Purchase numbers
 

I was wondering if there have recently been announcements of changes to purchase numbers by those already committed to the F-35, in particular the UK and the Netherlands? I've tried a quick google on the subject but nothing came up. The reason for the interest is a rumour around work that some of the European nations were making drastic reductions in their proposed purchases. Can anyone point me at an up to date link to how many airframes countries are committed to and/or proposing to buy?

Thanks for the help...:ok:

Techno - It's by that dreadful bounder Sweetman, but it's worth a read:

Defense Technology International | Jun-11 | Express 3 | Zinio Digital Magazines

The main updates to the story are (1) that the Noggies got up at Paris and said that they absolutely loved JSF, were totally committed &c, and you are going to pay for us to develop our new cruise missile and order it as well, aren't you? and (2) that the Australian defense minister made all sorts of worried noises on his last trip to Washington and muttered about having to buy another batch of Rhinos if the delays continued.

But it's all OK since flight testing is ahead of schedFLASHBANGWALLOP OMFG IT'S ON FIRE

F-35 production freeze ... or new ice age?

On 30 September 2008, or nearly three years ago, members of Florida's Okaloosa County economic development council received a rare treat. Major General Charles Davis, then-programme manager for the Lockheed Martin F-35, briefed the council's regularly scheduled roundtable sympoisum. Okaloosa County is the proud home of Eglin AFB, the F-35's centralised training centre, and Davis clearly hoped to impress the local business leaders. Slide 24 surely drew a few smiles in the room.


That was then.

Today, the picture looks vastly different, and not for the better. The US Senate, meanwhile, looks set to make it even worse for the F-35's supporters.

One year ago, everything still seemed roughly on track. Negotiations over the fourth lot of low rate initial production (LRIP-4) dragged on for several months, but the Fiscal 2010 order for 32 aircraft in total was in line with Davis' briefing chart.

The 2011 order (LRIP-5), however, was coming apart. It was supposed to be a contract for 47 aircraft, but the Department of Defense already trimmed its request to Congress to 43 aircraft. When Congress finally approved the FY2011 budget seven months late in April, the final number was cut to 32. That froze F-35 production at the FY2010 level.

This year, the DoD didn't even try. The request sent to Congress in February asked for 32 aircraft in LRIP-6. In 2008, LRIP-6 was supposed to be an order for 118 F-35s, including 82 aircraft for the US services and 36 aircraft for the international partners. Foreign orders have not solidified yet, but the US order for 82 aircraft is out of the question. Anticipating a Senate move to free F-35 production, the DoD asked the Congress for only 32 F-35s in FY2012, a 50-aircraft cut from the 2008 production profile.

The Senate's appropriations subcommittee now wants to extend the 32-aircraft production plateau into LRIP-7. According to Davis' chart in 2008, the DoD planned to buy 90 F-35s in FY2013, with the partners chipping in for another 42 aircraft.

If the Senate's proposal sticks, F-35 production could be frozen at 32 aircraft for four years straight.

"Envious foreigners may wish for the demise of the F-35, but their hopes are forlorn and futile".

Jingoism < Fiscal reality

The probability of the program's "demise" is still small - but the probability that the program on paper today - all three versions reaching a combined production rate of 200+/year - will become concrete reality is also small.

The aircraft is more expensive than predicted, and budgets are tighter than predicted. Dicks can spout all he wants, but the only way to preserve the F-35 program of record is to ring-fence defense from the rest of the budget, and to ring-fence F-35 within it.

RUSI briefing paper: Looking into the Black Hole - Is the UK Defence Budget Crisis Really Over?

......The SDSR criticised the £20 billion carrier plan that it had inherited for two new carriers and around 150 JSFs as ‘crowding out other important investment in the Armed Forces’. But it has since committed itself to a further investment of around £1 billion in converting one of the two new carriers to operate in a catapult and arrestor gear configuration. No decision has yet been announced on how many JSFs, UAVs and/or helicopters will be purchased for deployment on the new carrier.

