F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Japanese F-35s get powerful anti-ship capability
From an article on Flight Global:-
Kongsberg has entered into a deal with Tokyo to supply its Joint Strike Missile (JSM) for use by the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF).
The Norwegian company disclosed the deal in a statement, but said that neither it nor the Japanese government are disclosing the number of weapons or the value of the contract. The timing of deliveries was also not discussed.
“The international [Lockheed Martin] F-35 user consortium is showing great interest in the JSM and Kongsberg is very proud to have been selected by Japan to provide the JSM for their F-35 fleet,” says Eirik Lie, President, Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace.
“This is a major milestone for the JSM program, entering into the production phase.”
The F-35 can carry two JSMs internally. At the Japan Aerospace show in 2016, the company told FlightGlobal that the weapon can also be adapted to serve aboard the Kawasaki P-1 maritime patrol/anti-submarine warfare aircraft.
The Norwegian company disclosed the deal in a statement, but said that neither it nor the Japanese government are disclosing the number of weapons or the value of the contract. The timing of deliveries was also not discussed.
“The international [Lockheed Martin] F-35 user consortium is showing great interest in the JSM and Kongsberg is very proud to have been selected by Japan to provide the JSM for their F-35 fleet,” says Eirik Lie, President, Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace.
“This is a major milestone for the JSM program, entering into the production phase.”
The F-35 can carry two JSMs internally. At the Japan Aerospace show in 2016, the company told FlightGlobal that the weapon can also be adapted to serve aboard the Kawasaki P-1 maritime patrol/anti-submarine warfare aircraft.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019...ment-property/
DoD inspector general slams F-35 program office for allowing Lockheed to manage government property
WASHINGTON — The F-35 Joint Program Office has not adequately tracked government property leant or leased to Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors, an oversight that a new investigation by the Defense Department’s inspector general said could impact readiness.
Building the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter requires the use of government property such as materiel, special tooling like molds used to form the jet’s structure and unique test equipment. Over the lifespan of the program, the F-35 JPO has not followed the mandated procedures used to manage government-furnished property, or GFP, and instead depended on Lockheed and its subcontractors to keep track of such equipment, stated a DoD IG report released Friday.
“As a result, the DoD does not know the actual value of the F‑35 property and does not have an independent record to verify the contractor‑valued government property of $2.1 billion for the F‑35 program,” the report said. “Without accurate records, the F‑35 Program officials have no visibility over the property and have no metrics to hold the prime contractor accountable for how it manages government property.
“The lack of asset visibility restricts the DoD’s ability to conduct the necessary checks and balances that ensure the prime contractor is managing and spending F‑35 Program funds in the government’s best interest and could impact the DoD’s ability to meet its operational readiness goals for the F‑35 aircraft.”..........
DoD inspector general slams F-35 program office for allowing Lockheed to manage government property
WASHINGTON — The F-35 Joint Program Office has not adequately tracked government property leant or leased to Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors, an oversight that a new investigation by the Defense Department’s inspector general said could impact readiness.
Building the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter requires the use of government property such as materiel, special tooling like molds used to form the jet’s structure and unique test equipment. Over the lifespan of the program, the F-35 JPO has not followed the mandated procedures used to manage government-furnished property, or GFP, and instead depended on Lockheed and its subcontractors to keep track of such equipment, stated a DoD IG report released Friday.
“As a result, the DoD does not know the actual value of the F‑35 property and does not have an independent record to verify the contractor‑valued government property of $2.1 billion for the F‑35 program,” the report said. “Without accurate records, the F‑35 Program officials have no visibility over the property and have no metrics to hold the prime contractor accountable for how it manages government property.
“The lack of asset visibility restricts the DoD’s ability to conduct the necessary checks and balances that ensure the prime contractor is managing and spending F‑35 Program funds in the government’s best interest and could impact the DoD’s ability to meet its operational readiness goals for the F‑35 aircraft.”..........
DoD inspector general slams F-35 program office for allowing Lockheed to manage government property
WASHINGTON — The F-35 Joint Program Office has not adequately tracked government property leant or leased to Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors, an oversight that a new investigation by the Defense Department’s inspector general said could impact readiness...
WASHINGTON — The F-35 Joint Program Office has not adequately tracked government property leant or leased to Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors, an oversight that a new investigation by the Defense Department’s inspector general said could impact readiness...
