F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
And the USN orders yet more F-18Gs........
The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is being awarded an $897,530,175 modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-firm contract (N00019-14-C-0032) for the procurement of 15 Lot 38 full-rate production EA-18G aircraft and associated airborne electronic attack kits.
Work will be performed in El Segundo, California (40.3 percent); St. Louis, Missouri (24.1 percent); Bethpage, New York (18.5 percent); Cleveland, Ohio (1.7 percent); Bloomington, Minnesota (1.5 percent); Mesa, Arizona (1.3 percent); Torrance, California (1.3 percent); Vandalia, Ohio (1.1 percent); Ajax, California (1.1 percent); Irvine, California (0.8 percent); Santa Clarita, California (0.6 percent); South Korea (0.6 percent); and various other locations in the continental U.S. (7.1 percent).
Work is expected to be completed in January 2018. Fiscal 2015 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $897,530,175 are being obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.
The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is being awarded an $897,530,175 modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-firm contract (N00019-14-C-0032) for the procurement of 15 Lot 38 full-rate production EA-18G aircraft and associated airborne electronic attack kits.
Work will be performed in El Segundo, California (40.3 percent); St. Louis, Missouri (24.1 percent); Bethpage, New York (18.5 percent); Cleveland, Ohio (1.7 percent); Bloomington, Minnesota (1.5 percent); Mesa, Arizona (1.3 percent); Torrance, California (1.3 percent); Vandalia, Ohio (1.1 percent); Ajax, California (1.1 percent); Irvine, California (0.8 percent); Santa Clarita, California (0.6 percent); South Korea (0.6 percent); and various other locations in the continental U.S. (7.1 percent).
Work is expected to be completed in January 2018. Fiscal 2015 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $897,530,175 are being obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.
Originally Posted by snafu
a1bill, how exactly do you think your opinions and sniping add to this thread?
You are patently not, nor have ever been, a military professional and clearly have no access or information of an interesting nature yet you persist in posting your opinion as if it in some way contributes.
Are you solely here for some sort of self gratification?
You are patently not, nor have ever been, a military professional and clearly have no access or information of an interesting nature yet you persist in posting your opinion as if it in some way contributes.
Are you solely here for some sort of self gratification?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the USN orders yet more F-18Gs........
The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is being awarded an $897,530,175 modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-firm contract (N00019-14-C-0032) for the procurement of 15 Lot 38 full-rate production EA-18G aircraft and associated airborne electronic attack kits.
Work will be performed in El Segundo, California (40.3 percent); St. Louis, Missouri (24.1 percent); Bethpage, New York (18.5 percent); Cleveland, Ohio (1.7 percent); Bloomington, Minnesota (1.5 percent); Mesa, Arizona (1.3 percent); Torrance, California (1.3 percent); Vandalia, Ohio (1.1 percent); Ajax, California (1.1 percent); Irvine, California (0.8 percent); Santa Clarita, California (0.6 percent); South Korea (0.6 percent); and various other locations in the continental U.S. (7.1 percent).
Work is expected to be completed in January 2018. Fiscal 2015 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $897,530,175 are being obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.
The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is being awarded an $897,530,175 modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-firm contract (N00019-14-C-0032) for the procurement of 15 Lot 38 full-rate production EA-18G aircraft and associated airborne electronic attack kits.
Work will be performed in El Segundo, California (40.3 percent); St. Louis, Missouri (24.1 percent); Bethpage, New York (18.5 percent); Cleveland, Ohio (1.7 percent); Bloomington, Minnesota (1.5 percent); Mesa, Arizona (1.3 percent); Torrance, California (1.3 percent); Vandalia, Ohio (1.1 percent); Ajax, California (1.1 percent); Irvine, California (0.8 percent); Santa Clarita, California (0.6 percent); South Korea (0.6 percent); and various other locations in the continental U.S. (7.1 percent).
Work is expected to be completed in January 2018. Fiscal 2015 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $897,530,175 are being obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO: = I pulled it all out of my earhole.
Sort of, I guess. this is part of it, if you pick this podcast up at about an hour, to hear how the f-35 will update the threat library between missions
https://goo.gl/oNSoTD
Sort of, I guess. this is part of it, if you pick this podcast up at about an hour, to hear how the f-35 will update the threat library between missions
https://goo.gl/oNSoTD
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GR:Are these airframes and their system "mature"?? IE ready for operations, unlike the thread subject.
I think 12 of those lot 38 G's are for Australia, the Growlers are in theater now.
I think 12 of those lot 38 G's are for Australia, the Growlers are in theater now.
I chose to say that being called an idiot by LO is abusive
I object strongly. I am still at "sarcasm" level, and have to exhaust dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire, before turning it a couple more stops to "abusive", at which point you will surely know about it.
