F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Not_a_boffin]

New thread required?

Is it time to rename this thread? Something along the lines of "My dad's bigger than your dad?"

Leave this thread to revel in debates best summarised as

"F35 is an uber-ship. Anyone who says different is a puff - and I have the latest (or recycled) JPO press releases to back it up"

vs

"F35 is a catastrophe. Anyone who says otherwise is a kiddy-fiddler - and I have the latest (or recycled) critical article/report to back it up"

[Rhino power]

Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin

"F35 is an uber-ship. Anyone who says different is a puff - and I have the latest (or recycled) JPO press releases to back it up"

vs

"F35 is a catastrophe. Anyone who says otherwise is a kiddy-fiddler - and I have the latest (or recycled) critical article/report to back it up"

Priceless!

-RP

[ORAC]

More on the money now being poured into the F-18 pot instead of the F-35 pot.....

U.S. Navy Budget Underscores Need To Extend F-18 Use

THE PENTAGON – With F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) delays and continued expanded reliance on F-18 aircraft, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps are working hard to make the legacy Hornets last much longer than they were meant to, budget documents show.

“Until the F-35B/C aircraft are available in required numbers, the Navy plans to mitigate the inventory challenge with service life extension of the legacy F/A-18A-D airframes to 8,000-10,000 hours (over original design of 6,000 hours),” the Navy notes in documentation supporting the fiscal 2017 budget request submitted this week...............

The services contend, “Continued investment in the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP), the High Flight Hour (HFH) inspection program, and Air Systems Support (i.e. Program Related Engineering and Program Related Logistics) is crucial to our flight hour extension strategy. In order to maintain warfighting relevancy in a changing threat environment, we will continue to procure and install advanced systems such as Digital Communication System Radios, Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS) and the Night Vision Cueing and Display (NVCD), High Order Language Mission Computers, ALR-67v3, ALQ-214v5, Multi-Function Information Distribution System-Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS-JTRS), APG-73 radar enhancements, Advanced Targeting Forward looking Infrared (ATFLIR) upgrades, and LITENING targeting pods for the Marine Corps on selected F/A-18A-D aircraft.”...................

[t43562]

"F35 is an uber-ship. Anyone who says different is a puff - and I have the latest (or recycled) JPO press releases to back it up"

vs

"F35 is a catastrophe. Anyone who says otherwise is a kiddy-fiddler - and I have the latest (or recycled) critical article/report to back it up"

What should the conclusion be then? Perhaps both? e.g. could one say that it's a financial disaster but we're going to stick with it until it reaches the point of being useful and then it will have its good points?

[PhilipG]

F/A 18A-D Upgrade Costs

With the delay in the F35C's appearance in the fleet, the decision to SLEP and upgrade a large part of the electronics in the legacy Hornets cannot be a cheap option, particularly if it is only giving a life increase of some 2,000 hours.

Soon I would have thought that the costs would be getting somewhere near the costs of a new Rhino, particularly when you look at the logistical and other support benefits of only having one major airframe on a carrier and a Naval Air Station.

I suppose the USMC would not want to transition from Hornet to Rhino then to F35C.

[Turbine D]

at one hour mark, it answers your FUD

Ah, yes, that answers everything. Good snapshot of how things work. The Senator is more worried about keeping his local AFB going into the future by campaigning for some number of F-35s being based there. And the Secretary of the Air Force is accommodating his concern by smoothing over the latest bump in the road, e.g., deferring 45 F-35s that will not have any impact on costs, or maybe not. What you are seeing is the Washington politics at work that contributed immensely to the ever increasing costly F-35 program. Keep in mind, if the grass was a foot tall emerging from the cracks in the main runway at the Senator's local AFB due to nonuse, he would still be campaigning to keep it alive. The whole deal is to get reelected...

[a1bill]

nutloose, that would have been a good caption pic. While reading the brief he got to the part that said ............


TD. The system is the best gov that money can buy and an honest polly is one who's bought stays bought. But it did answer the gap filler question.

[Turbine D]

But it did answer the gap filler question.

Except for the math that supports "All will be OK".

