JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

[NRao]

Aug 19, 2013 :: U.K. Royal Air Force Advances Typhoon Deployment Plans

Detailing the plans, senior officers have revealed that both the 12 and 617 squadrons will disband in March 2014. The 617, also known as the Dambusters, eventually will regroup for the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II in 2018 when the U.K. purchases its first squadron of the aircraft.

3rd U.K. F-35 to Eglin

The third {Turkey} F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing for the United Kingdom takes off from Naval Air Station Fort Worth en route to Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., June 25, 2013. The aircraft will be used for pilot and maintainer training.

I was not aware of this - F-35 manufactured outside the US:

Jul 26, 2013 :: Italy Begins F-35 Assembly; Dutch Store Their First Two Jets

Assembly of the first F-35 Joint Strike fighter to be produced outside the U.S. has begun in Italy. Manufacturers delivered major structural components to the new final assembly and check-out (FACO) facility at Cameri Air Base, west of Milan, where the first F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant, designated AL-1, will be assembled for the Italian air force. The facility is operated by a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Alenia Aermacchi.

Assembly operations at the FACO started without fanfare out of sensitivity to strong political opposition in Italy over the cost of the F-35 procurement. A second-tier F-35 program partner, Italy plans to spend $15 billion on the jets beginning in 2015, Reuters reported. Last year, it reduced its original order for 131 jets to 90, including 60 F-35As for the air force and 30 short takeoff/vertical landing F-35Bs for the air force and navy.

The FACO is operated principally by Alenia. It has 22 buildings and more than one million square feet of covered space, with 11 final-assembly work stations. The companies plan to assemble all the F-35s for the Italian military and eventually those going to the Netherlands, should that country confirm its acquisition. The facility will also build the wings that Alenia will supply for all F-35 partner nations and other potential customers. Under current F-35 industrial participation agreements, Alenia will make no fewer than 835 wing sets, according to Lockheed Martin.

AL-1 assembly started upon the arrival of an F-35 rear fuselage built by BAE Systems in Samlesbury, UK; a forward fuselage and wing built by Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, Texas; and a center fuselage built by Northrop Grumman in Palmdale, Calif. The wing and center fuselage were shipped on a chartered C-5 transport to Milan Malpensa airport, then transported by truck to Cameri Air Base, arriving on July 12.

The companies plan to deliver AL-1 to the Italian air force in the fourth quarter of 2015. Component structures for AL-2 will begin arriving at Cameri in November. Plans call for delivering the second F-35 assembled by the FACO in the first quarter of 2016, Lockheed Martin said.

Meanwhile, at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth facility the Netherlands formally took delivery of the first of two F-35As that it ordered in 2009 and 2011 for the operational test (OT) phase. The second is still undergoing test and acceptance flights. But instead of joining the OT fleet, the two aircraft are going into storage at Eglin AFB, the Dutch defense ministry confirmed this week. The country is wavering again about buying F-35s as its F-16 replacement. Until a decision is reached, the two aircraft will be used “for technical ground tests,” the ministry added.

Can Ojhar accept C-5s?

[Singha]

sounds like a mess to me:

The RAF expects to reach full operational capability with an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar in 2021, allowing the aircraft to reach its full potential 18 years after it was first delivered, although the type is expected to start retiring from service in 2030.

The Defense Ministry now is looking at its requirements beyond 2030 and has launched its Future Combat Air System (FCAS) requirement, which officials say is broader than the initial Deep and Persistent Offensive Capability requirement that was scrapped when the U.K. switched its decision on F-35 variants.

[NRao]

sounds like a mess to me:

The RAF expects to reach full operational capability with an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar in 2021, allowing the aircraft to reach its full potential 18 years after it was first delivered, although the type is expected to start retiring from service in 2030.

The Defense Ministry now is looking at its requirements beyond 2030 and has launched its Future Combat Air System (FCAS) requirement, which officials say is broader than the initial Deep and Persistent Offensive Capability requirement that was scrapped when the U.K. switched its decision on F-35 variants.

Errr ................ Turkey thread. "People" could easily think that is associated with the Turkey. Struggling to fly and now AESA functional 18 years after delivery - make a vicious cocktail.

[NRao]

JUST think aloud (on the internet that is a big challenge) ...........................

Meanwhile, at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth facility the Netherlands formally took delivery of the first of two F-35As that it ordered in 2009 and 2011 for the operational test (OT) phase. The second is still undergoing test and acceptance flights. But instead of joining the OT fleet, the two aircraft are going into storage at Eglin AFB, the Dutch defense ministry confirmed this week. The country is wavering again about buying F-35s as its F-16 replacement. Until a decision is reached, the two aircraft will be used “for technical ground tests,” the ministry added.

Does that sound like a potential FMS invite?

I mean, the Dutch could use the funds, IAF could try out a nice shiny plane while it waits for the MoD to rethink the other 5th Gen, at cost hopefully, perhaps even get ahead into the line(?), get a feel for a new office, ...... ...... FMS should be open, plenty of copies of applications should be around, could take another year for it to get into the right hands, ..............

Just thinking.

[Singha]

at best the EF program kept aerospace tech and jobs in europe going .... a kind of skill retention and development program....at its low production nos and very slow capability increments it wont have any material impact of EU strike power. the tornado GR4 was and continues to be RAFs main strike force until retirement when JSF will take over.

the germans work around this issue by not fighting at all. plus they have tornados.

italians have tornados and spain has F-18s. and they dont fight a whole lot. both will buy JSF.

[Philip]

UK,nothing new,posted earlier,"land-based" capability first.This is exactly what I've been saying long before this thread was created.Ultra ambitious,technology problematic,huge developmental delays,massive cost overruns,leading the end-users like the USN's CNO to question the wisdom of "luxury fighters" vs "bomb trucks" that can do the business at far lesser cost.Therefore a "hybrid" of types will have to suffice if the JSF's costs further escalate.I've already pointed out that the numbers to be acquired have come down drastically.The US is cutting down on its defence budget and carefully examining problematic programmes.The US is too far down the line to cancel the entire programme now.US def. industry depends upon it too much to abandon it.It will however try and recover developmental costs ,while trying to make a profit with as much foreign sales as possible.

Here is a lesson for India,which also is embarking upon a number of aircraft programmes,for example the FGFA,MMRCA,LCA,IJT,plus local manufacture of several foreign types and upgrades.With the rupee's collapse,we will see a crisis emerge with our foreign defence acquisitions while Indian DPSUs have also miserably failed (in the aviation sector primarily) to deliver on time and within cost. The rupee's woes will impact first upon the Rafale deal or cheaper alternatives looked at as an option in case the economy .Numbers may have to be slashed.the FGFA might end up more of an SU-30MKI project rather than a true JV earlier intended. The unfortunate fact is that none of the key components of these programmes,other than some software,composites,and avionics,is desi.The engines,radars,other sensors and ESM measures ,as well as almost 90% of the proposed weaponry will be imported.We have merely graduated from "screwdriver tech" to "integrating foreign tech" within an overall Indian design framework.Unfortunately,there is opaqueness and lack of transparency with respect to India's aviation projects.We do not have the issues dissected in the media as we see with the US.Service chiefs are discouraged from coming out with statements regarding the nation's defence as far as poss. We've just seen the confusion over the Paki border killings.It would be worthwhile with this wealth of info about the JSF to "mirror" the development of the FGFA which is our great "brown hope" for future air dominance.

By the way,despite much "tom-tomming and striptease",the IAF has repeatedly said that it is not interested in the JSF and has asked HAL to get on with its primary task of co-developing the FGFA,and concentrating on delivering the putting aside frivolous projects like the HTT-40 which it will not buy.In any case,even for argument's sake,we would only get the "turd class" capable version,that too only after orders from client sates are executed,which will be well into the next decade.

PS: A factor not mentioned in the JSF saga is that some European nations will have to buy the bird even in limited qtys. ,because of their being NATO members.The US must have support on the ground in Europe and cannot rely solely upon carrier-based JSFs to do the business.This especially so because of the very high maintenance regime of the JSF whose costs are yet to be determined even at this stage!

[NRao]

By the way,despite much "tom-tomming and striptease",the IAF has repeatedly said that it is not interested in the JSF

True.

Which is why I have always wondered why you started this thread, named it such and held a striptease survey!

From an Indian perspective this thread is worthless.

And even from a learning point of view, I find that there is s lot positives too!!!!

I need to think a wee bit more, but I am inclined to believe they India now should decline the FGFA and opt for a line in ojhar. Hey if italians can get one do should India.

[Philip]

From an Indian perspective this thread is worthless.

