via Reuters (read it all there).
Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Co (LMT.N) Chief Executive Marillyn Hewson said the company is making "good progress" in negotiations with the Pentagon about the next two batches of F-35 fighter jets and hopes to complete an agreement in the near term.In the past I would have cheered this.
Lockheed is building three models of the F-35 for the U.S. military and eight international partner countries - Britain, Australia, Canada, Norway, Turkey, Italy, Denmark and the Netherlands. Israel and Japan have also ordered the jet.
Pentagon officials had hoped to reach agreement with Lockheed on the sixth and seventh orders of F-35 jets - deals valued at multiple billions of dollars - around mid-year, after protracted and difficult discussions on the previous order.
The total number of jets involved is 71, with 36 of the planes to be purchased in the sixth production lot, and 35 in the seventh, said Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the Pentagon's F-35 office. He said that number includes 60 F-35s for the U.S. military, and 11 for Australia, Italy, Turkey and Britain.
Today I can only cringe.
One airplane is holding Marine Corps procurement hostage and we can't shoot it in the face and escape.
Spare me the talk about it being necessary. Spare me the talk about it being impossible to delay without killing the program. I keep looking over at the Navy and wondering what do they know that everyone else doesn't. The Air Force, Marine Corps and our allies are all lining up to buy this airplane and Navy Aviation is sitting back--relaxed---chilled the fuck out---laughing at us all.
They're going to buy a miniscule amount of these airplanes and yet they feel confident that they can handle the Chinese hordes that will be thrown against our carriers.
What do they know????
They just want to see the C trap the wire first... and then as an 24/7 performance.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I just want to see the change of a B engine on board of an amphib. By regular maintenance crew, not a LM team (oh, Lord, even they didn't do this yet...).
Video has been up on youtube for months of a C trapping.
Deletehttp://www.appropriations.senate.gov/ht-defense.cfm?method=hearings.view&id=216c4378-52ee-4eae-b54d-bb8ce6233dfa
DeleteDr. J. Michael Gilmore
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, DoD
June 19, 2013, page 5:
F-35C Flight Sciences. Test point progress has proceeded as planned so far this year for Block 2B envelope expansion in the F-35C; however, no weapons separations or high angle-of-attack testing has been completed. The first set of sea trials are scheduled to start in the summer of 2014 (June 30), with two test aircraft from the flight test center. The first of these two aircraft is scheduled to be modified with the updated arresting hook system and upgraded nose landing gear brace later this year, which will permit catapult and arresting hook testing to begin again. The second aircraft is scheduled to be modified in the spring of 2014.
...catapult and arresting hook testing to begin again - tells us the C has still problems to trap the wire. Issues to be solved. And they still need a whole year to restart the testing. Not that good for a naval aircraft.
As the first F-35C was just delivered to Eglin last month, with another four slated to arrive later this year, I don't see this as the Navy sitting back. VFA-101 stood to last year. They are getting in the swing of things. None of this says the Navy is laughing at everyone.
ReplyDeletei beg to differ. you know and i know that the Navy has continued buying F-18s during the entire F-35 development cycle. additionally it has had the option of replacing more than just its legacy F-18s with F-35s...its purposely replaced some of those squadrons with Super Hornets so it could limit its buy of F-35s.
Deleteadditionally the USAF is replacing F-16s with the F-35 and the numbers are going to be staggering. the number of F-35s that the Navy is going to be buying is actually less than the USMC.
they know something.
While the USAF got the F-22, the USN never got their NTF. This is the primary reason why they are not buying the F-35 as a SH replacement but as a Hornet replacement. They still want a NTF and buying the F-35 for the SH would nullify the timeline required for F/A-XX.
DeleteThe F-35 is not meant to serve as a Super Hornet replacement. Continued procurement of additional SH airframes does not show a Navy bias against the F-35. That is a point many often overlook. A future carrier air wing will use both platforms, not a single platform.
ReplyDeleteProcurement numbers for the 35C as opposed to the 35A isn't an indicator of the Navy knowing something either. Look at the total number of airframes, across multiple types, that the 35A is replacing. Those numbers naturally outweigh a Navy buy. The USMC is purchasing 340 35B's, along with 80 35C's. The Navy intends to purchase 260 35C's, but it is worth noting that the 80 USMC 35C's are intended assigned use within a carrier air wing. Consider that USMC aircraft all have Naval Bureau Numbers. The Navy is investing in the JSF in a big way.
wow.
