F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[John Newman]

How is Australia procuring the F-35A's?

Is it via the FMS Program (such as the recent C-17A's, F/A-18F's purchases, etc)?

Or direct with the manufacturer, LM (Which it probably isn't).

Or is there there a separate process altogether that all the partner nations + Israel + Japan are using for such a large procurement program?

The reason I ask about FMS, is that I've looked through the US DSCA site before and seen the various proposed sale "notifications", such as the C-17A's, F/A-18F's, etc, but I'm yet to see a specific notification about the sale of the first 2 F-35A's that are to be delivered in the next few years.

Maybe I've just 'missed' seeing it, or it hasn't gone through that notification process yet.

 

[gf0012-aust]

How is Australia procuring the F-35A's?

Is it via the FMS Program (such as the recent C-17A's, F/A-18F's purchases, etc)?

Or direct with the manufacturer, LM (Which it probably isn't).

Or is there there a separate process altogether that all the partner nations + Israel + Japan are using for such a large procurement program?

The reason I ask about FMS, is that I've looked through the US DSCA site before and seen the various proposed sale "notifications", such as the C-17A's, F/A-18F's, etc, but I'm yet to see a specific notification about the sale of the first 2 F-35A's that are to be delivered in the next few years.

Maybe I've just 'missed' seeing it, or it hasn't gone through that notification process yet.

all US platforms that are used as military systems have to go through State Dept. The vendor can't go direct.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The F-35 program is set up to buy yearly jets in groups where all the partner & FMS (Japan & Israel) sales are lumped together.

 

[John Newman]

all US platforms that are used as military systems have to go through State Dept. The vendor can't go direct.

gf, thanks for clearing that up.

I knew we used FMS, but I didn't know its was mandatory for all purchases and more specifically if the F35 program somehow had its own procurement program.

I have some more questions about FMS generally, probably should have asked my question under the RAAF thread, which I'll do later.

Spudman,

Thanks for that too, yes I was aware of the various production lots and how the slots are allocated to the various partner nations.

I just wasn't certain if it was all via FMS or if there was a separate process specifically for the F35's.

 

[ADMk2]

gf, thanks for clearing that up.

I knew we used FMS, but I didn't know its was mandatory for all purchases and more specifically if the F35 program somehow had its own procurement program.

I have some more questions about FMS generally, probably should have asked my question under the RAAF thread, which I'll do later.

Direct Commercial Sales and Direct Commercial Contracts can and do occur with the vendors, but the purchases still have to be cleared by a range of agencies before the sale occurs. Not every purchase is via FMS...

Everything you want to know about such is available here:

http://www.dsca.mil/DSCA_memoranda/fmf_dcc_2009/2009_Guidelines_for_FMF_of_DCCs.pdf

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have some more questions about FMS generally, probably should have asked my question under the RAAF thread, which I'll do later.

Unfort there's no simple answer re FMS, and moreso ITARs

I always seek qualification from Def Export Ctrl and US Embassy staff as they're the best placed to give advice

it can be a nightmare to traverse (and I'm currently traversing a few now)

(the issues also revolve around IP as well as the relevant contract. In fact I know people who have ferked their careers making bad assumptions about what can and can't be done)

 

[John Newman]

Direct Commercial Sales and Direct Commercial Contracts can and do occur with the vendors, but the purchases still have to be cleared by a range of agencies before the sale occurs. Not every purchase is via FMS...

Everything you want to know about such is available here:

http://www.dsca.mil/DSCA_memoranda/fmf_dcc_2009/2009_Guidelines_for_FMF_of_DCCs.pdf

Thanks for the link, 23 pages of "light" bed time reading!!

Yes obviously all purchases of military equipment has to be approved by the various US Government agencies, which I was aware of.

Wouldn't want our Chinese or Nth Korean friends going direct to a US manufacturer with a bucket of money saying "I'll have 20 of those and 50 of those" without approval.

Its just that I wasn't clear on exactly which process the F-35's were being procured under for the RAAF.

(And yes I know this is off topic) when you said not all sales are via FMS, if I'm correct, wasn't the Wedgetail buy direct from Boeing, rather than FMS? Yes obviously the purchase and the technology, had to be approved. Probably better to continue this question in the RAAF thread....

 

[ADMk2]

Thanks for the link, 23 pages of "light" bed time reading!!

Yes obviously all purchases of military equipment has to be approved by the various US Government agencies, which I was aware of.

Wouldn't want our Chinese or Nth Korean friends going direct to a US manufacturer with a bucket of money saying "I'll have 20 of those and 50 of those" without approval.