The government has confirmed that it now envisages routinely deploying only twelve JSF aircraft on the carrier for operations, compared to the original thirty-six. And the requirement for daily sortie generation has beenreduced from seventy-two to twenty.16 This suggests that the government could now be envisaging a total JSF buy of no more than fifty aircraft. But this could still mean procurement costs amounting to around £5 billion, in addition to more than £2 billion already spent or committed for the development and demonstration phases.17

Plans for initial deployment of the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier in 2020 suggest that the first tranche of JSF aircraft will have to enter service on, or around, the same date. It is far from clear, however, whether the MoD will be able to afford to buy as many as fifty aircraft by that date. Because the F-35 is not being produced domestically (like new submarines), or through a rigid collaborative structure (like Typhoon), the MoD has greater flexibility to vary the size and pace of procurement as unit costs, operational requirements and availability of funds alter. The projected sharp increase in deterrent production spending from 2021, together with the costs involved in bringing a new and sophisticated capability (the aircraft carrier) into service around the same time, could mean that there simply are not the funds to buy even the fifty or so JSF aircraft that at present seem realistic. A reduction in the number is especially likely if the price that the UK is asked to pay for the F-35C continues to rise........

Joint Chiefs Chair Leaves F-35B Hanging

Washington: The new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff put Capitol Hill on notice today, telling lawmakers that DoD may not be able to afford all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

In his first appearance before House Armed Services Committee as chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey said that buying the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps versions of the fighter up and running may just be too expensive.

Dempsey's comments came after the four-star general was pressed by panel members on whether the Pentagon is committed to the Marine's vertical-lift version of the plane.

In response, Dempsey said he was fully dedicated to buying a "fifth-generation fighter," but he did not mention the JSF by name. However, he said buying all three variants would greatly increase pressure on an already stressed budget.......

More on Dempsey comments on F-35

It's not getting a lot of attention in the national press, but defense and military publications are all over the comments made Thursday by Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey that the Pentagon might not be able to afford three different versions of the F-35.

In The Hill, Heritage Foundation defense staff Mackenzie Eaglen predicted one of the program’s three fighter models likely will meet the budgetary ax.

“Gen. Dempsey's tepid endorsement of the [F-35] today bodes very ill for the program's stability,” Eaglen wrote. “His warning that the three variants are unaffordable means the death of one variant is much more likely or the overall buy will be reduced in the 2013 budget — or both."

Military Times said Dempsey's remarks "opened the door for large cuts to the troubled F-35 fighter jet program.".................

If they need to cut program costs, then the only version needed is the carrier based version. You don't need the VSTOL (oh, wait, only it can escort the Osprey????) and you don't need one that can't land on a carrier.

Joint <-- seems to have been forgotten.

You can fly a carrier based aircraft from any airstrip, but the "airfield only versions" don't make the carrier cut.

How hard is this to figure out for the "Oh So Smart" folks in DoD?

Lonewolf, I think you are right about only needing the C compared to the A, but I am not sure that your point about the B is as valid. Anytime the US are doing serious fighting requiring that sort of capability I think there would be a carrier around which would also generate more space for helos / Osprey.

The real problem there, of course, is the USMC reliance on the USN and their loss of control of fixed wing assets to some degree, which I suspect is their real issue.

I accept there may be niche cases where a VSTOL version would be useful, but given that it is far inferior in terms of payload, range, manoeuvre as well as being far more expensive we may be at the stage where even the US of A can't afford it.

Which incidentally means that the Spanish & Italian navies had better start looking for plan B.........

Thinking about the comments above about the F-35C can do the land bit as well as the sea bit I wonder what the USAF would think about the performance trade. They have always seemed to favour the higher performance of the 'A' rather then the increased range of the 'C'. Would the USAF accept an aircraft with a 7.5G limit, slower acceleration and requires an external gun?

The majority of overseas sales are for the F-35A.

The F-35A has an internal gun, the F-35C has to carry a gun pod, it has some stealth but inevitably it with impact the stealth signature.