Deletei can't believe i'm getting aggrevated but i am. I'M WELL AWARE THAT THE F-35 IS A HORNET REPLACEMENT AND NOT A SUPER HORNET REPLACEMENT!
having said that the US Navy has tilted the wheel by replacing some Hornet squadrons with Super Hornets and allocating a relatively small number of spaces to the F-35 buy.
whether its because the Navy wants a FXXX or because it believes the Super Hornet will do is to expand the point. the point is simple. the Navy isn't buying very many F-35's.
I'm not seeing any reason for you to get aggravated over whats being said.
ReplyDeleteAny way you cut it, they are procuring the F-35C in quantity. That they are investing in several hundred airframes makes clear that they are not laughing at every other purchasing service or international partner.
it comes from being on the F-35 beat for a looong time.
Deleteit comes from knowing the numbers being procured by the USAF, USN and USMC by heart.
it comes from knowing why the airplane is being procured and what its suppose to replace.
and it comes from others presenting those same facts as if i don't know them.
and finally it comes from some being unable to think outside the box and ponder for just one second why an organization is doing what it does and what the implications of that decision means.
"it comes from being on the F-35 beat for a looong time."
DeleteYeah LOL you steely eyed aviation expert you. You're so salty.
"it comes from knowing the numbers being procured by the USAF, USN and USMC by heart."
and?
"it comes from knowing why the airplane is being procured and what its suppose to replace."
If you knew half of what you claim, you wouldn't be calling for any delays or the asinine alternatives you routinely suggest.
"and it comes from others presenting those same facts as if i don't know them."
There is so much you don't know about aviation, Marine Corps Aviation, and the F-35, that as far as I'm concerned, we can repeat facts enough for you.
"and finally it comes from some being unable to think outside the box and ponder for just one second why an organization is doing what it does and what the implications of that decision means."
Its been pondered, the alternatives for both aviation and ground side have been checked. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean alternatives haven't been explored.
If China is swarming your carriers, your carriers are in the wrong place
ReplyDeleteAs a relative newcomer, how would someone lacking longtime interaction with you know that? Frankly, they wouldn't.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of pondering why an organization does what it does, as it relates to procurement, factoring in implications moving forward, that is something the individual branch itself couldn't begin to fathom. If you want to have a hypothetical what-if conversation, covering the full range of possibilities, the foster that type of environment for readers. You may take this as a flame, but it isn't.
Essentially what the USN "knows" is that instead of being on a procurement holiday like the USAF and USMC it has actually been continually purchasing fighter planes the past couple decades. Thus the majority of it's fighter aircraft do not require immediate replacement. The USN has options and can live without the F-35C. Certainly the F-35C brings more capability to the table than continued purchases of F/A-18's but it also brings far greater operating costs, as NAVAIR leaked some time ago, and thus the trade offs in acquiring the F-35C are not cut and dried compared to other customers.
ReplyDeleteThe other US customers in the USAF and USMC are in an entirely different position. Both basically went on a procurement holiday since the Cold War ended and are looking at the majority of their tactical fighter force needing near term replacement. Both have bet the farm on the F-35 and in the case of the Corps they additionally bet the STOVL farm on it as well. What the USN knows is that it has options and the other services do not.
Moreover, the USN is in many ways the most realistic service. It has to be. It's ships and aircraft get used hard and need regular replacement. When it can't purchase enough ships to replace those in service the result is force structure reductions. From a 600 ship Navy we're down to fewer than 300 and the carriers operate 2 fewer squadrons of more cost effective aircraft. The USN knows it traded capability (F-14, A-6, KA-6, S-3, EA-3) and very significant force structure cuts for a more cost effective force.
Additionally the USN is the key service for EW and operates the entire escort jamming force while the USAF while agreeing to do the stand off jamming mission has continually failed to meet that obligation. The EB-52 was cancelled twice. The USN is thus in a better position to trade future LO aircraft for current EW and EA capability. It knows it can let the AF do the highest risk missions with the LO aircraft while it does what it needs to do. It also knows UCLASS and F/A-XX are in the pipe line while the other services have essentially nothing going on but the F-35.
What's the last fixed-wing plane has the USMC bought in the past 15 years other than a C-130J? The USN has been getting the F-18E/F/G's of course.