Well,"frogs in the well cannot comprehend what the ocean is!" So let us (India) plow our lonely furrow and develop our turkeys,sorry.... peacock's, at the Indian rate of growth. I wonder what the IAF will be flying in the meantime,tasked with defending the nation's airspace.

[NRao]

Boffins, crows, frogs, peacocks, ................

frogs in the well cannot comprehend what the ocean is

So very true, this thread is a well. With a turkey posting away about turkeys.

To make it an ocean:
1) Have the Mods change the title to something more meaningful and not demeaning
2) Get rid of that silly, biased survey
3) Open up the discussion so that others post. You need to take the lead to post both sides of the picture, that is a responsibility you had/have as the author of this thread. Unless of course your intensions were otherwise and predetermined
4) And please stop (if you can prevent yourself) from using words like Turkey and Boffins, etc

There is much to learn from the F-35 experience. In certain areas there is none to compare. Even today.

[NRao]

Checkout the exhaust as it takes of.

First F-35B Night Vertical Landing (on land)



F-35B Accomplishes First Night Vertical Landing Aboard USS WASP




F-35 Vertical Landing With Test Pilot Commentary (British?) ("Remarkably easy", "carefree")

[NRao]

Ottawa Citizen :: Aug 19, 2013 :: F-35 computer programming facility still in Canada’s plans, DND documents say

OTTAWA — Canada is still involved in the planning of a $650-million computer programming facility for the F-35 aircraft, but is holding off paying its share of the project until the government makes a decision on whether to buy the fighter aircraft.

The facility for reprograming the software-intensive stealth fighter would be operated by Canada, Britain and Australia. Canadian military officers are currently involved in the early stages of the project, according to Department of National Defence documents obtained by the Citizen.

But the Conservative government’s decision to rethink its F-35 purchase is limiting the country’s ability to influence the establishment of the software reprogramming infrastructure for the high-tech jet, warned the September 2012 briefing note for then-associate defence minister Bernard Valcourt.

“An inability from Canada to make financial commitments to a reprogramming solution for the F-35 will transfer the financial burden of on-going activities to JSF Partners, restricting Canada’s ability to influence requirements development and design of the program solution,” it added.

If Canada decides to get involved in the facility it will be required to catch up with a financial contribution for a third of the $650 million. The costs will be included in a submission to the Treasury Board for a new fighter aircraft once the government finishes its review of that purchase, the briefing note pointed out.

As many as 15 to 20 Canadian military personnel would be assigned to the software laboratory.

The documents, obtained through the Access to Information law, indicate that Canada’s participation in the F-35 program continues even as funding for the jet is temporarily frozen.

In the summer of 2012, Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed Martin’s vice-president for F-35 program integration, confirmed to the Citizen that Canadian government procurement and military officials were still assigned to the fighter aircraft program office and development funding continues. Canada has spent more than $200 million on its participation in the development of the aircraft so far, according to DND documents.

The F-35 stealth fighter has become a major political headache for the Conservative government. Although the Liberal government originally signed on to a research-and-development program for the plane, the Conservatives significantly expanded that and then committed Canada to purchasing the aircraft, making it a lynchpin of their defence policy.

But to deal with the ongoing controversy over the cost of the F-35 and allegations the government tried to hide the real price-tag of the stealth aircraft, the Conservative government launched a review of the proposed fighter jet purchase. Funding for the actual acquisition of the F-35 has been frozen and other jets are being examined.

But Royal Canadian Air Force officers still privately express their confidence the Conservative government will eventually purchase the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. In 2012, Lt.-Gen. André Deschamps, then commander of the air force, told a House of Commons’ committee the service still anticipated receiving the stealth fighter. “Currently, from an air force perspective, we are focused on delivery and transition to the F-35,” he noted.

Public Works official Lucie Brosseau stated in an email to the Citizen that Canada has not committed to participating in the software facility, nor has it contributed any funds. “Canada remains a partner in the Joint Strike Fighter Program to benefit from economic opportunities resulting from its partnership and to keep the option on the table while it undertakes an evaluation of options,” she added.

On Aug. 9, the government issued an update on its ongoing review of the fighter jet procurement, stating that the DND had completed an analysis of the estimated life-cycle cost for the F-35. It also noted that “anticipated United States budget restrictions and their potential effects on F-35 prices remain an area of risk, as do the current forecasts for sustainment and operating costs, which would put pressure on future budgets.”

The update pointed out that it is estimated that seven to eleven aircraft would be lost over the life of the Canadian fighter aircraft fleet. The cost to replace those planes would be around $1 billion.

The controversy surrounding the purchase of the F-35 has centered on technical and cost issues, as well as the acquisition process. DND originally claimed the project would cost around $14.7 billion, but Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page put that price tag at around $29 billion.

Auditor General Michael Ferguson also issued a report that concluded DND officials withheld key information from Parliament about the fighter jet purchase, underestimated costs and didn’t follow proper procurement rules.

Still, the F-35 has had strong support in government. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has labelled the jet a good deal for Canada.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

[NRao]

Aug 18, 2013 :: South Korea goes with Boeing, dumps Lockheed-Martin’s F-35

The Government of South Korea looks set to pick Boeing and its F-15 Super Eagle (above) over Lockheed Martin’s F-35 and the Eurofighter Typhoon. South Korea is set to spend US$7.2 billion to buy 15 two-seater jets and 45 single-seat jets.

Canada, by comparison, has budgeted CDN $8.99 billion to buy 65 new F-35s fighters even as it undertakes an evaluation of its fighter jet options. Both the F-35 and the F-15 would be likely leading contenders to replace Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18s. The F-35 is a stealth fighter while the F-15E has some stealth technology.

Now, using today’s exchange rate to compare South Korea’s purchase with Canada’s budget for F-35s, South Korea is spending CDN$120 million per plane while Canada has budgeted $138.3 million per plane.

Among the factors that saw the F-35 eliminated from the South Korea competition was cost. The F-15 was cheaper:

Also, in terms of local industrial benefits, Boeing has promised to assemble the jets in South Korea. Canada will also insist on some industrial benefits coming its way from the manufacturer it eventually picks to supply it with new fighter jets but I don’t think any of those manufacturers are ready to let Canadians assemble their jets.

[NRao]

Aug 21, 2013 :: F-35 Support Costs Fall 22%, Pentagon Manager Estimates

A fleet of Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 fighters will cost $857 billion over 55 years to operate and support, 22 percent less than previously estimated, according to the head of the Pentagon office developing the plane.

The new estimate reflects the aircraft’s performance in 5,000 test flights over 7,000 hours, Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, the Defense Department’s program manager for the F-35, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in written answers last month that haven’t been made public until now.

“The previous cost estimate did not factor in this new knowledge,” Bogdan said.

Operating costs include expenses from spare parts to repairs and fuel. Officially, the Pentagon’s estimate remains $1.1 trillion, a two-year-old projection developed by the Pentagon’s independent cost-assessment office.

The F-35 is the Pentagon’s costliest weapon system, with an estimated price tag of $391.2 billion for a fleet of 2,443 aircraft, up 68 percent from the projection in 2001, as measured in current dollars.

The rising costs and troubles in building the plane even as it’s being developed have led to criticism in Congress. This year, lawmakers, the Government Accountability Office and the Pentagon test office have said the aircraft is making progress in flight tests and in stabilizing production.

The reduced estimate for operating the planes was among such indications cited by Bogdan in his letter to the lawmakers.

‘Significant Effort’

“Significant effort remains to continue to find cost efficiencies and reduce this number even further” and “I expect these cost estimates to continue to go down over the next several years as the program matures,” Bogdan said.

Jennifer Elzea, a spokeswoman for the cost-assessment office that compiled the earlier $1.1 trillion estimate, said in an e-mail that she couldn’t comment on Bogdan’s reduced projection.

The Pentagon moved to shelter the F-35 from the initial impact this year of the budget cuts known as sequestration, locking in several contracts before the reductions took effect. Frank Kendall, the Defense Department’s chief weapons buyer, has said he would do his best to protect the plane built by Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed from the effects of $52 billion of sequestration cuts set for fiscal 2014.

Under further cuts, Bogdan said in his answers to lawmakers, “there is a significant risk of not being able to deliver” the fully capable version of software the aircraft needs to meet its warfighting potential.

Budget Cuts

Sequestration also would mean “a reduction in the number of aircraft” that can be purchased, he said. The Pentagon wants to buy 29 next year.

Bogdan estimated that basic production costs, including engines, for the three variations of the aircraft will fall as much as $35 million per plane by fiscal 2018, when full-rate production is scheduled to begin.