Good job nothing like that could ever happen in the UK:
Ministry of Defence loses 5,000 high tech radios worth £184 million
Ministry of Defence loses 5,000 high tech radios worth £184 million
The Ministry of Defence cannot account for more than £6 billion of taxpayer-funded spending and its accounts are so chaotic they cannot be signed off by auditors, a report by MPs warns today...
ORAC, while that is of interest (to me anyway) those numbers (in terms of actuals rather than forecast) will likely change every year.
typerated,
And a new airframe and engines...
And a new airframe and engines...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...eady-war-48312
Why the F-35 Isn't Ready for War
.........The most important measure of an aircraft’s readiness for combat is the “fully mission capable” rate. This is the percentage of aircraft on hand that have fully functional, non-degraded vehicle systems (flight controls and engine), electronic mission systems (radar, electronic warfare systems, computers, etc.), and weapons employment capabilities—a particularly important measure for the F-35. The 2017 DOT&E report showed a 26 percent fully mission capable rate across the entire F-35 fleet. Because the 2018 report makes no mention of this rate, it is impossible to know what the 2018 rate was.
The Navy document POGO obtained shows that the problem persists : the Marines’ F-35B and the Navy’s F-35C variants posted even worse figures in 2018 than in the previous year. The F-35B’s fully mission capable rate fell from 23 percent in October 2017 to 12.9 percent in June 2018, while the F-35C plummeted from 12 percent in October 2016 to 0 percent in December 2017, then remained in the single digits through 2018.........
Why the F-35 Isn't Ready for War
.........The most important measure of an aircraft’s readiness for combat is the “fully mission capable” rate. This is the percentage of aircraft on hand that have fully functional, non-degraded vehicle systems (flight controls and engine), electronic mission systems (radar, electronic warfare systems, computers, etc.), and weapons employment capabilities—a particularly important measure for the F-35. The 2017 DOT&E report showed a 26 percent fully mission capable rate across the entire F-35 fleet. Because the 2018 report makes no mention of this rate, it is impossible to know what the 2018 rate was.
The Navy document POGO obtained shows that the problem persists : the Marines’ F-35B and the Navy’s F-35C variants posted even worse figures in 2018 than in the previous year. The F-35B’s fully mission capable rate fell from 23 percent in October 2017 to 12.9 percent in June 2018, while the F-35C plummeted from 12 percent in October 2016 to 0 percent in December 2017, then remained in the single digits through 2018.........
So nearly half the price of the F-16 too, at $26,000, the f-35 is $29,000 SAR..what a bargain the f-15x is at $14,500 
It just goes to show how cheap a paper plane is to fly. It might go up once they actually build it.
From the twitter link, 5th poster down,
It just goes to show how cheap a paper plane is to fly. It might go up once they actually build it.
From the twitter link, 5th poster down,
The link that compares the actual cost of running the USAF ageing F-16C/D fleet (and everything associated with it), whilst being thrashed on ops, against a 2012 prediction provided by LM for an unknown point in the future that excludes a brace of F-35 associated costs?
LM's latest prediction is equally slippery but the hapless optimism has been replaced by a vague prediction that it will take another 15 to 20 years to get the CPFH under control:
Lockheed expects F-35 flying costs will take time to come down - exec - Latest News
The latest F-15 is not a paper plane - it is in production and operational use, just not with the USAF.
LM's latest prediction is equally slippery but the hapless optimism has been replaced by a vague prediction that it will take another 15 to 20 years to get the CPFH under control:
Lockheed expects F-35 flying costs will take time to come down - exec - Latest News
The latest F-15 is not a paper plane - it is in production and operational use, just not with the USAF.
Cost is a U shape, costly at the beginning and the end. I noticed they aren't using a fly away cost per plane, it will be dearer than the current F-35A.
Did you read your link?
SAR has the cost per hour for the F-35A at $29k, Your link has an average across customers and models of $35k and $6k dearer than the SAR F-35A. With heading to an average $25k by 2025.
The f-15EX, still a paper plane and will be different to what is currently being built and fitted. I haven't seen that they have even locked in the specs or a fixed cost yet?
Adding the numbers you provided, Do you think they can get F-15EX flying for 50% less and between 14,5-17.5k per hour? Less than a FA-18ef. It really is a big ask.