The increase in weight for undercarriage, wing etc for carrier ops impacts performance and load.

it's highly unlikely, therefore, the F-35A would be cancelled.

However, I wouldn't necessarily see the B lose out to the C in a political fight.

The USMC really want the B, as do the foreign naval customers who's carriers can't take the C - such as the Italians and - whisper it - possibly in the Japanese.

The USN are sucking their thumbs at the increased costs and, perhaps more importantly - the range against the future Chinese threat, which would mean putting the CVN in harms way.

There's a case being made to stick with the F/A-18E/F/G till the long range carrier UAVs being available, effectively making the F-18 the last fixed wing naval bomber.

So, if a model has to go - it may well be the F-35C.

Which would put the RN in a bit of a spot - except I notice in the Evening Standard today an article by Robert Fox which seems to suggest that (if it was as a result of an off the record brief) the worsening economical climate, and MOD budget problems, are putting the carriers and F-35C order at risk again.

The B model will get cut if any of them have to go.

My learned friend Mr Boffin is right as usual, except Plan B is "Never get into this position again".

Gen Dempsey's comments, translated: the F-35B is no more. It has ceased to be. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. It is a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible. It is an ex-jump-jet.

Not sure, though, that anyone at the upper levels of Gormenghast-on-the-Potomac realizes that, as the B goes, so goes the C. I know people look at the C's range and go "maybe all we need is the C" but it is heavier than the A (empty) by the mass of a large SUV, it has an OEW similar to an F-15E (including the CFTs) with far less power, and the only reason its range does not inhale asinine gonads is that there is JP-5 in the space where the A packs the gun and ammo.

You think that the Super Hornet "International Roadmap" version is aimed only at Japan and Kuwait? Pull the Marine guards off the C and watch what happens next.

Its on probation while they try to find more "VOOM"?!?, many are saying this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! and 'E's bleedin' demised!.

There is however a plan 'B' but its a bit of a slug.

If the B goes, so does a lot of the UK content including the lift fan from RR.

Then the USAF is investigating at swapping out the MB seat for a US seat; which I'll presume the other customers will also go to for cost/commonality.

You have to start wondering how much the UK will get back for the £Billion we put into the programme...... :hmm:

JWCook - I think that Gates' comments, when he announced the probation, were pretty clear. Hard to add VOOM without adding weight (which is anti-VOOM) or cost.

The B is also (almost certainly) the most expensive F-35 version to buy and operate and has the lowest performance. From a force-wide viewpoint, it is tied to ships that can't operate independently across the full spectrum of warfare (not enough combat aircraft, no tankers, AEW or EA) and that don't have the strategic mobility of a CSG.

Orac - I suspect that the UK's investment will yield structures work on whatever number of jets do get built, and some important lessons about the dysfunctional nature of US defense decision-making.

Full article is quite lengthy - follow the link to read in full.

Ares (Bill Sweetman): JSF - What's Really Happening

When the Joint Strike Fighter team told Guy Norris about the jet's first run to its Mach 1.6 design speed, a couple of minor facts slipped their minds. Nobody remembered that the jet had landed (from either that sortie or another run to Mach 1.6) with "peeling and bubbling" of coatings on the horizontal tails and damage to engine thermal panels. Or that the entire test force was subsequently limited to Mach 1.0.

But selective amnesia is not even one of five "major consequence" problems that have already surfaced with the JSF and are disclosed by a top-level Pentagon review obtained by Ares. Those issues affect flight safety, the basic cockpit design, the carrier suitability of the F-35C and other aspects of the program have been identified, and no fixes have been demonstrated yet. Three more "major consequence" problems are "likely" to emerge during tests, including high buffet loads and airframe fatigue.

Update: POGO has the full report here.

Pentagon just gave Lockheed Martin a $4 billion contract
 

As the title suggests Click here

I dread to think how much we will have to eventually pay for our aircraft :uhoh:

Latest Congressional Research Service report on the program

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf