|
MADL Me Up Into a 4 F-35A RAAF Network
The RAAF expect to operate in 4 F-35A formations with other networkable airborne/ground/(sea-ship?) assets (I'll expect other operators will do the same).
New Data Link Enables Stealthy Comms 14 Jul 2013 AARON MEHTA "...Gough declined to say how close jets need to be to trigger the network link, but did say tests have shown “very fast” acquisition times once within range. Live flight system tests at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., began late last year and have continued throughout this year. Initially, the tests involved networking a pair of planes, but recently, test pilots began regularly flying four-plane networks. Those tests are proceeding smoothly, said Joe DellaVedova, a spokesman for the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office. “MADL testing is performing as planned,” DellaVedova wrote in an email. “Development of the advanced data link is currently tracking to deliver the phased capability expected by the end of development.” The system is designed for plane-to-plane communications only, something Gough expects to continue in the near term. But he did not rule out experimenting with data transfer to other terminals. “We have postulated MADL terminals on ships and we have built a MADL test ground station, so it could be done,” he said. “But it’s more about the logistics of where F-35s will be flying and how close to the ground they would be. It would be mission-scenario dependent, but it’s all technically possible.”..." |
I would hope that, given our mutual experience with Link 16 (and earlier versions, RAID et al) we can make a wide area secure network happen.
|
F-35A Full Production Export Price $80-90 Millyun
Estimates To Retrofit F-35s Decline By Amy Butler 15 July 2013 Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology
"The Pentagon expects to pay $480 million less than expected only nine months ago for retrofits to the first 90 F-35 fighters based on revised cost projections of changes anticipated to emerge through the end of development in 2017.... ...Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, F-35 program executive officer, said last winter he expects to be able to stabilize the price of the F-35A, the predominant model sought for export, at between $80-90 million. At that point, in full-rate production, there should be virtually no retrofits required." |
How much will it still cost to retrofit them though? It's great saying each aircraft is going to be $5.3 million cheaper to retrofit, but if it's still going to cost $30 million then that still isn't great news.
|
From the same article here is one idea/guesstimate:
"...The largest anticipated per-unit retrofit cost is for aircraft in LRIP 2, which included 12 US jets, at $16.7 million, based on the May numbers. The estimate from last year projected each unit to cost about $25.8 million. The cost is expected to slowly decrease until LRIP 10, when each unit is projected to require $760,000 to retrofit over last fall's estimate of $1.1 million per aircraft. ..." |
Long range AIM9X for USN's F35s?
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... 60-388468/
The above links to a Flightglobal report that the USN needs more range from its AIM9X missiles. The article cites the need for a medium range missile for its F35s that is less susceptible to developing counter-measures than AIM120, the missile you would normally expect to be used for BVR engagements. I would guess that this is also to provide an agile missile to offset some of the F35's aerodynamic weaknesses should it get tangled up in a close encounter with a more manoeuvrable fighter. There is no mention of how big the upgraded missile might be but I surmise they are talking smaller than AIM120 so as to maximise the number that could be carried internally by F35, so helping it retain its low observable profile and so reducing the risk of getting into a turning fight in the first place. LF |
article in Flight last week saying the Italian parliament has insisted it has to approve any further F-35 purchases (ie none)
|
I am led to believe the Italians are NOT ordering - without further permission - any more than those already agreed upon. For example:
Lockheed Martin Wins Contract for F-35A and F-35B Fighter Jets 18 Jul 2013 Rich Smith "...The larger award, this one for a more substantial $70.4 million, modifies a previously awarded advance acquisition contract to provide Lockheed with the funds needed to buy "long lead-time" parts, material, and components that will be required to build seven Conventional Take-Off and Landing F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, and one Short Take-Off Vertical Landing F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. All eight aircraft are destined for the Italian Air Force. Work on this long-lead contract is to be completed by February 2014. The Pentagon made a point of clarifying that "International Partner contract funds" will be paying for these planes; for example, Italy is picking up the tab for this contract, and not U.S. taxpayers...." & Senate passes motion on buying controversial F-35 fighters 16/07/2013 "Government to spend nearly 12 billion euros Rome, July 16 – A majority of Italy's Senate approved the plans to buy F-35 jet fighters in a vote Tuesday but said future purchases should be approved by parliament. The controversial purchase passed by a vote of 202 in favour, 55 opposed and 15 abstentions. Having already passed the same vote in the Lower House, the purchase plans are now final. Senators rejected a call to cancel the purchase of 90 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets which, at an estimated $200 million per unit, are among the costliest fighter jets in the world. Italy has a duty to its allies and its citizens to invest in the best defence systems possible, said Defence Minister Mario Mauro, whose government will spend approximately 11.8 billion euros on the program over 45 years starting in 2015.... ...The purchase has been controversial and at times risked splitting the left-right coalition government. According to the defence ministry, the 90 aircraft will replace 256 obsolete fighters in the Italian air force...." |
AWST: Sequester And the JSF
|
It's a bit sad watching Sweetman spirial down to the depths, isn't it
perhaps this set him off? Lockheed, Pentagon reach deal on 71 more F-35s: source | Reuters Lockheed Martin Corp and the Pentagon have reached agreement on orders for the next two batches of F-35 fighter jets, a deal worth over $7 billion, a person briefed on the discussions told Reuters on Monday. The deal covers 71 of the radar-evading planes, with 36 jets to be purchased in the sixth production lot, and 35 in the seventh. The total includes 60 F-35s for the U.S. military, and 11 for Australia, Italy, Turkey and Britain. |
ORAC - Supply chain issues can be resolved, but it will take a realistic approach to numbers. Some suppliers have taken a conservative approach which means that they did not over-extend themselves, but on the other hand has frustrated efforts to bring the total cost down.