If current trends hold and production rates increase, Bogdan said, the Marine Corps version will fall to $110 million a plane from $153 million under the fifth production contract signed in December.

The Navy’s version will drop to $100 million from $140 million and the Air Force’s to $85 million from $120 million, he said.

Bogdan also acknowledged what the Pentagon rarely says publicly -- that the F-35 is being developed partly in response to China’s military modernization and its emphasis on weapons and tactics intended to keep U.S. vessels and aircraft away from its territorial waters should war with Taiwan break out. This is known in Pentagon jargon as an “anti-access/area denial” strategy.

Asked by lawmakers what threat is driving procurement of the F-35, Bogdan cited “emerging threats” that “are presently being fielded in China and other nations.”

[NRao]

Frpm the FGFA thread:

The Super Eagle/Strike Eagle whatever one wants to call the bird on steroids,is being emulate din many other programmes.Even the F-18SH is getting a dose of stealth steroids to become the "Advanced SH",as an option for the USN which has to make a critical decision about buying the F-35C,the costliest of the JSF variants,est. by one article as around "$180M".Realistically,even if it around $150M,it is a huge amt. for an aircraft too heavily dependent upon stealth to survive with only 4-th gen dogfighting capabilities.If the F-18 can be thus exalted,why not the F-16? That aircraft has been one of the world's best ever creation's,a true legend.

This beggars a Q.What if the same is done for Russian fighters of the 4th gen? They are far cheaper and would give more bang for the buck.One could envision a partially "stealthy" MIG-35/36 with 360 degree radar coverage like the FGFA to add to its already superb and arguably unequalled dogfighting capabilities.The Flanker is already being developed into the SU-35 variant,which will possess some of the 5th-gen etch being designed for the FGFA and the bomber/strike version,the SU-34 is already into production for the RuAF.What would've brought tears to veteran fighter pilot's eye would've been a stealthy MIG-21 Bison.It was over a decade ago that Shiv and I found the answer in arresting the declining MIG-21s in the IAF's inventory by building ....more new MIG-21 Bsion's! In retrospect,it would've been the most cost-effective solution.

As the USN's CNO Adm.Greenert asked the Q,whether one needed "luxury fighters" when a bomb truck would do,keeping in mind the availability of long range stand-off munitions.It appears that there may be a lot of life still left in those 1970/1980 designs,because of current economic conditions.As Plato supposedly said,"Neccessity is the mother of invention".

Realistically the AWST article stated:

ASH @ $88-92 million
F-35C @ 115 Million (which should come down some)

On "luxury fighter"

Bogdan also acknowledged what the Pentagon rarely says publicly -- that the F-35 is being developed partly in response to China’s military modernization and its emphasis on weapons and tactics intended to keep U.S. vessels and aircraft away from its territorial waters should war with Taiwan break out. This is known in Pentagon jargon as an “anti-access/area denial” strategy.

Asked by lawmakers what threat is driving procurement of the F-35, Bogdan cited “emerging threats” that “are presently being fielded in China and other nations.”

The F-35 project is not going somewhere. The ASH is not going to be floated. The F-35 represents - cost be damned - the next gen techs.

[Philip]

Sorry,your cost stats are wrong.Here is the AWST Aug 5/12 2013 (page 30) numbers,posted earlier.Let me repeat them.

Additional costs per variant have to be added due to "retrofits".As explained earlier,the JSF variants have far lesser commonality than other aircraft types,due to end-user requirements one supposes,which is going to make it a nightmare for MRO.The maintenance cost have yet to be worked out at this late stage in the programme,but all prelim. estimates say that it will be much higher than current types in service due to the high maintenance regime required for "exotic" stealth fighters.

"Hidden Costs".

Table ,"Projected F-35 PRIL 6 and 7 costs".
(I am giving only the total estimated cost ,and numbers of aircraft ordered,not the break up for brevity)

F-35A....LRIP 5 (32) ...$124M,LRIP 6 (36).....$18.5,LRIP 7 (35)...114.5M

F-35B....LRIP 5 $156M, LRIP 6....$150.2M, LRIP 7....$145.9M

F-35C....LRIP 5....$144M,LRIP 6....$137.7M,LRIP 7....132.9M

Now as to telling me what language and words I should use,your arrogance is hilarious! I believe this is a free country and a free forum.Which dictatorship do you live in,the US? I have every right to describe the JSF as a "turkey or talisman?",which is the thread's title.It is left to members to decide which word describes it best,not you alone."Boffins" as boffins,too,they are all civilised words in the English language, and if you can't stomach them I suggest you take recourse to swallowing an antacid ! Unfortunately for you,when facts fly in your face which you don't like,you get uppity and rude and obnoxious,not the behaviour expected of gentlemen, which I believe is the tribe that all or most of BR members belong to.So please stop your personal diatribe at me,refute my arguments with your facts and figures,etc.,I have far better things to do then joust with ill-mannered juveniles.

PS:Oh dear! It looks like Japan can't stomach the "turkey" either!

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... -Purchases
Japan Might Delay F-35 Purchases
Jun. 10, 2013

“This is a very, very serious problem for the Japanese taxpayer,” said defense analyst Shinichi Kiyotani. The problem is compounded by the fact that Japan’s purchasing costs are plagued by small-lot, piecemeal procurement, meaning local production costs can be sometimes double those of US-made counterparts. “People are wondering if Japan can afford it,” Kiyotani said.

Canada too!

Canada officially restarted its effort to find a replacement for its aging fleet of F-16 fighters last December. The decision came after Ottawa decided to freeze all funds for the JSF, in the wake of a scathing review of the country's effort to bring the F-35 to Canada.

Last April, a report by Canada's auditor general alleged that defense officials failed to inform top government decision-makers "of the problems and associated risks" of buying the F-35 by intentionally sugar-coated cost analysis of the fighter.

The report drew outrage from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and members of the Canadian parliament, throwing into doubt the country's plans to buy 65 new F-35's over the course of the next several years, at a cost of $8.9 billion.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/pr ... z2cedfcd4v

But wait,there's a silver lining in the JSF cloud.Turkey has decided to go along with its original decision and order around 100 JSFs.
Can't expect them to let the turkey down what?

PPS:How the US trusts its allies!

An issue that affects all the international partners in the F-35 involves access to the computer software codes for the aircraft. The F-35 relies heavily on software for operation of radar, weapons, flight controls and also maintenance. The US military has stated that "no country involved in the development of the jets will have access to the software codes" and has indicated that all software upgrades will be done in the US. The US government acknowledges that Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Turkey have all expressed dissatisfaction with that unilateral US decision. The UK specifically indicated they might cancel its entire order of F-35s without access to the coding, without which the nation will be unable to maintain its own aircraft. Allen Sens, a defence analyst at the University of British Columbia stated in November 2009: "What has happened is really quite unusual because we're talking about some of America's very close allies. You would have thought they could build in some maintenance codes that could be accessible to their allies." Sens indicated that the decision could be as a result of concerns about software security and also pressure from Congress to protect jobs in the US.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_M ... rocurement

[Philip]

More dissatisfaction with the controversial bird whose name begins with the letter T and ends in Y,with a K in the middle!

The F-35 is Not the Silver Bullet of Air Power

http://cmss.ucalgary.ca/node/868

It comes with little surprise that the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter programme continues to make international headlines. Just last March, Canada’s Associate Minister of National Defense Julian Fantino stated that his government has not discounted ‘backing out’ of the programme. Yet it was a surprise to see Canada back peddle. Since 2002 Canada has consistently remained devoted to the programme. The government has labeled the F-35 as the only fighter capable of meeting Canada’s requirement with no “Plan B” option existing. Until Fantino’s statement it seemed to be the F-35, or bust, for Canadian air power.

Australia previously made a similar announcement. Defense Minister Stephen Smith stated in Parliament that Australia has only committed to taking fourteen of the one hundred F-35s it requires (including two test units). Furthermore, his ministry will be undertaking a careful review of the procurement schedule. Australia appears to have an exit strategy in place.

Canada and Australia are performing an increasingly implausible act of doublespeak – avowing their commitment to the JSF programme whilst keeping one eye firmly fixed on the exit. In the context of the Italian decision to slash their F-35 order, and the American decision to postpone production of 179 airframes, the prognosis for the F-35 appears grim. The JSF participants find themselves in a quintessential ‘bank run’ situation – equivocating on their intentions and nervously waiting for the first country to break ranks. There is now a non-trivial possibility that the JSF programme may fail, or that Canada and Australia may unilaterally withdraw from it.

