via Bloomberg
A couple of things. The original plan was for the different services to have different designs to accomplish the unique missions each have. CONGRESS forced the programs to unite. CONGRESS!
Then the next thing that has dawned on me is that the ground is being laid for a massive fight over the F-35. The supporters and the critics are lining up and the fight will be over the cost of the airplane.
Supporters will lock onto an estimated full rate production cost and critics (myself included) will point to how much money has already been spent.
This is gonna get good. One last point. Don't assume that Republicans will support this program. McCain and his allies are having a tough time getting money for defense and when you add troop cuts onto all this and you're going to have a full scale revolt of the tea party members (don't buy the press about the tea party...their main focus is on smaller government).
Lockheed Martin Corp.’s (LMT) F-35 jet fighter, designed by the Pentagon to serve the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, is likely to end up costing more than it would to build separate planes for each service, a Rand Corp. study has found.Read the entire article here.
“Under none of the plausible conditions we analyzed did” the F-35 “have a lower life-cycle cost estimate,” Rand, a nonprofit research institution, said in the report released this week on the plane known as the Joint Strike Fighter.
The report questions a fundamental tenet of the Pentagon’s costliest weapons program -- that building different versions on a common base will reduce costs. Rand analyzed an estimated $1.5 trillion “life-cycle cost” that includes acquisition plus long-term support of the fleet.
A couple of things. The original plan was for the different services to have different designs to accomplish the unique missions each have. CONGRESS forced the programs to unite. CONGRESS!
Then the next thing that has dawned on me is that the ground is being laid for a massive fight over the F-35. The supporters and the critics are lining up and the fight will be over the cost of the airplane.
Supporters will lock onto an estimated full rate production cost and critics (myself included) will point to how much money has already been spent.
This is gonna get good. One last point. Don't assume that Republicans will support this program. McCain and his allies are having a tough time getting money for defense and when you add troop cuts onto all this and you're going to have a full scale revolt of the tea party members (don't buy the press about the tea party...their main focus is on smaller government).
In case you missed, a terrible news for anti-F35 folks.
ReplyDeletehttp://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20131218/k10013915281000.html
Japanese government is considering buying 100 F-35s to replace early build F-15Js.
That would bring up the total F-35 buy to 142.
Japan was weighing between buying F-35s and upgrading F-15Js until the arrival of the F-3. Japan decided to go with the F-35, not able to afford a delay in the light of enhanced Chinese threats.
no i didn't miss it and thanks for posting it, but quite honestly the choices of other nations in regards to the F-35 are no longer relevant.
Deletelets say Japan buys 100. lets say that every middle eastern country buys 100....but lets say those purchases don't hit till 2020.
between now and then then the US military is going to be under tremendous strain. cuts are coming to those forces and like i said in this piece, the battle lines are being drawn.
the supporters of the F-35 will of course try and use the foreign buys as a rallying point to keep the program going but lets be honest. every western economy is hurting. no one is really pushing increased defense spending except for certain asian nations and even there the debate is fierce.
the action is not in foreign capitols but in the halls of Congress.
Solomon
DeleteLooking at the numbers, Japan is probably looking to build at least 12 ~ 15 units per year at its FACO, instead of 6 per year as previously planned.
The added bonus is that Japan is likely to gain access to the F-35 source code and integrate its own weapons, namely the XASM-3 supersonic antiship missile. The US is falling behind major Asian powers in antiship missile department, and the availability of XASM-3 and also possibly AAM-4(AESA seeker) A2A missiles will also benefit the USAF and USN.
i don't care if Japan builds 1 or 100 per year. that is no longer relevant to what i'm talking about. what is relevant is the debate over costs in the us congress. the debate inside the navy is being downplayed but it is happening nonetheless. so forgive me if i am unimpressed by japanese plans for the plane. the S. Koeans had big plans too but they're looking at a split buy. financial reality will change everyone.
Delete"Japanese government is considering buying 100 F-35s"
DeleteAnd I'm considering buying a Lamborghini Aventador LP 700-4 Roadster.
"...That would bring up the total F-35 buy to 142..."
DeleteWhat? Uh... please don't take this bad but maybe the english version sounds more credible from a budgetary point of view?
