More delays for the F-35
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More delays for the F-35
Gosh, shock, surprise horror...
Rumour has it there will probably be further delays with the F-35 program and we may not get the aircraft we ordered when we wanted them!!
Lucky we kept our harrier fleet to tide us over. I feel sorry for the Americans because their AV8B's are getting well past there sell by date and they might land up with carriers but no aircraft to man them!
How silly will they look if that were to happen... Aircraft carriers and no aircraft what type of idiot country would get into that situation?
WEBF where are you?
Rumour has it there will probably be further delays with the F-35 program and we may not get the aircraft we ordered when we wanted them!!
WASHINGTON — British Defence Minister Philip Hammond has voiced concern about possible cuts or delays in the US F-35 fighter program as London plans to equip a future aircraft carrier with the stealthy aircraft.
In a visit to the US capital, Hammond said he wanted to hear from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta about the potential effect of a new US military strategy and budget plan on the future of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
"One of the things I hope to understand in the meetings I am to have later today is what, if any, impact the announcements being made today will have on the Joint Strike Fighter program," Hammond told an audience at the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank.
Hammond's Thursday visit coincided with the unveiling of a revised American military strategy that calls for a "leaner" force as the Pentagon plans for $487 billion in cuts over the next decade.
At the Pentagon's presentation on Thursday, officials gave no details as to possible changes to the F-35 program, which has been plagued by cost overruns and delays due to a spate of technical problems. US officials have acknowledged that the pace of production will likely be scaled back but have yet to offer specifics.
After Hammond's meeting with his American counterpart, the Pentagon issued a statement confirming the two discussed the US strategic review but made no mention of the F-35 jet.
The Pentagon said the two defense chiefs signed an agreement on "carrier cooperation" that will allow the United States to help Britain train crews and pilots as the country's new aircraft carrier will not be ready for years.
"Since the British currently are regenerating their carrier capability, it also provides a framework for the US to assist our close ally in developing a robust and modern carrier force," press secretary George Little told AFP in an email.
Britain, one of a group of countries supporting the F-35 program, is counting on the Joint Strike Fighter to fly from its future aircraft carrier, the Prince of Wales.
The Pentagon has commissioned the construction of three versions of the plane, including one designed to land on an aircraft carrier.
"We are committed to purchasing the carrier variant," Hammond said at the Atlantic Council event.
"But of course, if there is any slippage in the program, any reduction in the US numbers required could have impacts on availability and on unit costs," said Hammond, citing pressures on Britain's defense budget.
"As you may know we are already under some pressure from public opinion in the UK over the fact that we are going to build and launch carriers some years before we have any aircraft to fly off with," he said.
"Really, it's a caricaturist's dream -- a carrier with no jets to fly on them. So the prospect of any further delays to the carrier variant would be of concern to us."
At an estimated $385 billion, the F-35 is the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program ever.
The program calls for building 2,443 of the fighters, with each plane costing $113 million in fiscal year 2011 dollars.
Manufactured by defense giant Lockheed Martin, there are plans for three models: a standard variant of the aircraft, an F-35A, a short take-off version, the F-35B, and a fighter designed to fly from aircraft carriers.
Britain has scrapped plans to buy the short take-off F-35B and reportedly plans to buy 138 F-35 fighters.
In a visit to the US capital, Hammond said he wanted to hear from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta about the potential effect of a new US military strategy and budget plan on the future of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
"One of the things I hope to understand in the meetings I am to have later today is what, if any, impact the announcements being made today will have on the Joint Strike Fighter program," Hammond told an audience at the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank.
Hammond's Thursday visit coincided with the unveiling of a revised American military strategy that calls for a "leaner" force as the Pentagon plans for $487 billion in cuts over the next decade.
At the Pentagon's presentation on Thursday, officials gave no details as to possible changes to the F-35 program, which has been plagued by cost overruns and delays due to a spate of technical problems. US officials have acknowledged that the pace of production will likely be scaled back but have yet to offer specifics.
After Hammond's meeting with his American counterpart, the Pentagon issued a statement confirming the two discussed the US strategic review but made no mention of the F-35 jet.
The Pentagon said the two defense chiefs signed an agreement on "carrier cooperation" that will allow the United States to help Britain train crews and pilots as the country's new aircraft carrier will not be ready for years.
"Since the British currently are regenerating their carrier capability, it also provides a framework for the US to assist our close ally in developing a robust and modern carrier force," press secretary George Little told AFP in an email.
Britain, one of a group of countries supporting the F-35 program, is counting on the Joint Strike Fighter to fly from its future aircraft carrier, the Prince of Wales.
The Pentagon has commissioned the construction of three versions of the plane, including one designed to land on an aircraft carrier.
"We are committed to purchasing the carrier variant," Hammond said at the Atlantic Council event.