As reenforcement from the F-35 JPO, General Bogdan said, "The move to trim orders for the USAF wouldn't harm the effort to cut the average cost of the main model (assumed to be model A) to between $80M and $85M by 2019, when adjusted by inflation". Bowden expects (as you do) the overseas deals to fill the gap left by reduced USAF purchases and forecasts total domestic and international sales of 873 between now and 2021, 20 fewer than forecasted in 2015. However, these numbers include as many as 60 from Canada where the competition has been reopened by the Liberal government. They best hot foot it up to Canada to keep the anticipated F-35s from morphing into a different aircraft. Keep in mind the video was only a Senate sub-committee, not the full Senate Armed Services Committee.

As a side note, the Pentagon plans to invest $100M during the next year on cost cutting efforts, building on the $170M spent by Lockeed-Martin and BAE Systems PLC during the last three years. Question: As a result of this three year effort, did the cost of an F-35A go down or up? Was it really cost reduction oriented or problem solving money?

[a1bill]

TD, the more they build per year the cheaper it is, but they need to replace 6 tails a year, I copy/pasted the lot 8/9 that japan and israel have got more than 6 tails a year. canada are retiring the hornets in 2025, so they could get some in the mix. korea will also start.

For the LRIP Lot 11 award, Lockheed Martin is to acquire long-lead items for 80 F-35A aircraft (28 for the US Air Force [USAF]; 6 for the Royal Norwegian Air Force [RoNAF]; 4 for the Turkish Air Force [TuAF]; 8 for the Royal Netherlands Air Force [RNLAF]; 8 for the Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF]; 10 for the Israeli Air force [IAF]; 6 for the Japan Air Self-Defense Force [JASDF]; and 10 for the Republic of Korea Air Force [RoKAF]); 7 F-35B aircraft (6 for the US Marine Corps [USMC]; and 1 for the UK Royal Air Force [RAF]/Royal Navy [RN]); and 4 F-35C aircraft for the US Navy (USN).

personally I think it's time the naysayers packed their tents and move to the F/FX programs,
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/b...ines-included/
February 11, 2016
Now, Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan says the most common model of the plane, the F-35A, will hit $80 million to $85 million by 2019 and he expects the price will go lower, especially when it hits multi-year procurement in a few years. That price is in then-year dollars, and it includes an engine.

He estimated the next two lots, LRIPs 9 and 10, will come in at just about and then below $100 million a plane. The deal, which had been expected months ago, had hit what Bogdan admitted was an “impasse.” The problem? “I’m not rushing into a bad deal, ” he said, adding that he wasn’t “going to let time pressure me into doing a bad deal for taxpayers.” Total value of the two lots should be around $15 billion.

[LowObservable]

So in Breaking Defense's book - it's hard to say whether that piece is reporting or an op-ed - skeptics "howl" and the F/A-18 is "ostensibly" cheaper.

This must be a new definition of "ostensibly", where the word means "as demonstrated conclusively in government budget documents, despite efforts of shills and trolls to apply new math to the issue". (And that compares a CV airplane to the F-35A model - ask the Navy if the Super H costs as much as an F-35C.)

F-35 pricing in the real world is a fascinating issue, mainly because the aircraft being produced now are all covered by a remarkable number of contracts, which only rises as the aircraft are fixed and reworked.

As for the foreign sales in LRIP 11, two comments. First they have to sell the 41 export jets in LRIP 10. And they didn't, in LRIP 9, sell all of the 23 aircraft they planned on, which was why Congress had to step in and plus-up in December.

Another comment on the BD piece: It does seem to reflect the attitude that it's "only" software. In 2016 that doesn't fly.

[a1bill]

LO, I hope you save some for the f/fx that I'm sure you will bag too.

the Shornet was a piece of poop in 2005. Sweetman went to great lengths to bag it. Now he thinks it's gods gift to aviation, the naysayers are funny.

you mean the USAF can cut them from their budget and congress can add them back later from 'other' money. you'd almost think it was a plan

[Snafu351]

Do you ever have anything substantive to contribute a1bill?
Your "opinion" is very well known. Repeating it and taking pops at people doesn't enhance it.
(For those who are going to complain about this post potentially being "off topic" perhaps they would like to address the complete lack of anything beyond repetition and sniping that a1bill contributes first, off topic much? Doing that will absolutely ensure no further "off topic" posts from the likes of me.)