"...A 5-year mid-term defense buildup plan that was also approved on Tuesday includes the possible replacement of about 100 of the ASDF's mainstay F15 fighters with more capable aircraft.
The Defense Ministry is planning to replace most of these with F35s..."
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20131218_15.html
It dont' say that we consider buy 100 F-35, it say that we consider replace "most" not "all" of 100 F-15 with F-35. That can be from 51 to 99 F-35. For example: we are replacing 80 F-4 with 42 F-35. In other words a total that can go from 93 to 141 and looking to our budget in the best case is going to be 93. The cold fact is that F-35 is a heavy burden on the SDF budget and we dont' get any transfer technology from it that we can use on the F-3. The only thing I find attractive on the F-35 is the STOVL version, But if the USMC decide to invest in a Super Harrier I gladly push for Japan investing money on it.
mareo2
Delete> It dont' say that we consider buy 100 F-35, it say that we consider replace "most" not "all" of 100 F-15 with F-35.
Current authorized JASDF tactical aircraft strength is 280, and they cannot afford to go down from this figure because of enhanced Chinese threats.
Accordingly, the aging F-15Js will need to be replaced 1 to 1, so the F-4 replacement's size reduction doesn't apply in this case.
This mass purchase of the F-35 does doom the F-3 in the short term, and JASDF F-35 will probably not be able to stop Chinese Su-35s and J-20s in the next decade and beyond.
Oh shit, what will Don and Eric say????
Deleteprobably that some EVIL defense contractor simply bribed Japan into buying them....
Looking at military history in aviation, If the US doesn't commit to the F-35 a bit more - it just might become my generation's F-5.
DeleteYou mean to tell me we have congress to blame for the F-35! That's ironic. I blamed greedy defense contractors originally, but they're only taking advantage of the situation. Congress right now is only reaping what they have already sewn from incompetent decisions. It's only sad that American taxpayers are suffering every time they mess up.
ReplyDeleteAs for McCain fighting the F-35, I know he has been a good critic of it, but he's also shifted on it a few times: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20121120/NEWS/211200320/
Here's hoping he'll stay consistent.
I suspect that Senator McCain has been somewhat medicated by Pentagon plans to have six squadrons of F-35's stationed at Luke AFB in Arizona. So there may be no replays of "the F-35 is among the Great, National Scandals" and repeated cost overruns “have made it worse than a disgrace.”
ReplyDeleteRead the article. RAND corporation was originally formed by douglas aircraft corporation. now owned by Boeing, who conveniently owned the losing x-32 aircraft which was a bit of a dud in the legacy propulsion department. Boeing's biggest stakes now lie with other aircraft that compete with F-35 for funds.
ReplyDeleteI kind of agree that separate aircraft would have been cheaper at this point but that's retrospect.
Now the elaborate design and the overworking of a single contractor cost the shutdown of the F-22 production line.
So kick fuss or whatever, what are the options really? It would take 5 years to field any new model of a legacy aircraft and 10-15 to build a new one to substitute it.
In the tight funding environment there is a real need to capture and focus the momentum of a standing project, any side track deviation will gobble up any savings it was designed to create and leave you with inferior equipment.
The key consideration is the state of the air fleet ten and twenty years from now, if we short cut the F35s in the short term. they wont be there later to lean on while your trying to build the next big thing to deal with the new world.
If you go to wikipedia and look up the F-16 fighting falcon you will see a picture in the top right that was taken in 2008, that's 5 years ago. If you click on that picture and zoom in to the max and focus on the adjoining plates and control surfaces you can see just how frigging worn out our air force's air frames really are. If you're in the USMC or Navy you can walk up to an AV-8 or a F/A-18 C/D and see the same kind of crap pretty much on a random spot check basis.
Seriously, they need the new fighters and screwing with them about it will get it not done.
Those pilots will get in whatever they get....whether it works or not at what happens as a result remains to be seen.
And thats why you should be buying new build F-15s,F-16s and the Navy and USMC should be buying the SuperHornet...because we know that these work and can come up with a plan to field them ASAP...this should be happening now,not in 10 years from now when the armed forces realise that the F-35 does not work as advertised and the lines for these aircraft are could...