"But of course, if there is any slippage in the program, any reduction in the US numbers required could have impacts on availability and on unit costs," said Hammond, citing pressures on Britain's defense budget.
"As you may know we are already under some pressure from public opinion in the UK over the fact that we are going to build and launch carriers some years before we have any aircraft to fly off with," he said.
"Really, it's a caricaturist's dream -- a carrier with no jets to fly on them. So the prospect of any further delays to the carrier variant would be of concern to us."
At an estimated $385 billion, the F-35 is the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program ever.
The program calls for building 2,443 of the fighters, with each plane costing $113 million in fiscal year 2011 dollars.
Manufactured by defense giant Lockheed Martin, there are plans for three models: a standard variant of the aircraft, an F-35A, a short take-off version, the F-35B, and a fighter designed to fly from aircraft carriers.
Britain has scrapped plans to buy the short take-off F-35B and reportedly plans to buy 138 F-35 fighters.
How silly will they look if that were to happen... Aircraft carriers and no aircraft what type of idiot country would get into that situation?
WEBF where are you?
It was bound to happen. I always used to admire the way that the US defence (sorry, defense) industry used to design and build aircraft that worked and with few delays, roughly on budget (someone will be along citing numerous examples where they didn't, I know). But then things started getting more and more complicated, which made prices rise exponentially and made the whole R&D process too complex. So now, even Lockheed are having the same problems as everyone else. Don't mention Eurofighter.
I now wonder if seriously complex is what we all need today. What about (this is only an example) an F-18 redesign or something like that? Something we know will work and that we could stick on our shining new aircraft carrier.
I now wonder if seriously complex is what we all need today. What about (this is only an example) an F-18 redesign or something like that? Something we know will work and that we could stick on our shining new aircraft carrier.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always preferred the idea of a tried and trusted aircraft that we could purchase at an attractive price. The 18 may well tick all the right boxes especially if new electronics might make this aircraft able to possibly detect some types of stealth technology. Would this option ensure we get the best possible deal and if we had folks that really knew what they were doing, could we negotiate to get the best of deals. We might make noises about buying a European aircraft just to let manufacturers realise we are out to get the most bang for the buck..
F-18
Air to Air
Air to Ground
EW =Growler
Tanker
The point about purchasing the 18 has been discussed elsewhere but as time ticks by it looks like those who poo hooed that idea may well be regretting it. Unfortunately as per other threads we all realise that those who make these decisions are never in office to be held accountable for their poor judgements.
I dare not mention the decision that was Really bonkers but now that the Americans are having to make severe cut backs with their own military do we need our carriers sooner rather than later and when will these F-35's be completed.... IF EVER?? Will they be an Obama defence cut.
F-18
Air to Air
Air to Ground
EW =Growler
Tanker
The point about purchasing the 18 has been discussed elsewhere but as time ticks by it looks like those who poo hooed that idea may well be regretting it. Unfortunately as per other threads we all realise that those who make these decisions are never in office to be held accountable for their poor judgements.
I dare not mention the decision that was Really bonkers but now that the Americans are having to make severe cut backs with their own military do we need our carriers sooner rather than later and when will these F-35's be completed.... IF EVER?? Will they be an Obama defence cut.
The mechanism at work here is production - taking 120 aircraft out of 2013-17 buys (2015-2019 deliveries). A US buy of 30-some per year only includes a handful of Cs, and although the rate goes up after the 2015 buy year, the Navy may not have enough jets for a sustainable squadron and training unit until 2019, regardless of how well or otherwise testing goes.
And pre-2019 deliveries will be off a low-rate line and eyewateringly expensive.
Not to mention the fact that the blighters are having trouble making that hook at the back catch the piece of string across the deck, which for some reason they consider frightfully important.
And pre-2019 deliveries will be off a low-rate line and eyewateringly expensive.
Not to mention the fact that the blighters are having trouble making that hook at the back catch the piece of string across the deck, which for some reason they consider frightfully important.
Originally Posted by LowObservable
having trouble making that hook at the back catch the piece of string across the deck, which for some reason they consider frightfully important
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The string across the deck is for the Brylcreem boys to fly their kites and put on a wizzo show to entertain those that defends our shores 
With Obama now making significant cutbacks will we see the numbers of these aircraft drastically reduced?
Has Israel stated they will not wait indefinitely for this aircraft and was 2015 mentioned as a cut-off date to then consider the latest F-15? How many other countries might follow suit and if number of the F-35 are significantly reduced we then get into a situation where our Defence Minister has stated:
It looks like there may well be a significant reductions in numbers and that is before we look at the large order placed by the US Marines. Will the fast jet capability of that force survive or will it be suggested that the US Navy could provide this? What a pot mess with no definite idea of delivery date, no idea of final costs and is there a possibility that the US might scrap the whole thing because of the spiralling costs? Are we happy to wait in the hope the F-35 will be completed and will be supplied at an affordable price. Have we a plan 'B' and I do not mean the F-35B 
. Why get involved with a new project with an undefined final price, an unknown availability date and now sadly do doubts surround this aircraft about whether it will ever be completed?