This may seem to be a calamitous situation. The JSF programme is intended to replace an entire generation of Cold War-era aircraft. No less than seven different airframes within nine JSF partner nations are up for retirement. For their part, Australia and Canada are saddled with a fleet of rapidly aging F/A-18 and CF-18 Hornets. In 2010, Canada completed a CDN$2.6 billion CF-18 modernization project designed to maintain its air power until all of its expected sixty-five F-35s are delivered. Meanwhile, Australia has announced that any further delay in the delivery schedule could create an air power capability gap, leading to the March announcement of purchasing additional F/A-18 E Super Hornets as an interim measure.

Few seriously question the imperative to replace the Hornets – they represent a military capability that Australia and Canada have utilised in the past and would like to maintain well into the 21st Century. Since the end of the Cold War, both countries have deployed their fighters on several occasion in the name of international stability: Canada during the 1991 Gulf War, the 1999 Kosovo War, and the recent 2011 Libya War; Australia in the 2003 Iraq War.

Now for some good news: the potential (and we stress potential) failure of, or withdrawal from, the Joint Strike Fighter programme does not spell complete disaster for Canadian or Australian air power. Why? Because the F-35 is not the alpha and omega of modern aircraft design. Simply put, the F-35 is not vastly superior to other airframes that were previously swept off the table, such as the F/A-18 E/F/G Super Hornet. In terms of basic on-paper metrics such as speed, agility, operating range, and payload capacity there is very little distinction between the conventional model of the F-35 and the F/A-18 E. In fact, the Super Hornet outstrips the F-35 in some areas like speed and range while fielding a nearly identical set of ordinance.

The chief virtue of the F-35 is its stealth capabilities. Proponents argue this is what sets the F-35 apart from its rivals. Certainly this is a valuable quality, given the sort of offensive missions that Canada and Australia have previously employed their air forces for. But the F-35 is just not that stealthy. When fully armed, weapons must be carried on external hardpoints that completely remove its cloak of invisibility. The fighter’s enclosed weapons bays, designed to maintain the airframe’s stealth, have only a limited space for ordinance. Even under a restricted payload, the F-35 is not a true stealth aircraft in the sense that the B-2 bomber, or even the F-22 fighter, is. As pointed out by critical reports in Air Power Australia Analyses, the F-35 departs from stealth ‘shaping’ principles in the structure of the aircraft. The underside of the aircraft does not match the flat profile found on other stealth aircraft, which under certain situations gives it a larger radar signature.

Does this matter? We argue it does. The F-35 meets stealth requirements that were originally outlined within its 1997 design specifications. However, since that time, surface-to-air radar and missile technology has increasingly become more accurate and lethal, meaning the F-35 will likely be unable to operate independently in hostile airspace. Instead, the fighter will need to be held in reserve until air defenses have been neutralised by traditional means: true stealth aircraft, dedicated electronic warfare aircraft (like the ‘Growler’ variant of the Super Hornet), and cruise missiles.

So, the choice for Canada and Australia will be to operate the F-35 with limited offensive capability and less-than-absolute stealth, or with full offensive capability and no meaningful stealth what so ever. Whatever the decision, the Canadian and Australian air forces will be dependent on dedicated anti-air suppression weapon systems in order to confidently operate their F-35s – a continuation of the present situation in operating the existing fleet of CF-18 and F/A-18 Hornets. The Australian air force might have already tacitly agreed on this point, as it has procured the sub-systems necessary to operate twelve of its Super Hornets as ‘Growlers’.

In our assessment, the F-35 is not indisputably superior to some of the other aircraft currently available for procurement by the Canadian and Australian governments: the Eurofighter Typhoon; the American Super Hornet; the Swedish Gripen; or, the French Rafale. It does, however, comes with a dramatically higher per unit ‘fly-away’ cost to its competitors – The United States Department of Defense’s 2012 Budget Estimates put the Air Force’s F-35s at US$151 million each, as opposed to US$57 million for the Navy’s Super Hornets. Granted, the fly-away costs for the F-35 will fall as (or rather, if) production ramps up, but the aircraft will remain a premium-priced option.

None of this is to say that the F-35 is a bad aircraft – some stealth may indeed be better than no stealth – and given a ‘fly-off’ evaluation it may well prove to be the superior aircraft to any of the aforementioned options across the full spectrum of performance metrics. But this is not a sure thing. Nor is it to say that the Canadian and Australian governments necessarily ought to withdraw from the Joint Strike Fighter programme – such a decision carries political consequences that run deeper than just air power capabilities. Instead, it is merely to illustrate the point that the F-35 is not a silver bullet for Canadian and Australian air power requirements. All options should be put back on the table for careful analysis.

Journal of Military and Strategic Studies

[NRao]

Philip,

Do you read posts? (My turn to ask. : ) )

Just three posts above is an article dated August 21, 2013. Not July, noy June, not May of 2103. August, 2013, that too 21st of August. That is TODAY!!!!!

Secondly the numbers are not from Sweetman or the like. The number is from THE man: the Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, the Defense Department’s program manager for the F-35.

Who told the Senate Armed Services Committee in written answers last month that haven’t been made public until now.

What did he say (for the third time):

the Air Force’s to $85 million from $120 million, he said

THAT is on the cost of the F-35A.

[NRao]

Hey, nobody said it was silver bullet - just the best bullet at $85 million a piece.

Ottawa Citizen :: Aug 19, 2013 :: F-35 computer programming facility still in Canada’s plans, DND documents say

The turkey keeps flying. : )

[NRao]

My citations are newer than yours friend. Even in a free country one needs to post the most recent news item.

Most of your posts are from an era when the JSF program was in the dumps - and it was in the dumps. It seems to me that things are turning around. We need to wait for a few months.

[Philip]

Good! Keep posting.Let's see what the bird will eventually cost and how many are built and for whom.

PS:Rememeber the quote about "sugar coated estimates".

[NRao]

PS:Oh dear! It looks like Japan can't stomach the "turkey" either!

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... -Purchases
Japan Might Delay F-35 Purchases
Jun. 10, 2013

“This is a very, very serious problem for the Japanese taxpayer,” said defense analyst Shinichi Kiyotani. The problem is compounded by the fact that Japan’s purchasing costs are plagued by small-lot, piecemeal procurement, meaning local production costs can be sometimes double those of US-made counterparts. “People are wondering if Japan can afford it,” Kiyotani said.

Here is the entire article:

Former Japanese Defense Minister Satoshi Morimoto, the architect of Japan’s decision to purchase F-35 joint strike fighters to boost Japan’s deterrence against China, now believes cost pressures caused by the recent plummeting value of the yen could delay the rate of annual purchases for the country’s planned buy of 42 fighters.

In an interview with Defense News, Morimoto, who served as Japan’s defense minister until December and is one of Japan’s leading defense experts and strategists, said he now believes the Defense Ministry may be forced to delay annual purchases of F-35s, should the yen continue to hover around 100 to the US dollar.

“Because this was a decision by the government of Japan to introduce the F-35A, no matter what the price becomes, we cannot change our principle or our policy. We had to introduce the F-35 to replace the F-4. But the problem is … the price is increasing. The question then is how to manage it. I think the MoD has to reshape [the] number of purchases each year.

“The problem is whether we can catch up with the competition for air superiority with Russia and China, so we cannot postpone more than three years. I guess we might postpone one or two years,” he said.

Japan had planned to have all 42 aircraft in its inventory by 2021, and a delay in annual purchases could push that to 2023.

When asked about the possible delay, Defense Ministry spokesman Takaaki Ohno said the complex program is still being worked. “We recognize the F-35A contains the most advanced technology but we also recognize that it is a project that is still under development,” he said. “Whatever happens with the introduction of the F-35, we will continue to maintain the closest contact and cooperation with the US.”

Last year under Morimoto, Japan agreed to import four F-35s in 2017 and locally assemble the remaining 38, which will be built in small lots by two main local prime contractors led by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

Under a June 29 foreign military sales agreement with the US, Japan committed to purchase the first four at ¥10.2 billion a unit, which was about US $124 million each under the exchange rate at the time of 82 yen to the dollar.

The price was already well over the earlier agreed price of ¥9.9 billion, due to the then-continuing development and testing difficulties the F-35 program was facing. However, over the past six months, the value of the yen has plummeted to around 100 to the dollar.

{Philip, you chose to quote only this para}
“This is a very, very serious problem for the Japanese taxpayer,” said defense analyst Shinichi Kiyotani. The problem is compounded by the fact that Japan’s purchasing costs are plagued by small-lot, piecemeal procurement, meaning local production costs can be sometimes double those of US-made counterparts. “People are wondering if Japan can afford it,” Kiyotani said.