DeleteSolomon, if you can get you hands on a copy of the June 2013 issue of the Proceedings magazine there is very interesting article titled, "Averting the Navy's Tactical Aircraft Crisis." I think it will explain to you exactly why we here in the Navy distanced ourselves from the F-35C to begin to with. The Navy is actually still screwed over in a way by the F-35 program, but the Super Hornet saved us from getting the complete shaft like the USAF and USMC. (If you can't tell already I'm in the Navy and in the Naval Aviation community.) Please tell me what you think of the article by the way. I know the Navy officer that wrote it.
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to the article in the Proceedings:
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-06/averting-navys-tactical-aircraft-crisis
Here is another like to some guy who copied and pasted it to a forum:
http://usa.rightwingamerica.com/index.php?topic=3260.0
Wow, does your friend already have his job at Boeing lined up?
Delete"Boeing made a stealthy enclosed weapon pod
that can be mounted under the fuselage or under the wings. Each pod has a
stealthy shape and can hold two AIM-120 advanced medium-range air-to-air
missiles (AMRAAMs) and two bombs, a similar payload to the F-35's internal
weapon bays."
Similar payload? 2 AMRAAMS and 2 2,000lb bombs? Wow Boeing that is almost unbelievable. As in I don't believe your pod can carry 5,000 lbs of ordnance.
the estimated cost for R&D on the Block III is 3 billion dollars, this drastically drives up the cost of new build hornets (estimated 100 million), and doesn't include the cost to retrofit any of the upgrades to the current Super Hornets the navy has.
Tell your friend I saw through his puff piece, and I hope he gets his promotion.
I find it funny that supporters of the F-35 aren't accused of having jobs lined up with Lockheed Martin.
DeleteThe EWP can hold 2,700 pounds of ordinance. It has four internal weapon stations. He did not mean 2K bombs, but he was right in that it can hold 2 SDBs. It can also hold 4 AIM-120s if you wanted to do air-to-air only.
Compared to the cost of the F-35C and the cost to get the F-35C actually working, this is still a great bargain and very small. A $100 million upgraded Super Hornet vs a $186 million dollar F-35C with expensive issues to fix.
Delete"Spare me the talk about it being necessary."
ReplyDeleteit is
"Spare me the talk about it being impossible to delay without killing the program."
Thats true though. So we are "sparing" you valid counter arguments I see.
"I keep looking over at the Navy and wondering what do they know that everyone else doesn't."
They don't have some amazing ace up their sleeve, Super Hornets are safe, and they like them. Lots of stuff tells me the navy is still pretty fucking stupid.
"The Air Force, Marine Corps and our allies are all lining up to buy this airplane and Navy Aviation is sitting back--relaxed---chilled the fuck out---laughing at us all."
So the USN "only" buying 260 of them is "laughing at us all"? and "chilled"? The Navy has Super Hornets so their sense of urgency is not at the same level of most countries and US services.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete""it comes from being on the F-35 beat for a looong time."
ReplyDeleteDude. You've been "on the beat" for the blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things. I remember you first getting on the Ares blog saying how the F-22 needed to be taken out back and shot because what we really needed was the F-35. The usual suspects were painting a smear of the F-22 (and promoting their cherished Eurocanards), disengenuously saying that the F-35 was where it was at, and some people sucked those stories up hook-line-and-sinker. And I said then, "as soon as the F-22 is safely dead, they'll start in on the F-35". And here we are. You don't get better aircraft by cancelling your best stuff and going with the old. Does anybody here think the F-14, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 were cheaper than the F-4? And they ALL had problems on their way into service. Fortunately sanity prevailed and they went on to become world-beating aircraft. Just as the prior F-4 was in it's day. This is nothing more than the next cycle. And those who have ACTUALLY been around for a long time see it for what it is.
i remember those days as well.
Deletei believed what was being promised and my biggest gripe with the F-22 was costs. i also remember being a prime defender of the program.
so you throwing that in my face is not unexpected.
but swallowing crow and saying that i was wrong and that the price of this airplane is too much for the Marine Corps is not a weakness in my mind.
its a strength and shows moral courage.
the cowardly thing to do would be to continue to say that the plane is exactly what we need when budgetary reality is staring us all in the face.
The problem is if we cancel the F-35B that's it for STOVL once the Harriers inevitably become unsupportable. When that happens you scratch 11 flight decks capable of operating fighters. As much as I'd like to see a replacement for the LVTP-7 it's just not as important. I don't think we'll ever agree on that but the powers that be in the USMC seem to agree.
DeleteAs far as cowardly, the cowardly thing to do is quit when the going gets tough.