Its just that I wasn't clear on exactly which process the F-35's were being procured under for the RAAF.

(And yes I know this is off topic) when you said not all sales are via FMS, if I'm correct, wasn't the Wedgetail buy direct from Boeing, rather than FMS? Yes obviously the purchase and the technology, had to be approved. Probably better to continue this question in the RAAF thread....

Yep, you can't purchase a capability through FMS that the US themselves isn't buying...

 

[gf0012-aust]

(And yes I know this is off topic) when you said not all sales are via FMS, if I'm correct, wasn't the Wedgetail buy direct from Boeing, rather than FMS? Yes obviously the purchase and the technology, had to be approved. Probably better to continue this question in the RAAF thread....

Its the technology within the platform that is the critical key here.

sure, projects can go off and do an ASDEFCON purchase, but if its US gear then it will go through both DECO and Contracts advice as they negotiate with USG. (Invariably State)

There are some unmentionable variables to this which I'm not comfortable discussing in an open environment

US companies were fined close to $1bn last year for busting USG rules - and that included to preferred process nations (UK and Aust have fast track FMS processes that other US allies do not have)

As soon as there is any gear that is US sourced, as soon as you have mixed vendor gear that is not continental US sourced and co-existing, then it goes straight to State (ITARS issues kick in here).

To add to the nightmare, you can have a US component which might require integration of another US component by an Australian based child (as in parent/child) vendor and it will get rejected for access because US Co1 won't release to US Co2

And I'm stating this from first hand experience from having gone through it as a US based contractor and from the skippy end.

 

[MrConservative]

Isn't this post considered to be "Post W**R***" and not acceptable here based on what the moderators of this website often say? Or is it only applicable to newly hatched members? There should some semblance of equal application of the rules to everyone?

I felt there was nothing wrong with the post. It was within the discussion pertaining to ADF acquistitions and FMS. Legitimate comments made by the poster were central to it.

There is a PM to Mods function which one can ask for clarification on posts. The Mods are a team of reasonable and rational people who do in fact steer an even hand so I disagree that we are particularly unfair with newbies.

 

[boomerdl]

I felt there was nothing wrong with the post. It was within the discussion pertaining to ADF acquistitions and FMS. Legitimate comments made by the poster were central to it.

There is a PM to Mods function which one can ask for clarification on posts. The Mods are a team of reasonable and rational people who do in fact steer an even hand so I disagree that we are particularly unfair with newbies.

Enough said. Being a newby here and all other newbies, I have the impression that our opinions are closely being scrutinized by moderators, etc. and allowed fully to express our opinions without repetitive proofs or facts. Opinions are not facts. So, this is my other opinion:

It takes baby steps to field a major weapon system, i.e., aircraft, ship, missile, tank, armored personnel carrier, howitzer, gun, or ammunition, etc. I really don't understand why the anti-JSF or Pro-JSF don't consider this process? Someone said that the airframe is the most important aspect (Outside Configuration) and the internal components/systems/sub-systems are not that important since they are already being tested in some other platforms. Although these components, systems and/or sub-systems were already found to be acceptable in other platforms, they still need to be integrated into the new airframe. Most oftenly, these systems and/or components will not be compatible to the new airframe right away. Therefore, the engineering changes that must be implemented.

 

[jack412]

Everyone was a nube here at one time, if you back or develop your opinion from a credible source and make rational replies, there are no problems even if a lot disagree with what you are putting forward.
If you are going to say the earth is flat and the sun rotates around it, you will need to back-up with material to how you came to this conclusion, that's what forums are all about

 

[gf0012-aust]

Someone said that the airframe is the most important aspect (Outside Configuration) and the internal components/systems/sub-systems are not that important since they are already being tested in some other platforms. Although these components, systems and/or sub-systems were already found to be acceptable in other platforms, they still need to be integrated into the new airframe. Most oftenly, these systems and/or components will not be compatible to the new airframe right away. Therefore, the engineering changes that must be implemented.

I think that might have been the dialogie between myself and AFBrat. If it is then my comment was that as there had been minimal external change (pitots only from all the images to date), then that would only confirm that they were happy with the external config.

the major changes would be hidden as they would be systems based. and the chinese could well have traveled the catbird path by developing core constructs and concepts by installing on other platfforms.

we know that they travelled this path in the past as they tested their rotunda and carousel AWACs on land based sites before installing onto coots and mainstays. When they had the tragedy a few years back (lost 90% of their AWACs engineers in an aircraft accident) they then fast tracked to a beam solutiuon (always believed to have come via docs sourced from the pakistanis in their Eyrie evaluations) and trialled beamriders on other small commercial aircrtaft.

the mule trials are always about testing the integration and functionality against the initial concept of operations (CONOPS), they're not supposed to be the only way into the integration path, but as a parallel development opportunity.

so, not sure if wires are crossed in how you've perceived the comment (and if they are in relation to the chat between myself or AFB)

if not that thread then hilight the link so that I'm on the right page of debate...

