good deal compared to the exact same aircraft going to Israel?
Relative to YouTube videos, I said they were interesting. Matter of fact, YouTube is a US company now owned by Google and are easily accessed here, in Middle America.