Morimoto stressed that the total number of aircraft would remain at 42, but also said if future prices bust budget ceilings set by the Finance Ministry — as they are likely to do if the yen stays so cheap — the MoD could spread out the purchase over several consecutive years.

The MoD has committed to purchasing the first 10 units in tranches of four, two and four, he said. After that, “if the price is still higher, the Ministry of Finance will be relatively reluctant to purchase the planes. We can’t change the basic plan for the first two or three tranches,” so the changes will come later, he said.

Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at US-based think tank Teal Group, anticipated potential problems because the more fighters are built in Japan, the more costs are likely to rise.

“[S]tanding up a Japan Final Assembly and Check Out [organization] … would greatly increase costs, a factor that has hobbled generations of Japanese fighter procurement programs and might mean a gap in firming up details, as Japan decided how much equipment would be built in country,” Aboulafia said. “It’s quite possible that the Japanese government hasn’t decided what it’s willing to pay for in terms of fighter manufacturing and industrial sovereignty.”

Paradoxically, while the longer-term future of Japan’s F-35A buy now looks more hazy, the overall stabilization of the F-35 program means delivery of the initial four is on schedule for 2017, sources said. Further, Japan is already making moves to recalibrate the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) to accommodate them.

Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed Martin F-35 vice president of program integration, earlier told Defense News that negotiations with Japanese partners were progressing and both sides were looking to hit the 2017 target delivery date.

In anticipation, the MoD has already begun preparations to receive the planes, Ohno said earlier. These include budgeting ¥29.9 billion this year for purchasing the first two units and ¥83 billion for initial costs to help industry set up plants and facilities to build various parts of the planes.

The MoD is spending an additional ¥21.1 billion for training equipment and expenses to start rebuilding Misawa Air Base in the northern part of Honshu.

Meanwhile, this year the MoD has begun beefing up defense and deterrence of Japan’s far-flung Nansei Shoto, or southern island chain, which stretches southwest of Okinawa to within 70 miles of Taiwan.

The MoD has begun reinforcing the 20 F-15J/DJ fighters with a further squadron in 2015. The MoD has budgeted ¥3.4 billion on facilities construction at the JASDF’s Naha Air Base and invested an initial ¥50 million to study how it should improve airborne radar, deployment and logistics issues to accommodate the move, Ohno said.

Finally, the MoD is spending ¥12.2 billion to upgrade both its F-15s and F-2s in response to what the MoD calls the need to “adapt to the modernization of the aerial combat capabilities of neighboring countries.”

This year, six F-15s and an undisclosed number of F-2s will get improved radars, a medium-range air-to-air missile and modernized data systems, Ohno said.

The Japanese seem to be doing just fine. It ALL depends on the exchange rates .... and procurement.................. absolutely nothing to do with the Turkey.

IF the exchange rates comes back to around 80 to a dollar, they will gobble up their entire requirement of 42 planes.

I bet China will force their hands no matter what. As the ex minister stated, no matter what the price is they have to manage. Events dictate terms.

[Philip]

Of course it does! That is the key issue.Costs. The financial situation of "partner" nations is all important .That will make or break the acquisition,or numbers acquired.If the US wants to hand out the aircraft free,or at "friendship" prices,along with definite guaranteed support costs to its allies, there will be a mad scramble!

No one is suggesting that the aircraft (no "magic bullet" post) does not possess virtues,but at what cost? Will upgraded legacy aircraft do the business at lesser cost be a more logical solution? There are also other new 4++ options like the Eurocanards which we have plumped for for the MMRCA requirement.It is why the consortium approach is being looked at by SoKo for its own affordable stealth fighter.This is why the Japanese always wanted the F-22 and not the JSF.As the analysis says,that is a "true" stealth fighter.

Here is another disturbing report below,which I personally think is a "wake up,shake up call",rather than an option being seriously considered,but one may be wrong.The US has invested too much money and the programme can't be allowed to fail,esp. to save face,even if ultimately,75% or more of the aircraft is bought and operated by the US armed forces.I said the same earlier,that the project must succeed even if only for the US,because of the Chinese threat in the Asia_Pacific region.

On a far smaller scale,we face the same problem with the LCA.Here it is NOT a critical need that will affect operations,as we have several other types,esp. the SU-30MKIs with us,and can buy from abroad types in service like affordable MIG-29/35s,build more Jags,or buy more Flankers,but it IS a critical national project that has to succeed.Otherwise as the good former Navy Chief said ,we will never be able to develop a fighter ourselves and be always dependent upon foreign manufacturers.The GOI/MOD must deliver funds required (from one report posted earlier,only 50%+ of the funds sanctioned have been utilised) for setting up a stable production line that will in a short period produce not less than 16 aircraft per year.That way within a decade we will be able to build 150+ LCAs of MK-1 and MK-2s.At the rate of just 8,it will end up like the HF-24 with merely 120+ being built by 2030.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking ... her=mobile

August 3, 2013
Pentagon raises JSF cancellation in US budget review leak
by Ben Sandilands

Reuters has published a detailed report about a Pentagon briefing in which the extreme option of cancelling high cost military projects, including the F-35 Lightning II or Joint Strike Fighter as it is better known here could be exercised to meet fierce US budget reduction targets.

Up front, the report makes it clear that the Pentagon was arguing very lucidly against such a cancellation, and it could be read as the US military turning such an unthinkable option into a ‘straw man’ for the purpose of lobbying against significant overall funding cutbacks.

But that’s ‘up front’. The confirmation of such an option being presented in a ‘secret’ briefing that was inevitably going to be leaked to the White House media means that this is considered at high levels to be a no longer unthinkable possibility, and one worthy of a PR strategy to identify, isolate and perhaps kill off on the wider stage of national political reporting and analysis rather than as a debate that has gained some heat in recent years in more specialised defense commentary and analysis circles.

It is fair to surmise that the Pentagon would collectively hope that stories like the one published by Reuters might cause the US Defense Secretary, if not the US President, to make a an unequivocal, cast iron public commitment to the massively costly and incredibly delayed and technologically challenged F-35 project thus rendering it immune to being cut back, or even cut down.

So far, if that is the purpose of the leaks, the silence has been deafening, but on Capitol Hill anything is possible, and no political word uttered upon it is likely to be trusted as inviolable for quite some time, if not forever.

The one thing the Reuters story doesn’t touch upon is what will happen if by 2018, the Joint Strike Fighter project still hasn’t delivered on its many and extensive promises, and remains a massive burden on the public purses of the US and the its JSF partners, some of whom, like Australia, will be left totally without the air superiority the JSF fighters are intended to bring.

By 2018 the capability gap between the air defense and offense capabilities of the west and ambivalent, hostile, or at the very least, increasingly rich and independently minded non-western states has a very good chance of being awkwardly and more widely apparent.

If the JSF can’t fill that gap, we are in terrible trouble, not compensated for by no longer facing budgetary ruin trying to acquire the Joint Strike Fighters that fools in Canberra in 2009 and 2010 were glibly insisting might be delayed until as far out as 2014, which is almost upon us.

Read the Reuters story again, and ask yourself, Why did this story get leaked by the Pentagon?

More bad news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_M ... ghtning_II

In 2013 Lockheed began to lay off workers at the Fort Worth plant where the F-35s were assembled.[129] They said that the currently estimated concurrency costs of refitting the 187 aircraft built by the time testing concludes in 2016 are now less than previously feared.[130] The GAO's Michael Sullivan said that Lockheed had failed to get an early start on the systems engineering and had not understood the requirements or the technologies involved at the program's start.[131] The Pentagon vowed to continue funding the program during budget sequestration if possible.[132] The United States Congress responded with the Budget Control Act of 2011, which may derail the software needed to complete the F-35 program.[133]

In June 2013, Frank Kendall, Pentagon acquisition, technology and logistics chief, declared “major advances” had been made in the F-35 program over the last three years; and that he intended approve production rate increases in September. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, program executive officer, reported far better communications between government and vendor managers, and that negotiations over Lot 6 and 7 talks were moving fast. It was also stated that operating costs had been better understood since training started, and he predicted “we can make a substantial dent in projections” of operating costs.[134]

In July 2013, further doubt was cast on the latest (long delayed) schedule, with further software delays, and sensor, display and wing buffet problems continuing.[135] In August it was revealed that the Pentagon was weighing cancellation of the program as one possible response to the Budget sequestration in 2013,[136][137] and the United States Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense voted to cut advanced procurement for the fighter.[138]

On 21 August 2013 C-Span reported that Congressional Quarterly and the Government Accountability Office were indicating the "Total estimated program cost now $400B--nearly twice initial cost." The Current investment was documented as approximately fifty (50) billion dollars. The Projected $316 billion dollar cost in development and procurement spending was estimated through 2037 at an average of $12.6 billion dollars per year. These were confirmed by Steve O'Bryan, Vice President of Lockheed Martin on the same date.[139]

[NRao]

The entire article is above, but

Aug 2, 2013 :: Pentagon downplays prospects of cancelling F-35, bomber

Ouch. The Turkey lives to fly another day!!