DeleteI agree they should buy a couple hundred f-16 block 60s and another 100 advanced super hornets to span the period between its procurement since the f-35 production lots are being reduced in the near term and the jets are worn out now. but something that has to be understood is that any jet bought today will be flying 25 years from now and the other air forces are going to have 30% LO fighters by then. We do have to move on at some point.
DeleteAnd the F-35 is still not the answer. Worn aircraft argument or no.
Deletefor the love of god Nuno, the Super Hornet CANNOT take off from a Marine LHD.
DeleteThe Marines HAVE to have a STOVL jet.
Lack of full commonality, the raison d'être for this jack-of-all-trades and master-of-none, will help to kill it. Besides its negative operational impact it drives up production and sustainment costs.
ReplyDeletearticle:
While the initial goal for the F-35 was to have 80 percent of the airframe components in common for the three versions, Rand found that by 2008 that had dropped to between 27 percent and 43 percent because of development difficulties and increasing weight.
“As of this writing, it is not clear how common the mission systems, avionics, software and engine will be among the three service variants,” said Rand, based in Santa Monica, California.
Kind of makes you wonder why we bothered with the whole communality thing.
DeleteBecause "commonality" makes it a joint program which makes it impossible to kill at the service level, IOW impossible to kill in the Pentagon. Congress will have to do it.
DeleteReminds me of the F-17 / F-18 discussions I heard about from others.
DeleteHere's the program office on commonality--
ReplyDeleteCommonality is the key to affordability – on the assembly line; in shared-wing platforms; in common systems that enhance maintenance, field support and service interoperability; and in almost 100 percent commonality of the avionics suite. Component commonality across all three variants reduces unique spares requirements and the logistics footprint. In addition to reduced flyaway costs, the F-35 is designed to affordably integrate new technology during its entire life cycle.
Listened to declassified talk today about LUKE AFB. Interesting to note that they have to install a bunch of lighting rods around because of the F35 arriving soon. I couldn't found out more about the floor cooling system that is also new. Not sure if it is for the comfort of the maintainers or because F35 needs a cooler environment...He did mention that the pilots are raving about the situational awareness that the F35 provides, when it works....
DeleteThe Lightning rods are because it's called the Lightning?
DeleteNo, it's because lightning will kill it.
Lightning killed by lightning!
Hey, what do expect for $200 million.
news report
DeleteLUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. -- Luke AFB will host "Luke Days 2014," an open house and air show, March 15-16, 2014. The U.S. Air Force's premier aerial demonstration team, the Thunderbirds, will headline the weekend's activities with performances both days.
A static display of Luke's newest aircraft, the F-35A Lightning II, should also be available for viewing.
Who says it should? :-)
We were told that this morning. It should be in static display only.
DeleteLUKE AFB should have 9 F35A Block 2As by the end of the year. They can pull 5.5Gs, 18 AoA and only simulate weapons, no live stuff. Not really sure what they will do with them since they won't have pilots or crews to maintain them really so.....They hope to be able to upgrade the software to a more stable and combat ready F35 soon, not sure when....2017 to 2020?
The pilots do marvel about the level of situational awareness the F35 has, AESA and EOTS, when they work, we were told are pretty phenomenal...
Nico. that doesn't strike you as odd about this airplane? i haven't heard one person marvel at its flight performance. i haven't heard anyone talk about how this plane is going to be able to do things that current planes can't do. all i hear is talk about its situational awareness. my answer? so what. you're talking about systems that can be retrofitted to current aircraft. since this is now being touted as being the key to the USAF achieving air dominance i want to start hearing about how it will fly to 60,000 feet, mix it up with PAK-FA's and J-20's and win. i want to hear how it will launch AIM-120s at distance, close distance launch Aim-9Xs and then disengage at will. i want to hear how all this sparkling situational awareness will allow them to fight, win and carry the day.
Deletei haven't heard a thing about that and the reason is simple. they don't have a clue. they're just locked into a course of action and can no longer explain how this is better than what we currently have.
Yeah, they go real quick thru the slides (LMT PowerPoint!) about the performance and rave about the radar and DAS all day. It's F16/F18 "like" performance. That's it. Oh, they do mention it's the easiest jet to fly!