Also, I'm still waiting for MSOCS/The Lory* to come up with some specifics rather than just "you can't know about this because it's all secret".
* Indeed, she had quite a long argument with the Lory, who at last turned sulky, and would only say, `I am older than you, and must know better'; and this Alice would not allow without knowing how old it was, and, as the Lory positively refused to tell its age, there was no more to be said.
I object strongly. I am still at "sarcasm" level, and have to exhaust dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire, before turning it a couple more stops to "abusive", at which point you will surely know about it.
Also, I'm still waiting for MSOCS/The Lory* to come up with some specifics rather than just "you can't know about this because it's all secret".
* Indeed, she had quite a long argument with the Lory, who at last turned sulky, and would only say, `I am older than you, and must know better'; and this Alice would not allow without knowing how old it was, and, as the Lory positively refused to tell its age, there was no more to be said.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you listen to the podcast from about the one hour mark? I think that should put your mind at rest, about the claim that the UK can only update their threat libraries in the AUCRL.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
a1bill,
Listened to the broadcast and it's a good description of how they operate the Growler. However, from 1 hour on the comments about the F-35 are hopes. e.g. Reference updating the F18 mission tapes between sorties he adds that, "we hope to be able to do that with the F-35 as well".
I am not sure how you reach from that comment to, "The partners and even FMS customers can add to the Cyber/EM spectrum of their EW suite. I think it is a layered approach that has a preprogrammed suite that is added to from the battlespace. In real time or between missions."
In fact, the Sweetman article would seem to dash those hopes.
Listened to the broadcast and it's a good description of how they operate the Growler. However, from 1 hour on the comments about the F-35 are hopes. e.g. Reference updating the F18 mission tapes between sorties he adds that, "we hope to be able to do that with the F-35 as well".
I am not sure how you reach from that comment to, "The partners and even FMS customers can add to the Cyber/EM spectrum of their EW suite. I think it is a layered approach that has a preprogrammed suite that is added to from the battlespace. In real time or between missions."
In fact, the Sweetman article would seem to dash those hopes.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO, ORAC,
I really don't expect any of the UK team working in the EW/Mission Systems part of the F-35 programme to come on here and spill the beans on exactly what they are doing and how they are doing it.
The issue of Op Sov has always been a concern, hence the completely appropriate spotlight on it, but there are benefits to being a Level 1 partner. The UK has had key, experienced personnel working in the US and UK on both the technical and legal issues around this subject for several years and our joint efforts with the US on other platforms has also been useful.
You may want specifics to satisfy your interests/agendas but I would truly be saddened to see them broadcast on a public forum. Some elements of this aircraft are classified for good reasons, especially following previous lapses which are evident from Chinese aircraft developments.
I really don't expect any of the UK team working in the EW/Mission Systems part of the F-35 programme to come on here and spill the beans on exactly what they are doing and how they are doing it.
The issue of Op Sov has always been a concern, hence the completely appropriate spotlight on it, but there are benefits to being a Level 1 partner. The UK has had key, experienced personnel working in the US and UK on both the technical and legal issues around this subject for several years and our joint efforts with the US on other platforms has also been useful.
You may want specifics to satisfy your interests/agendas but I would truly be saddened to see them broadcast on a public forum. Some elements of this aircraft are classified for good reasons, especially following previous lapses which are evident from Chinese aircraft developments.
AW&ST: U.S. Will Keep Locks On JSF Software Updates
Foreign air forces using the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are being compelled to fund $150 million software laboratories, based in the U.S. and almost 50% staffed by U.S. personnel, that generate data crucial to the fighter’s ability to identify new radio-frequency threats.
Originally Posted by LO
I object strongly. I am still at "sarcasm" level, and have to exhaust dramatic
irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire, before turning it a couple more stops to "abusive", at which point you will surely know about it.
irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire, before turning it a couple more stops to "abusive", at which point you will surely know about it.
I really don't expect any of the UK team working in the EW/Mission Systems part of the F-35 programme to come on here and spill the beans on exactly what they are doing and how they are doing it.
Neither do I.
But if the location and function of the F-35 Reprogramming Labs are on the public record, surely the same would be true of parallel facilities in other programs. So the question I asked MSOCS - "which other fighter aircraft are exported on condition that the buyers can only edit their threat libraries in facilities based in the vendor's sovereign territory and controlled (inside and out) by the vendor's armed forces?" - should have an unclassified answer.
Neither do I.
But if the location and function of the F-35 Reprogramming Labs are on the public record, surely the same would be true of parallel facilities in other programs. So the question I asked MSOCS - "which other fighter aircraft are exported on condition that the buyers can only edit their threat libraries in facilities based in the vendor's sovereign territory and controlled (inside and out) by the vendor's armed forces?" - should have an unclassified answer.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello again LO,
Sorry to have kept you waiting but I clearly don't frequent these halls of amusement as much as you do.