The U.S. military on Thursday downplayed concerns it could cancel the F-35 fighter and a new stealth bomber, after leaked documents from a budget review suggested the programs might be eliminated as one way to deal with deep budget cuts.

..............................................

Defense officials later stressed there were no plans to kill either program, noting that dismantling the F-35 program in particular would have far-reaching consequences for the U.S. military services and 10 foreign countries involved in the program, which is already in production.

"We have gone to great lengths to stress that this review identified, through a rigorous process of strategic modelling, possible decisions we might face, under scenarios we may or may not face in the future," Pentagon Spokesman George Little told Reuters in an email when asked about the slides.

"Any suggestion that we're now moving away from key modernization programs as a result of yesterday's discussion of the outcomes of the review would be incorrect," he said.

So ................. that is not an issue, nor a topic any longer. Mr. Ben Sandilands did not have the time to read it in OzLand - Aug 3 there is Aug 2 here. So he just missed the memo. Which is OK. Happens.

I do not expect ANY nation to buy ANY system that they cannot afford - on that point I agree with you. Having said that there are two ways that any system can be too expensive: The cost of the product is high OR the exchange rate makes the product expensive.

In the case of japan it seems to be the exchange rate.

In the case of Canada it seems to be the cost of the product.

BUT, in either case (and there are more) there is always politics - cannot run away from that. So far politics in both these nations are keeping the JSF - expensive as they will be. But: Events will make then accommodate an expensive system like the JSF. Japan for sure, perhaps Canada too.

The skies will be crowded with these turkeys or is it crows now?

[NRao]

Table ,"Projected F-35 PRIL 6 and 7 costs".
(I am giving only the total estimated cost ,and numbers of aircraft ordered,not the break up for brevity)

F-35A....LRIP 5 (32) ...$124M,LRIP 6 (36).....$18.5,LRIP 7 (35)...114.5M

F-35B....LRIP 5 $156M, LRIP 6....$150.2M, LRIP 7....$145.9M

F-35C....LRIP 5....$144M,LRIP 6....$137.7M,LRIP 7....132.9M

BTW, those figures are right, BUT they are for the LRIPs 5/6/7.

The $85 mil/F-35A is for a production run, POST LRIP.

However, even in the LRIP one can see that the cost reduces with each subsequent LRIP..

And, then check the latest figures on life cycle costs - the estimates have been revised DOWNWARD by a cool 22% source: the same General, dated TODAY.

Japan has two problems: procurement (which cannot be changed) and exchange rates (which is TBD). The prior WILL contribute to a higher priced JSF and the latter may or may not.

[Philip]

Let's see who will be crowing come 2020!

[NRao]

No need to wait that long my friend. The price for 2020 should be negotiated around 2016-17ish. IIRC the LRIP 7 prices have just been negotiated (will have to get back on that).

Suggest keep a track of if clients buy what they said they would buy. As an example the UK negotiated the current set of planes some time in 2009 or so. They are late, but that is about the lead time required for LM to deliver. 3-4 years ahead of time.

[NRao]

BTW, in my journeys to track the F-35, two points of great interest:

* The topic of Generation 6 - whatever that means - has reared its head, and
* LM - my read - is willing to take a hit on the F-35, to some extent (do not ask me what/why/how much/etc - I do not know)

I think these two are related. And, if they are, then expect the JSF to keep all FinMins

You heard it here first !!!!!

Which is why I would be crowing in 2020.

[SaiK]

i thought you guys will be talking about the near $1 trillion operating cost for F35 announced by pentagon

[Philip]

I"m afaid that NR is optimistic in the extreme if he thinks that JSF costs will be below $100M even for the cheapest "turd class" one for US allies.I've posted the LRIP table stats from the Aug 5/12 2013 issue "Hidden Costs"..Very comprehensive.It shows that there is approx. an extra "10%" to be added to current estimates.The USNI article put the figure for the USN's variant at about $180M+.The low figure that NR has quoted is debatable when the aircraft hasn't entered full production and from my numerous posts,has several serious development issues yet to be sorted out,whose cost of rectification cannot be quantified as of now.The cost of maintenance has yet to be determined,in fact it is being deliberately fudged so as not to scare off potential customers,but estimated over the lifetime of the aircraft in the trillions!

Nevertheless,let me be the Devil's advocate and try and look at the issue from the most positive angle.Two factors will determine the final production cost.The number of aircraft that US allies will buy,in comparison to the original estimates and secondly,the lower numbers that the US armed forces are going to buy.Even if the US goes it almost alone, there are well-known major problem that afflict the programme.In the US context as mentioned earlier,far less commonality exists between variants.This is unusual for a single type.Secondly,each level of software (yet to be finished) sits atop the previous which aircraft determines the operational capability of the aircraft.A delay in one level holds up the entire "train" so to speak.The reduced numbers (projection in AWST) have also been posted showing that at least 1500 less JSFs are going to be ordered! The leaked report of a Pentagon "worst-case" cancellation scenario to me is a warning to LM and the programme heads to get their act together.the internal political fall-out of cancellation will be enormous,but other US manufacturers like Boeing are waiting in the wings for the kill.So whichever decision is made,going ahead with reduced numbers,staying the numbers course or even cancellation,the same amt. of budgeted money for tactical aircraft will be spent on alternative US made aircraft.Therefore the JSF runs the risk of becoming the "Thanksgiving Turkey" if LM doe snot gets its act together.

As for India buying the JSF,that's a laugh! The IAF chief has repeatedly said that it does not want the bird,We are already committed with the FGFA,are making great effort now to make the LCA succeed.Oz and Canada are looking at alternatives,Britain is hedging its bets with reduced numbers and SoKo has plumped for an eagle instead of what it considers a turkey. The next two years are going to be critical for the programme.If the global eco-downturn situation affects US allies in particular,JSF numbers will certainly be down and that holds good for India too with its own foreign acquisition programmes,as right now the Rupee has breached the 65 mark to the $,still plummeting while our great FM says "don't panic,all is well!"

[Katare]

That is a big change for you Philip, you have come down from $300M to $100+M per unit cost within span of few pages! lol

[Philip]

"300M"? When? If so huge mistake on my part.My posts about costs have been quotes from recognised sources which speak for themselves,and the "$100M" tag was in response to NR's optimistic "$85M" estimate.I have stated that it would be "optimistic in the extreme" to keep costs below that fig. for the lowest level performing JSF variant meant for some of the US allies.

Pl. read the whole post and the context in which it has been written.Ultimately,as I said,it will be hard orders from the US armed forces and allies which will determine the numbers acquired and average cost of production,and the end-users are waiting and watching, hedging their bets until a clearer picture of dev. problem success,unit cost and maintenance costs are known.Some are even questioning the rationale for the JSF ( not the F-22) as other alternatives/options are emerging as SoKo has just done,dumping the JSF for the F-15.I've posted the views of Oz and Canada too.If there are any more pull-outs watch unit costs escalate further.

PS:Here is a new report ,sounds a little more optimistic than earlier ones.Whether it has been put out to deter SoKO from their decision not to buy the JSF is a moot point.Final decision in Mid-Sept.One can expect a lot of armtwisting by LM,unfortunately Boeing is the main competitior not a European namnufacturer.

http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-cuts-f-3 ... 22974.html

Pentagon cuts F-35 operating estimate below $1 trillion: source
Reuters

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government has slashed its estimate for the long-term operating costs of Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets by more than 20 percent to under $1 trillion, according to a senior defense official, a move that could boost international support for the program.

The Pentagon has been under pressure for over a year to revise its estimate of maintaining a fleet of more than 2,000 F-35s over 55 years, with industry and military officials arguing that many of the assumptions were outdated and off base.

The new estimate of $857 billion could help ensure the new plane turns out to be as affordable as advertised and comes days after South Korea determined that only a bid by Boeing Co for its F-15 Silent Eagle came in below a $7.4 billion price ceiling for its plan to buy 60 new fighter aircraft.

Lockheed's F-35 and the Eurofighter Typhoon remain in the running, but Boeing's pricing marked a step toward winning the contract, according to sources close to the process. A final decision is expected in mid-September.

It was not immediately clear what impact the lower F-35 operating estimate would have on the South Korean tender, but U.S. officials said Seoul could decide to restart the competition and ask for new bids.