I have always been a huge fan of the F-35 but having aircraft carriers with no aircraft is a situation that no sane government would ever allow. It is something I would have thought funny if it were not so serious.
Fingers crossed that all these issues are quickly resolved and our 35's will be delivered on time.
With Obama now making significant cutbacks will we see the numbers of these aircraft drastically reduced?
Has Israel stated they will not wait indefinitely for this aircraft and was 2015 mentioned as a cut-off date to then consider the latest F-15? How many other countries might follow suit and if number of the F-35 are significantly reduced we then get into a situation where our Defence Minister has stated:
"But of course, if there is any slippage in the program, any reduction in the US numbers required could have impacts on availability and on unit costs," said Hammond, citing pressures on Britain's defense budget.
. Why get involved with a new project with an undefined final price, an unknown availability date and now sadly do doubts surround this aircraft about whether it will ever be completed?I have always been a huge fan of the F-35 but having aircraft carriers with no aircraft is a situation that no sane government would ever allow. It is something I would have thought funny if it were not so serious.
Fingers crossed that all these issues are quickly resolved and our 35's will be delivered on time.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LowObservable
Not to mention the fact that the blighters are having trouble making that hook at the back catch the piece of string across the deck, which for some reason they consider frightfully important.
Maybe you should switch back?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the chances that the Obama administration will pull the plug on the whole programme in an attempt to balance the books? Of course there'd be huge resistance from the US Defence Industry lobby in Washington, but... I suppose the big word is "but..." The US is to all intents and purposes bankrupt, if trying to pretend it can maintain the façade that it's not, but - (there's that word again) - there appear to be major, (really MAJOR) shortcomings to the F35. So will the hardheads prevail and say "this is one that's not delivering and one we can't afford it?"
I think most of the goodies contained within the F35 airframe could be fitted to existing, proven airframes, so the programme wouldn't be a total loss. The Australian Air Force is pretty deeply committed to the F35, but the comments of Australian Ambassador to the US (and respected ex Defence Minister), Kim Beazley, only yesterday, when stripped of 'diplospeak', (which was far thinner than usual in such comments from an ambassador), were not much short of "if it doesn't deliver, and soon, we'll be dredging up penalty clauses and will need to look elsewhere".
I think most of the goodies contained within the F35 airframe could be fitted to existing, proven airframes, so the programme wouldn't be a total loss. The Australian Air Force is pretty deeply committed to the F35, but the comments of Australian Ambassador to the US (and respected ex Defence Minister), Kim Beazley, only yesterday, when stripped of 'diplospeak', (which was far thinner than usual in such comments from an ambassador), were not much short of "if it doesn't deliver, and soon, we'll be dredging up penalty clauses and will need to look elsewhere".
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere completely unimportant and unnecessary
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I the only one missing the point, when I say it now makes strategic, political and financial sense to wait until the mid 2020s to buy it? The first USAF squadron isn't going to go operational until 2018 (assuming the flight test programme is flawless from now on, which it definitely wont be).
Why can't we just buy some F18s and a few more Typhoons at a much lower cost and guarantee ourselves a capability for 2020 rather than sacrificing everything for what will, let's face it, be a display jet in 2018?
Purchase the F35 when it's in full rate production, some capabilities on it actually work and the airframe snags have been overcome... is this sensible, or just lunacy?
Why can't we just buy some F18s and a few more Typhoons at a much lower cost and guarantee ourselves a capability for 2020 rather than sacrificing everything for what will, let's face it, be a display jet in 2018?
Purchase the F35 when it's in full rate production, some capabilities on it actually work and the airframe snags have been overcome... is this sensible, or just lunacy?
What you'd save at this point by buying Super Hornets would pay for a few more Typhoons and a lot of improvements to the Typhoon - conformals and vectored thrust &c.
The US is in a fix. It would make sense at this point to defer production of the B and C and focus on the A - because with three versions, the sheer number of engineering change requests is going to overwhelm the system, because the Navy has a Plan B, and because Marine STOVL jets are not as strategically important as the Marines think they are.
But if you do that, the C will eventually die as the USN keeps buying more F-18s, at which point the B becomes a really silly allocation of Navy resources - a vast procurement program to put six jets on nine or ten ships.
And everyone would rather not tackle the Marines head-on, or kick the Brits out of the program, not because the US does not want to hurt the Brits' feelings but because that could trigger the partner landslide.