[Just This Once...]

Again, I love the optimism. The new US plan is to buy less now because they are expensive but getting the international customers to purchase the ones they didn't in previous years, plus all the ones they hope they will buy in the next few years too. As a result of this largesse by the other nations the unit price will fall and the US can then purchase many more at the new lower price. Oh and this tactic will be announced ahead of time just so the other customers remember to bring their chequebooks.

Where do I sign?

[a1bill]

there was concern that the 6 tails dropped will result in a price rise. I posted the that the FMS more than replace the cut.
at one hour mark,
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov...budget-request

I also posted just above that the price is still on track for $80-85m and even less when the MYbuy is done.

LO was kind enough to point out that congress have shown their support by adding tails above what was ordered.

I also reminded LO how the Shornet was called a dog and is now the embodiment of aviation design. I wonder why Boeing didn't put it forward as it's FX design that it lost to the f-35?

[Mach Two]

Snafu,

I agree. It is becoming very tiresome and repetitive. I'm not sure what is gained by continuously talking everything up, I suspect it may have the opposite effect of that desired.

[LowObservable]

Better account of Bogdan's media event here:

F-35 Chief Lays Out Biggest Development Risks

Note that the mission data files - the SW that "can go to the lookup tables in the MDF and say, ‘aha, that’s a MiG-31,’” - are indeed different for US and non-US aircraft. That will make interoperability all kinds of interesting.

[a1bill]

The same risks that I posted from the RAAF
PORTFOLIO ADDITIONAL
• The JSF air system continues to mature at a slow and steady pace. The Autonomic Logistic Information System (ALIS) and reprogramming capabilities remain major risks.

could there be a slip in the block 3f? maybe, time will tell.

[Mach Two]

LO,

The other quote by CB that really caught my attention was,

The JPO is seeing this choking effect, where the plane’s systems shut down and need to be rebooted, about once every four flight hours with both 3i and 3F software, Bogdan said. The goal is to get to one event every eight or nine flight hours, which is in line with legacy airplanes, he said.

So, which of the "plane's" systems are shutting down every four hours, how long to reboot, what is the occupant left with while this is happening and which "legacy platforms" suffer this type of "shut down" every eight to nine hours?

Back to the logies' problem, ALIS? ALIS? Who the is ALIS?

[Turbine D]

a1bill,

Arizona Republican John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, blasted the block buy strategy, telling CNN that it "leaves taxpayers on the hook for expensive changes to fix problems discovered late in production. And it's one of the reasons that the F-35 is a shining example of how not to conduct a major acquisition program."

The F-35 program is more than $200B over budget from what was advertised as well as being terribly late to the party. The US DoD have admitted they still don't know how it will fare in combat because that hasn't been assessed, yet.

It is the American taxpayers footing the bill for the program miscues to this point, the international folks except for the UK have laid little money on the table, at least one none at all. Some Americans must not mind giving away part of their tax dollars to Lockheed-Martin to fix the numerous problems L-M were responsible for creating in the first place.

[KenV]

From a1b's link:
"the F-35 is an evolution in air superiority."
So it IS an air superiority fighter. Won't be needing F-22 anymore then.

Courtney makes a good point. However, I'd like to make 2 points:

1. "An evolution in air superiority" is NOT the same thing as ""an evolution in air superiority fighters." The difference is subtle, but very significant. We need to be more cautious about what we read into such statements.

2. Calling the F-35 an air superiority fighter (which I don't believe the above statement did) and even using it as an air superiority fighter does not make it one. The Tornado and Thunderchief come to mind. Yes you can call them and even use them as air superiority fighters, but neither were real fighters, much less air superiority fighters. The F-35 was never designed as an air superiority fighter. It was designed as a self-escorting strike aircraft. It's optimized for the air-to-ground role, with a very good, (many say dominating) BVR air-to-air capability and a competent but not dominating close-in A2A capability.