The Pentagon's revision reflects data about the plane's performance based on over 7,000 hours of test flights and revised assumptions about how it will be used and maintained, said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly.

The estimate was provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee by the Pentagon's F-35 program chief, Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, the official said. A revision had been flagged in June when the Pentagon's acquisition chief said he had expected a review to result in lower operating and maintenance costs.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the costliest weapons program in U.S. history. The Pentagon estimates it will cost $392 billion to develop and build 2,443 of the new jets for use by the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

Lockheed is developing three models of the radar-evading warplane for the United States and eight countries that are helping fund its development: Britain, Australia, Canada, Norway, Turkey, Italy, Denmark and the Netherlands.

The revision of the estimate was first reported by Bloomberg news.

REDUCING COSTS

The cost per flying hour of the F-35B model, which can land like a helicopter, is likely be 16.6 percent lower than the earlier Pentagon projections, Lieutenant General Robert Schmidle, deputy Marine Corps commandant for aviation, told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday.

The Marines plan to start using the F-35B for military operations from mid-2015.

A second senior defense official said the current estimate by the Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office put the cost per flying hour of the F-35B model at over $41,000, but the actual cost would likely be closer to $37,000.

A detailed analysis by the Marine Corps showed this would cut the plane's annual operating costs by nearly $600 million, or $12.3 billion over the next five decades, the official said.

Schmidle said the Marines would fly the planes in short takeoff, vertical landing, or STOVL mode just 10 percent of the time, far less often than the 80 percent rate factored into the initial estimates. The manning levels assumed in the initial estimates were also higher than in practice, he said.

"The Marine Corps has very aggressively stepped out in trying to find ways to decrease the operating and support costs, specifically with regard to the cost per flight hour," Schmidle said. "I wanted to challenge every assumption."

He said he was confident additional savings could be achieved in coming years through efforts by Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp to lower the cost of operating the airplane's engine, in line with trends seen on other military aircraft programs.

He said the Marines also expected to trim maintenance costs by doing up to 90 percent of the work in house, rather than farming it out to contractors. Similar efforts had resulted in big savings on the V-22, the Marines' tilt-rotor aircraft, he said.

Schmidle said the Marine Corps' analysis forecast $520 million a year in lower maintenance and operating savings once the three other planes it now uses were replaced by the F-35, a process that is currently slated to be completed by 2030.

He said the impact of mandatory Pentagon budget cuts on the F-35 program remained unclear, but said the savings expected by replacing the existing AV8B Harriers, EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare jets and F/A-18 fighters with F-35s could make the case for accelerating that process.

(Editing by Tim Dobbyn and Edwina Gibbs)

[NRao]

I"m afaid that NR is optimistic in the extreme if he thinks that JSF costs will be below $100M even for the cheapest "turd class" one for US allies.I've posted the LRIP table stats from the Aug 5/12 2013 issue "Hidden Costs"..Very comprehensive.It shows that there is approx. an extra "10%" to be added to current estimates.The USNI article put the figure for the USN's variant at about $180M+.The low figure that NR has quoted is debatable when the aircraft hasn't entered full production and from my numerous posts,has several serious development issues yet to be sorted out,whose cost of rectification cannot be quantified as of now.The cost of maintenance has yet to be determined,in fact it is being deliberately fudged so as not to scare off potential customers,but estimated over the lifetime of the aircraft in the trillions!

The LRIP figures are ALREADY negotiated figures. A done deal.

The $85 million is for production. ESTIMATED. Yes. I am neither optimistic, nor pessimistic. I am only reporting what is out there - without a bias (also learning along the way, so I am liable to make some mistakes - new to the F-35 business).

All the figures you have mentioned are true - HOWEVER, they are not the latest. They were the right figures when those guys published those numbers (even if they were estimates).

So, again, none of us can argue against the LRIP numbers - they should be negotiated by now.

What is open to debate - yes debate as you say - is the production numbers. And it is perfectly OK with me if you do not believe that the $85 million per plane for the F-35A will NOT be met. After all I have a view and that is your view. The only argument I am making is that the view I hold is based on the latest numbers, while yours I do nto see them as being the latest - if you can provide me with the logic that they are the latest then I will consider them. Why should I not?

Nevertheless,let me be the Devil's advocate and try and look at the issue from the most positive angle.Two factors will determine the final production cost.The number of aircraft that US allies will buy,in comparison to the original estimates and secondly,the lower numbers that the US armed forces are going to buy.Even if the US goes it almost alone, there are well-known major problem that afflict the programme.In the US context as mentioned earlier,far less commonality exists between variants.This is unusual for a single type.Secondly,each level of software (yet to be finished) sits atop the previous which aircraft determines the operational capability of the aircraft.A delay in one level holds up the entire "train" so to speak.The reduced numbers (projection in AWST) have also been posted showing that at least 1500 less JSFs are going to be ordered! The leaked report of a Pentagon "worst-case" cancellation scenario to me is a warning to LM and the programme heads to get their act together.the internal political fall-out of cancellation will be enormous,but other US manufacturers like Boeing are waiting in the wings for the kill.So whichever decision is made,going ahead with reduced numbers,staying the numbers course or even cancellation,the same amt. of budgeted money for tactical aircraft will be spent on alternative US made aircraft.Therefore the JSF runs the risk of becoming the "Thanksgiving Turkey" if LM doe snot gets its act together.

Commonality:
I have provided the picture above. So, where did you get your numbers from (20-30%) is beyond me.

But, again, if you can provide a latest numbers I will reconsider. No harm.

Software:
Yeah, it was a HUGE problem. It is far less right now. And, by LRIP 7 it should be under control.

In general about the JSF program. What I have read so far, this program WAS a Turkey - for sure it was.

Now, as in today, it is bang in-between a turkey and a talisman and leaning towards a Talisman.

Can it swing back to a Turkey, absolutely. BUT, as it stands today, it is not a turkey and the chances that it will be a Talisman is far better today than say 2-3 months ago.

As for India buying the JSF,that's a laugh! The IAF chief has repeatedly said that it does not want the bird,We are already committed with the FGFA,are making great effort now to make the LCA succeed.Oz and Canada are looking at alternatives,Britain is hedging its bets with reduced numbers and SoKo has plumped for an eagle instead of what it considers a turkey. The next two years are going to be critical for the programme.If the global eco-downturn situation affects US allies in particular,JSF numbers will certainly be down and that holds good for India too with its own foreign acquisition programmes,as right now the Rupee has breached the 65 mark to the $,still plummeting while our great FM says "don't panic,all is well!"

ALL true.

The Rupee will impact them all the same way (unless the GoI swaps in the financial market - which I doubt they do), so that is not an argument I would seriously consider.

FGFA: India has not committed yet. In fact they are reviewing the cost escalations as we post. And that phase by itself is at least a year late, if not 18 months late. So, I would wait to see what they do there - my feel is that India will either pull out or reduce even further what they buy.

The FGFA ALSO has unknowns - the engine being the biggest one. And, if we have to wait to see if the F-35C's tail hook is a success (which is fair to post) then the engine for the PAK-FA/FGFA is even a far greater risk. Then comes certification, testing for a few more years with the new engine. ........... IF the FGFA comes to India in 2025 it should be great thing.

Costs and RoI. FGFA is estimated around $100 mil, the JSF at $85 Mil. However, there are pros and cons and we will need to wait and see. The RoI for "India" (NOT IAF alone) is far better going with the US (production, supply chain, support, etc are FAR better than ANY other nation).

There are other factors that will come into play as far as the US is concerned. I have mentioned two so far: events will bring the US and India closer and common procurement. There should be a few more that pop up in the next year or so. Will these impact the Indian selection of a 5th gen plane, do not know. But I think it will. My gut (especially after reading up on the F-35) is that India would be better of tagging along with the US - the biggest cons are signing those acronymed agreements (which I think they will find a work around).

As for what the CAS stated - again - it was true and right for THAT time. What it is today I do not know. What it will be tomorrow I do not know. But one thing I do know is that all these things are STC (Subject To change).

[NRao]

My posts about costs have been quotes from recognised sources which speak for themselves,and the "$100M" tag was in response to NR's optimistic "$85M" estimate

1) It is very sad to see you attribute something to me that is not mine. AGAIN, for the nth time, the $85 mil figure isis the program manager of the JSF. It is NOT my optimism

2) What is your source? A URL and a date would be nice. thx

[Philip]

I stand corrected,I should've said that it was "NR's quote of the optimistic figs...by X,etc.".
The latest Reuters quote is less than 24 hrs. ago.The link says "13 hrs ago".