The US is in a fix. It would make sense at this point to defer production of the B and C and focus on the A - because with three versions, the sheer number of engineering change requests is going to overwhelm the system, because the Navy has a Plan B, and because Marine STOVL jets are not as strategically important as the Marines think they are.
But if you do that, the C will eventually die as the USN keeps buying more F-18s, at which point the B becomes a really silly allocation of Navy resources - a vast procurement program to put six jets on nine or ten ships.
And everyone would rather not tackle the Marines head-on, or kick the Brits out of the program, not because the US does not want to hurt the Brits' feelings but because that could trigger the partner landslide.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere completely unimportant and unnecessary
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me, the B looks like it's a dead man anyway... and the recent slew of bad news being leaked, makes me think that delays are imminent (USAF/USN IOC 2020?).
US decisions don't bother me as long as they don't heave the price skyward, F18/Typhoon for the next 13 years seems like an absolute no-brainer to me, especially if it means ploughing money into the Typhoon programme for a few years...
US decisions don't bother me as long as they don't heave the price skyward, F18/Typhoon for the next 13 years seems like an absolute no-brainer to me, especially if it means ploughing money into the Typhoon programme for a few years...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By buying the Hornet you are possibly by de facto not buying the F-35. There is surely no way we would buy the Hornet just to tide us over for the few possible years of delays to the program.
I thought the RAF were also getting the F-35C although I am definitely in confused mode.
I thought the RAF were also getting the F-35C although I am definitely in confused mode.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Glesga, Scotland
Age: 51
Posts: 230
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe with the US cut backs a option of a few
Squadron's of Second hand F18 Rhinos is a possibility???
They keep a ally happy(still buying yank) and wee get some aircraft to put on the nice new shinny carriers. Till the F35 finally shows up ?
Squadron's of Second hand F18 Rhinos is a possibility???
They keep a ally happy(still buying yank) and wee get some aircraft to put on the nice new shinny carriers. Till the F35 finally shows up ?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere completely unimportant and unnecessary
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if they postponed the F35 order until it was living up to (some of) its specification?... I reckon that'll be 5 or 6 years after its IOC, if the Typhoon is anything to go by; that would give the super hornet a good 10 - 12 years of service time... potentially.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are UK jobs in more Typhoons.
There are UK job in the F35.
There are no UK jobs in the F18.
So I'd be surprised if F18 would ever be a real candidate to fill any F35 delay/cancellation. Either a longer "capability holiday" or more Typhoons.
There are UK job in the F35.
There are no UK jobs in the F18.
So I'd be surprised if F18 would ever be a real candidate to fill any F35 delay/cancellation. Either a longer "capability holiday" or more Typhoons.
i'm going to shout 'F/A-18E' here - given how long its going to be before we've got say 25 Daves and enough carrier qual'd pilots to make actually owning a carrier worthwhile, we'd just be better off going for a 'bridge' SuperHornet programe. if we bought now, in 2012, we could spend the 7 years until PoW enters service learning to fly it, fight it, maintain it and use it on a carrier, then as soon as PoW comes on scene we'd be ready to rock, rather than waiting yet another 4 years or so until RN/RAF pilots are sufficiently trained on the beast to be able to use the carrier effectively.
from what is written here it looks like it will be 2025 before the carrier, aircraft and crews are ready to operate ogether. by buying SuperHornet we'd have that operating capability in 2019/20 - and we'd have a proven multi-role aircraft able to take over Tornado's role well before that.
from what is written here it looks like it will be 2025 before the carrier, aircraft and crews are ready to operate ogether. by buying SuperHornet we'd have that operating capability in 2019/20 - and we'd have a proven multi-role aircraft able to take over Tornado's role well before that.
FA 18 E (or F, if we can find some old navs somewhere) ticks all the boxes. Not a stop-gap buy, the jet could fill ALL our current fast jet roles well into the future. Stealth is expensive and sits on an exponential expense scale - diminishing returns and all that. The cutting edge technology, the same.
ALL our newest generation aircraft are well below FOC, IOC in some cases. Proven technology, new build, is what our armed forces need. Some commie bloke once said - quantity has a quality all of it's own. I know someone will quote me and correct me here, but if we want to cut costs and still maintain any sort of capability and equip our fantasy carrier, find something reliable and cost-effective.
But then, will our government buy what we need at a good price or what will look better in the UK plc balance sheet?
Standing by for a rash of static...
ALL our newest generation aircraft are well below FOC, IOC in some cases. Proven technology, new build, is what our armed forces need. Some commie bloke once said - quantity has a quality all of it's own. I know someone will quote me and correct me here, but if we want to cut costs and still maintain any sort of capability and equip our fantasy carrier, find something reliable and cost-effective.
But then, will our government buy what we need at a good price or what will look better in the UK plc balance sheet?
Standing by for a rash of static...