Others went all-in, showed their bankers the rosy projections of 2010 and earlier, and have a lot of their future business tied up in JSF. They're vulnerable. At this point, too, LMT and the first-tiers need to take care of the little guys, who are looking at 35-36 ship-sets per year for a while rather than the 100-plus they were promised in 2010. (71 jets in two years is nothing to pop the bubbly about - it's what they need to keep the oil warm.) If the little guys die, nobody much is going to come in with cheaper bids, unless they're outsourcing to China. |
71 jets in two years is nothing to pop the bubbly about - |
Eeek, they are very low numbers indeed - just 36 aircraft in year 14/15 and 35 aircraft in year 15/16.
The obsolesce clock is ticking. |
I agree, its very clear that 71 aircraft contracted over the next two years is a huge blow for lockheed and the F-35. They will probably return the 7 billion and advise all the governments involved to buy the eurofighter, who's recent sales have been incredible and well in excess of 71 aircraft contracts.
|
Am I misunderstanding? As I understand it the problem isn't about whether the number of planes is a lot or a little but about the difference from the number of planes that they intended to build?
The Swedes hopefully know that they're making X aircraft and invest in the capacity to do that. Lockheed and it's suppliers must have invested to build many more planes than they actually are right now so they are presumably carrying debt without the revenue that justifies it. |
It's a nonsense story by a sad old man, there are a number of statements and now this contract to show the sequester has little effect on the f-35
AFAIK these are the same numbers from around 2011/12 to allow the f-35 to mature. Here is the SAR that gives an idea of the build up F-35 SAR | The DEW "Aircraft break down seems as follows: LRIP 6: 18 F-35A's for the USAF 6 F-35B's for the USMC 7 F-35C's for the USN Plus 3 F-35's for Italy, and 2 for Australia LRIP 7: 19 F-35's for the USAF 6 F-35B's for the USMC 4 F-35C's for the USN Plus 3 F-35A's for Italy, 2 F-35A's for Norway, and 1 F-35B for the UK The next lot will be LRIP Lot 8, 48 aircraft 19 F-35's for the USAF 6 F-35B's for the USMC 4 F-35C's for the USN 4 F-35B's for the UK 2 F-35A's for Norway 4 F-35A's for Italy 5 F-35A's for Israel 4 F-35A's for Japan" |
JSFfan,
According to General Charles Davis in 2008, slides at: - F 35 Production LRIP6 was meant to produce 118 aircraft not the 36, less than a third of the initial plan that have now been authorised. LRIP8 was meant to produce 132 aircraft not the 35, just over a quarter of the initial plan that have now been authorised. As far as I can work out this is not the result of sequestration but the result of concurrency not going to plan. If I was running a small business making parts for the JSF I would have had to jump through many hoops to prove to LM that I was a suitable contractor, I had the capacity to produce the widgets at the projected rates etc, now to find my expensive new plant running at a third to a quarter of the level I had expected before any sequestration cuts would really scare me. No doubt LM will be looking for extra funding to do stress tests on their supply chain soon... |
The 71 aircraft contracted are still VERY expensive - a minimum of around US$100 mil per copy sans engine and upgrades! see article here F-35 Deal Targets Unit Cost Below $100 Million :eek:
|
t43562, that's the way i read it.
There's a little too much understanding and thought required for certain F35 "supporters" to grasp it however :). Just This Once, that is something i've been worried about for a long time. Again the F35 "supporters" have trouble understanding that the longer it takes to get significant numbers truly operational the more time the "opposition" have to field effective countermeasures. There does appear to be a belief amongest the faithful that those the F35 is intend to combat will sit politely inactive and wait until the thing is fully operational prior to commencing development of opposing systems... At the rate of development to date (plus certain whispers re Chinese espionage) it would not surprise me if the countermeasures are actually fielded prior to real IOC of the F35 :ouch::ugh: |
When it takes you 35 years to equip half your force with the wonder-weapon - which will be the case with the USAF/USN - your adversary has engineering leaders in their 50s who have been studying countermeasures and responses (symmetrical and otherwise) since they graduated.
Nobody, by the way, is saying that the leveling of JSF production is new news, but that the effects are continuing to manifest themselves through the supply chain and that it is wrong to blame them on sequestration. t43562 - Correct as regards the Swedes. Their overhead, inhouse manufacturing operations and supply chain are geared to low rate. Problems happen not when you build 10, 20 or 30 jets a year, but when you've tooled up to build 250 and then sell 60. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:35. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.