"Lockheed Martin Vice President and General Manager F-35 Program Greg Ulmer said there was an effort to lower the cost per flight hour to $25,000 by 2025 but further savings would take longer.
"Today it is different customer by customer but I think $35,000 per flying hour is a good number," he told Reuters in an interview at the Australian International Airshow.
"If we project that out based on the initiatives we have in place, we believe as we move out to the 2035-2040 timeframe we can get that cost down to under what a fourth gen is today," in the range of $20,000-25,000 per flight hour.
Initiatives involved in lowering the cost to $25,000 an hour include reducing the number of mechanics needed to support each plane, Ulmer said."
Did you read your link?
SAR has the cost per hour for the F-35A at $29k, Your link has an average across customers and models of $35k and $6k dearer than the SAR F-35A. With heading to an average $25k by 2025.
The f-15EX, still a paper plane and will be different to what is currently being built and fitted. I haven't seen that they have even locked in the specs or a fixed cost yet?
Adding the numbers you provided, Do you think they can get F-15EX flying for 50% less and between 14,5-17.5k per hour? Less than a FA-18ef. It really is a big ask.
"Lockheed Martin Vice President and General Manager F-35 Program Greg Ulmer said there was an effort to lower the cost per flight hour to $25,000 by 2025 but further savings would take longer.
"Today it is different customer by customer but I think $35,000 per flying hour is a good number," he told Reuters in an interview at the Australian International Airshow.
"If we project that out based on the initiatives we have in place, we believe as we move out to the 2035-2040 timeframe we can get that cost down to under what a fourth gen is today," in the range of $20,000-25,000 per flight hour.
Initiatives involved in lowering the cost to $25,000 an hour include reducing the number of mechanics needed to support each plane, Ulmer said."
Last edited by golder; 28th Mar 2019 at 13:05.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 59°09N 002°38W (IATA: SOY, ICAO: EGER)
Age: 80
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m sure a whole cabal, somewhere in the Pentagon, has convinced themselves and others that we should invest in 60’s and 70’s technology, with later bandaids added, for mid-21st century AirPower. It worked for the B-52 and the C-135. So we get a very expensive, old but updated two seat fighter (a great airplane in its day), and then put only one crew member in it. WTF? Has Trump infected the Pentagon? Oh yeah, acting SecDef has a background in military air or...?
We paid a boatload to design and field a 5th gen stealth fighter with revolutionary capabilities, the marginal costs of which only drop with each new tail. So we prefer to spend another boatload on another airplane. Of course, Boeing needs the business, shares are dropping. And I just finished paying taxes, so I feel like ranting.
We paid a boatload to design and field a 5th gen stealth fighter with revolutionary capabilities, the marginal costs of which only drop with each new tail. So we prefer to spend another boatload on another airplane. Of course, Boeing needs the business, shares are dropping. And I just finished paying taxes, so I feel like ranting.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
So we get a very expensive, old but updated two seat fighter (a great airplane in its day), and then put only one crew member in it. WTF?
The F-15E is a two seat bomber because of the increased workload, but modern weapon systems make a single seat multi-role version, as with the F-18E, more than practicable.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Umm, the latest version of the F-15 is based on the E model, which is a two seater and can perform both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. USAF only wants to do air-to-air with theirs and so the second crewman is not needed. But taking the second seat out would add cost. So they're doing the smart thing and putting one pilot in a two seat airplane. And about that "old" technology patched together with "band aids"? It's at least as good as and in many ways better than any other non-stealth tactical jet out there. And for the specific intended role (long range missileer) it's significantly better than either stealth fighter. And about it being "expensive"? Not only is it cheaper to buy, but much more importantly it's way cheaper to operate than either stealth fighter. As for Boeing "needing" the business? Boeing is doing VERY well thank you selling airliners, Super Hornets, military trainer jets, aerial tankers, AWACS aircraft, Maritime patrol aircraft, a big drone, heavy lift helos, the world's premier attack helicopter (incidentally the same vintage as the F-15), JDAMS, missiles and other ordnance, satellites, etc, etc. And that does not even include their global aerospace support business which is also going gang busters. So no, this is in no way some kind of "bail out" of Boeing as you attempted to imply.