As for dumping the FGFA for the JSF,extremely unlikely,mainly because the US as quoted will not share any relevant tech with its allies ,let alone India,who from the latest govt. denial about US operating assets out of Trivandrum,denied that we were US mil. allies. FGFA dev. cost issues remain.The Def. Sec. is due for a high-level meeting in Russia with "3*" officers from the services accompanying him mainly to discuss "futuristic " defence progammes for India.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 845562.cms

By PTI | 15 Aug, 2013,

The Defence Secretary is leading a high-level tri-services team comprising three-star rank officers from the three Services and the status of ongoing projects such as Gorshkov and FGFA are expected to come up for discussion, sources told PTI here.

Progress made in the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier project and issues over the pricing of the under-development fifth generation fighter aircraft project are expected to be discussed during Defence Secretary Radha Krishna Mathur's visit to Moscow next week.

In the delegation-level talks scheduled to be held on Monday, the two sides are also expected to discuss the futuristic joint development projects for the armed forces, they said.

It is learnt that the two sides are also planning to discuss the upgrade of one more Kilo Class submarine INS Sindhushastra, the last of the 10 submarines procured by India from Russia.

[NRao]

Sorry for nitpicking .......... again.

"NR's quote of the optimistic figs...by X,etc.".

Just quote would be right. Optimistic - Is your view of a figure I quoted from the Program Manager. So, the Program Manager's optimistic figure would be the right stuff.

PS:Here is a new report ,sounds a little more optimistic than earlier ones.Whether it has been put out to deter SoKO from their decision not to buy the JSF is a moot point.Final decision in Mid-Sept.One can expect a lot of armtwisting by LM,unfortunately Boeing is the main competitior not a European namnufacturer.

The cut in operating costs was provided in a written reply a full month or two ahead of the SoKo decision. It is possible that the reductions either in anticipation or because of some leaked info. But from open source material I do not see a correlation.

Whatever ...............................

http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-cuts-f-3 ... 22974.html

Pentagon cuts F-35 operating estimate below $1 trillion: source
Reuters

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
...............................................................................

The new estimate of $857 billion could help ensure the new plane turns out to be as affordable as advertised and comes days after South Korea determined that only a bid by Boeing Co for its F-15 Silent Eagle came in below a $7.4 billion price ceiling for its plan to buy 60 new fighter aircraft.

Lockheed's F-35 and the Eurofighter Typhoon remain in the running, but Boeing's pricing marked a step toward winning the contract, according to sources close to the process. A final decision is expected in mid-September.

...........................................................

The estimate was provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee by the Pentagon's F-35 program chief, Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, the official said. A revision had been flagged in June when the Pentagon's acquisition chief said he had expected a review to result in lower operating and maintenance costs.


..........................................................

(Editing by Tim Dobbyn and Edwina Gibbs)

[NRao]

Japan:


Aug 22, 2013 :: Japan-made parts to push up price of F-35 fighter jets for ASDF

Japanese F-35 will naturally be more expensive:

Two Japanese contractors will supply 24 components for the next-generation F-35 stealth fighters for the Air Self-Defense Force (ASDF), which will push up the price by 50 percent, sources said.

The F-35 will be built mainly by Lockheed Martin Corp., with parts procured in the United States, Britain and other countries participating in the project. The aircraft will be assembled in the United States, Italy and Japan.

According to the sources, the U.S. government has authorized 24 components for the engine and radar system to be produced in Japan. The parts will account for about 10 percent of the aircraft's value.

Washington has said more Japanese-made parts may be incorporated, which would further push up the price.

The Defense Ministry plans to procure 42 F-35s under a contract with the U.S. government, including four ordered in fiscal 2012, and two to be ordered in fiscal 2013.

Japanese companies will begin supplying parts for the F-35s that were ordered in the current fiscal year.

The price for the two aircraft will be about 15 billion yen ($154 million) each, up 50 percent from the 10.2 billion yen for the U.S.-made models ordered in the previous fiscal year.

Japanese suppliers will manufacture parts only for the ASDF F-35s. A limited production volume will increase unit prices.

According to the Defense Ministry, IHI Corp. will manufacture 17 parts for engine fans and turbines, while Mitsubishi Electric Corp. will produce seven radar system components, including signal receivers.

The U.S. government has said Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. and other Japanese contractors can supply parts for the rear fuselage, main wings and legs.

In selecting the ASDF’s next-generation fighter jet, the government proposed to the United States in 2011 that Japanese companies produce F-35 components to allow Japan to protect its domestic industry and acquire the latest technology.

The United States agreed to allow Japanese companies to supply a maximum of 40 percent of the components.

The Defense Ministry has earmarked 83 billion yen for installing facilities for assembling F-35s at an MHI factory in Aichi Prefecture and other related projects in fiscal 2013.

A senior ministry official said tens of billions of yen in additional investments will be required if Japanese contractors are to produce 40 percent of the F-35's components.

[NRao]

Canada:

Aug, 2013 :: Gov of Canada :: National Fighter Procurement Secretariat releases updated F-35 costs through 2013 Annual Update

Aug 2013 :: Next Generation Fighter Capability - August 2013

Options on the table, but moving forward the F-35 has been budgeted for.

[NRao]

Australia:

Aug 1, 2013 :: Australia to benefit from lower F-35 LRIP costs

Lockheed Martin has reached in principle agreement with the US Department of Defense on reduced pricing for the next two low rate initial production – LRIP – batches of F-35s. The savings, which equate to an up to eight per cent saving over previous LRIP batches, should benefit Australia, which is acquiring its first two F-35s under LRIP-6.

The next two F-35 production contracts for LRIP lots 6 and 7, which comprise orders for 71 of the aircraft, will see a decrease in F-35 unit costs, coupled with negotiating lower prices on a number of other smaller contracts.

.......................................

Deliveries of 36 US and partner nation aircraft in LRIP-6 will begin by mid-2014 and deliveries of 35 US and partner nation aircraft in LRIP-7 will begin by mid-2015. .....................................

Seems like Aussies are moving forward with the F-35 ............. so far.

[NRao]

Aug 6, 2013 :: LM :: F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts

Planned Quantities*
USAF - 1,763 F-35As
USN - 260 F-35Cs
USMC - 340 F-35Bs/80 F-35Cs
U.K. RAF/RN - 138 F-35Bs
Italy - 60 F-35As AND 30 F-35Bs
Netherlands - 85 F-35As
Turkey - 100 F-35As
Australia - 100 F-35As
Norway - 52 F-35As
Denmark - 30 F-35As
Canada - 65 F-35As
Israel - 19 F-35As
Japan - 42 F-35As

*Based on current programs of record.

Funding
 Principle Agreement Reached for LRIP 6&7 aircraft (71 aircraft)
 Long-Lead funding LRIP lot 8 (45 aircraft)
 Long-Lead funding LRIP lot 7 (35 aircraft)
 UCA funding for 31 USG aircraft and Long-Lead funding for five international aircraft LRIP lot 6 (36 aircraft)
 Full funding approved for LRIP lot 5 (32 aircraft)
 Full funding approved for LRIP lot 4 (32 aircraft)
 Full funding approved for LRIP lot 3 (17 aircraft)
 Full funding approved for LRIP lot 2 (12 aircraft)
 Full funding approved for LRIP lot 1 (2 aircraft)

 Refer document for a detailed split by LRIP

75 F-35s have been delivered to the Department of Defense:
 55 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Aircraft
 20 System Development and Demonstration (SDD) aircraft complete the test and development fleet:

[NRao]

Norway:

Jul 30, 2013 :: Agreeing the First Contract for Norwegian F-35

Facts about the Norwegian procurement of the F-35
- Norway will acquire up to 52 combat aircraft of the F-35 to ensure that the Armed Forces in the future will be able to fulfill their tasks in the best possible way.
- The contract is estimated to cost 62.6 billion real 2013 values. The overall Norwegian cost estimates have been stable since 2008.
- The first four F-35s will be used for the training of Norwegian troops was decided acquired in 2011. The first two of these will be delivered in the United States in 2015, and the last two in 2016.
- Parliament in June 2013 gave the government the authority to order the first six aircraft in the main procurement of F-35 to be delivered in 2017.

Netherlands:

Jul, 2013 :: Dutch accept first F-35 test aircraft

"Expectations are that the first test aircraft will be flown within some days by an American pilot to the US Air Force base in [Eglin] Florida, where the aircraft remains stored until a decision has been taken on the replacement of the [Lockheed] F-16 in connection with the memorandum on the future of the Netherlands armed forces," the defence ministry says. "During that period of storage, the aircraft will be used for technical ground tests."