 

[Air Force Brat]

Marine Corp first training sortie from the schoolhouse.

Marine Maj Joseph Bachman flew the first official training sortie, 5/22/12, in an F-35B for Marine Fighter/Attack training squadron 501. I believe they received three Bs in Jan, and a fourth bird May 15, 2012, bringing the total number of aircraft at Eglin to 12 with the balance the A model. The mood in Eglin is looking up, Maj. Bachman launched and recovered conventionally, with a gradual introduction of STOVL ops to begin shortly. Cheers Brat

 

[mybacker46]

"The F-35 will be the most successful fighter for the next 2 decades. Just like it's predecessor F-16."

Sounds like the above is an very strong statement for a fighter aircraft that is still in LRIP? Somebody has a crystal bowl to make such a forecast? Maybe just wait for a while to make such bold prediction until all the bugs are ironed out or fixed?

 

[gf0012-aust]

"The F-35 will be the most successful fighter for the next 2 decades. Just like it's predecessor F-16."

Sounds like the above is an very strong statement for a fighter aircraft that is still in LRIP? Somebody has a crystal bowl to make such a forecast? Maybe just wait for a while to make such bold prediction until all the bugs are ironed out or fixed?

well crystal balling is something that everyone does. The F-22 being a perfect example of a plane that still has some critical deficiencies but still generates flushing praise

but, the proof is always in the pudding. at the end of the same F16 maturity cycle we'll just have to see what holds true. So lets ask in 30 years time and compare build rates (or isn't the benchmark about capability??)

otherwise we can all revert to bag counts, which worked oh so well in vietnam and factory production stats in the USSR.

 

[swerve]

Officially published Soviet factory production stats were pretty accurate - for quantities. The problem with 'em was in assessing the value of what they turned out.

But they didn't publish military equipment production figures.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Officially published Soviet factory production stats were pretty accurate - for quantities. The problem with 'em was in assessing the value of what they turned out.

But they didn't publish military equipment production figures.

I remember seeing some old DFAT assessments post cold war where they indicated that a few factories in the ukraine were cycling grain numbers. ie literally rotating carts out the front door, restamped and then churned again through the "back door"

the sovs did the same with their military flypasts. eg the myaschiev flypasts were racetracks - they admitted it themselves post war. not enough to show a regiment so just cycled them through mixed in with fighters to "pretend " new capability in numbers. they even went through a stage of having multiple aircraft with the same penant numbers.

 

[mybacker46]

well crystal balling is something that everyone does. The F-22 being a perfect example of a plane that still has some critical deficiencies but still generates flushing praise

but, the proof is always in the pudding. at the end of the same F16 maturity cycle we'll just have to see what holds true. So lets ask in 30 years time and compare build rates (or isn't the benchmark about capability??)

otherwise we can all revert to bag counts, which worked oh so well in vietnam and factory production stats in the USSR.

I agree, capability/reliability will be the measure of the success of an platform and the upgradability aspect also rates high on the overall success of the platform. However, on the F22, I would not consider the oxygen problem as a critical defect against the overall mechanical integrity of the aircraft. But I would consider it as critical defect affecting or having impact on the overall survibability and/or health/safety of the pilot. Although I will admit that the pilot is part of the overall system.

 

[swerve]

I remember seeing some old DFAT assessments post cold war where they indicated that a few factories in the ukraine were cycling grain numbers. ie literally rotating carts out the front door, restamped and then churned again through the "back door"

the sovs did the same with their military flypasts. eg the myaschiev flypasts were racetracks - they admitted it themselves post war. not enough to show a regiment so just cycled them through mixed in with fighters to "pretend " new capability in numbers. they even went through a stage of having multiple aircraft with the same penant numbers.

Factory managers couldn't get away with much fraud of that kind, because the intended recipients of the goods would have their own targets to meet, & would be very keen to pass the buck for any deficiencies caused by failures upstream. Fakery was usually a case of producing sub-standard goods, maybe light on materials, either to meet targets with less effort, or to free materials for back door deals for private profit, with palms being greased to cover it up.

BTW, I don't understand the reference to 'factories ... cycling grain numbers'. Factories don't produce grain: it grows in fields.

Military maskirovka for foreign consumption has nothing to do with factory production statistics.