DeleteSomeone asked about the AIM9X, as far as I heard, they don't know yet how to launch it from the internal bay. Also the helmet is still messy. I did notice the slide with the weapons, if you didn't know anything about military programs, you would assume all of them will be cleared or are going to be cleared soon, which isn't the case.
They do mention 3 hours of flight without external fuel as a plus compared to an F16. They showed a slide with what appears to be a LO 425 gallon fuel tank? for external use.
Can't launch AIM9X w/o Block 3F software, 2017 maybe.
DeleteInteresting claim about the external tanks, as they were removed from SDD in a 2006 DOD contract. Reason, risk.
DeleteI did find it interesting that he mentioned that USAF has let to figure out how to train all the foreign pilots and especially maintainers because not every country will have the same F35, they have different levels of classifications so it will be interesting to see how they can "segregate" the different levels and who/how can see/use what....
ReplyDeletecontract award, Nov 15, 2007
DeleteLockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Ft. Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $134,188,724 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-02-C-3002). This modification is to continue the design, development, verification, and test of Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Partner Version Air System development under the JSF Delta System Development and Demonstration Effort (Delta SDD). The purpose of the Delta SDD is to develop a version of the JSF Air System that meets U.S. National Disclosure Policy, but remains common to the U.S. Air System, where possible. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (68 percent), Orlando, Fla. (24 percent), and El Segundo, Calif. (8 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
The idea that this plane is a jack-of-all trades is a complete myth, just look at its weapons payload (2 2000IB JDAMs and two AIM-120 AMRAAMs, hardly an air-2-air payload), its manouverability (subsonic flight, with major transonic acceleration and turning issues), and if you stick weapons on the outside then the so called 'stealth' is gone!
ReplyDeleteIf the F35 was a multi-role plane, then its internal weapons bays would be configurable for MULTIPLE ROLES and it wouldnt have the flight characteristics and performance of a Vietnamese era plane.
@Jacobite.NZ. You touch upon an aspect that always seems weird to me that everyone pro F35 seems to accept. If LO is so important that all 3 variants need it for the first day of war, "kick down the door" stuff then why do those same people then turn around and say but the next day "we can hang all these weapons on the wings and screw LO!" Well, then, is it really that damn necessary?!?
ReplyDeleteThe pro F35 has it both ways, they say it is so vital to do the job but then turn around and dispose of it like no big deal? Well, which is it?
I am really starting to think USAF made a big mistake by putting so much emphasize on LO and spreading it basically to the entire fleet. I wonder today if it wouldn't have been far cheaper, more militarily efficient to have just replaced the F117 with a new strike bomber and kept buying new F16s/F18s....Maybe we should have just worried about the first day of war mission as a special mission, have a small fleet of 60 to 100 F35LO version to replace the F117 and developed a none LO F35 to replace the F18/F18 past 2020 and not have to worry about LO classifications.
F35B then could have been something different than what we have today and probably would look way different. It would have the same radar, cockpit, modified engine but probably a completely different airframe.
Or, to state it differently, what good is it to win the first day and lose every day thereafter, when winning the first day could be done better and cheaper by other means, and then have real fighters from then on? It's a win-win.
DeleteYes I can think of many planes that can deliver more weapons to target, further away, at a faster speed, and for far, far less money per plane/payload. Yet the argument for the F35 is the supposed immediate need for it's 'stealth' because of modern SAMs which in reality use low frequency radar like L-band, and the F35s stealth coating is X-band optimized.
DeleteHowever SAMs (albeit less capable than their newer modern counterparts) were successfully defeated through jamming, homing-anti-radiation-missiles and evasion during operation desert storm, however according to LHM everything is different now!
Not to mention that for the price of one F35 you could get like 6 F16s, 4 F18s, 2.5F15s (probably much better at full rate production), maybe 5PAKfa, probably over a dozen of those chinese F16 equivelants...There are also upgrade options (like advanced hornet, the stealth eagle with NASA's vector thrusting modifications, and possibilty to implement similar upgrades in the F16s) that could be implemented whilst replacement planes are designed.