That said, to answer your question in an unclassified way:
It isn't/wasn't a "condition" as far as I am aware. Perhaps not everything is as sinister as you might like to postulate. Perhaps there are other reasons that cannot be disclosed eh?
Thank you for the Alice comparison; it says more about you than me and I can guarantee I'm much, much younger Mr S!
Sorry to have kept you waiting but I clearly don't frequent these halls of amusement as much as you do.
That said, to answer your question in an unclassified way:
"which other fighter aircraft are exported on condition that the buyers can only edit their threat libraries in facilities based in the vendor's sovereign territory and controlled (inside and out) by the vendor's armed forces?"
Thank you for the Alice comparison; it says more about you than me and I can guarantee I'm much, much younger Mr S!
MSOCS - Thanks. I'm really trying to smoke this story out.
You state: "It [locating the labs stateside, I presume] isn't/wasn't a "condition" as far as I am aware."
The full story reads:
But even the current security regime is the result of a compromise by the U.S. In September 2014, JSFPO director Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan indicated that the foreign-owned laboratories would allow the operators more access to the system than they would otherwise have enjoyed.
That suggests that if building a U.S. lab was not a condition for buying the airplane, it was still the only way to have sovereign access to threat libraries. The Bogdan reference was from here...
Foreign F-35 Partners Allowed More Freedom to Customize Fighter Software - USNI News
... and if the JSFPO thought that USNI had it wrong they had lots of time to say so, and they didn't.
You state: "It [locating the labs stateside, I presume] isn't/wasn't a "condition" as far as I am aware."
The full story reads:
But even the current security regime is the result of a compromise by the U.S. In September 2014, JSFPO director Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan indicated that the foreign-owned laboratories would allow the operators more access to the system than they would otherwise have enjoyed.
That suggests that if building a U.S. lab was not a condition for buying the airplane, it was still the only way to have sovereign access to threat libraries. The Bogdan reference was from here...
Foreign F-35 Partners Allowed More Freedom to Customize Fighter Software - USNI News
... and if the JSFPO thought that USNI had it wrong they had lots of time to say so, and they didn't.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
This statement is quite a good one to center on:
Perhaps that was a driver when decisions were made. Perhaps it was cost of countries building their own on "sovereign" territory. Data sharing. Yep. Always a contentious subject.
I think that saying the building of a Lab in the USA was a condition when buying a US-owned jet is incorrect. Was it a logical decision for Partner nations? Perhaps.
Maybe I need to find someone older to tell me how it is.
This statement is quite a good one to center on:
“So we have a throughput problem,” Bogdan said.
I think that saying the building of a Lab in the USA was a condition when buying a US-owned jet is incorrect. Was it a logical decision for Partner nations? Perhaps.
Maybe I need to find someone older to tell me how it is.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
A long way back, when the US was trying to sell the F16 around the ME and other areas, they originally insisted that all EW kit had to be integrated by GD back in the USA - purchasing nations having to provide EW pods and threat libraries.
Strangely enough the interested parties, many of whom had UK/FR/other pods had issues with this themselves - and with the manufacturers who had no interest in giving examples for the US to reverse engineer. Let alone the suspicion that a certain other nation, other than the US, might have back doors so they could operate without interference (in many senses of the word).
Labs in the US ensures that no US sensitive data escapes the USA, it also (being cynical) ensures the USA enjoys total access to all purchaser red and blue libraries and the synergies between them - whilst also enjoying the opportunity to - ahem - manipulate the resultant product, in the interests of national security.
I note the Israelis are being allowed to integrate their own EW equipment and datalink equipment. I note with interest the lack of mention of an Israel US laboratory.......
Panetta?s Visit Sealed F-35 Jet Sale to Israel - Inside Israel - News - Arutz Sheva
p.s. The US policy was relaxed when sales faltered. Perhaps it will do so again......
Strangely enough the interested parties, many of whom had UK/FR/other pods had issues with this themselves - and with the manufacturers who had no interest in giving examples for the US to reverse engineer. Let alone the suspicion that a certain other nation, other than the US, might have back doors so they could operate without interference (in many senses of the word).
Labs in the US ensures that no US sensitive data escapes the USA, it also (being cynical) ensures the USA enjoys total access to all purchaser red and blue libraries and the synergies between them - whilst also enjoying the opportunity to - ahem - manipulate the resultant product, in the interests of national security.
I note the Israelis are being allowed to integrate their own EW equipment and datalink equipment. I note with interest the lack of mention of an Israel US laboratory.......
Panetta?s Visit Sealed F-35 Jet Sale to Israel - Inside Israel - News - Arutz Sheva
p.s. The US policy was relaxed when sales faltered. Perhaps it will do so again......