F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

Status
Not open for further replies.

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Seems the Brits are planning on doing "swapsies" for their existing -B model aircraft on order for US planned -C models....

Britain, U.S. Propose F-35 Fighter Exchange - Defense News

Britain, U.S. Propose F-35 Fighter Exchange

"The United Kingdom has proposed trading F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft with the United States, according to a Pentagon letter to the U.S. Congress.

Under the proposal, the United States would give the United Kingdom one of its carrier variants (F-35C) of the F-35 in exchange for a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) version, called the F-35B.

The trade, which the Pentagon describes as "mutually beneficial" and "cost neutral," requires a legislative amendment to the 2012 defense authorization bill.

The Pentagon requested the amendment in a June 14 letter from Elizabeth King, assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs, to Vice President Biden, in his role as president of the U.S. Senate.

The United Kingdom decided last year, as part of its Strategic Defense and Security Review, to stop buying the F-35B. Instead, the Royal Navy will only buy the F-35C, which is being designed for conventional takeoffs and landings on aircraft carriers.

The cost-savings measure resulted in the U.K. having an extra F-35B on its hands. [+ 2 earlier Bs]

The United States, which is buying the F-35B for the U.S. Marine Corps and the F-35C for the U.S. Navy, was not scheduled to receive its F-35Bs until later. A third variant, the F-35A, is being developed for the U.S. Air Force.

Under the exchange, the United Kingdom would have to cover any costs required to upgrade its F-35B aircraft so that it would be identical to the version the U.S. had planned to buy, according to the letter.

The United Kingdom would also be responsible for any unique requirements it has for the F-35C.

Under the plan, United States would get an F-35B two years earlier. This means $10 million in additional operations and maintenance costs for the Marine Corps in 2013 and 2014. This would be due to increased flight hours, fuel, training costs, etc.

In January, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates put the F-35B portion of the JSF program on probation for two years, saying he had serious concerns about the aircraft's performance in tests.

"If we cannot fix this variant during this time frame and get it back on track in terms of performance, cost and schedule, then I believe it should be canceled," Gates said.

The cost for developing and procuring the F-35 is usually cited to be about $382 billion, according to U.S. budget documents.

Of that amount, $72 billion has been spent."
 

swerve

Super Moderator
The UK tried to persuade the US to swap all three of the F-35Bs we ordered for F-35C, but the US declined At least we're getting rid of one.

Maybe we can sell on the other two as test aircraft to Italy, or rent 'em to Spain for tests of Juan Carlos, to get some of our money back. In the meantime, I suppose they have enough commonality to be useful for training & testing.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The UK tried to persuade the US to swap all three of the F-35Bs we ordered for F-35C, but the US declined At least we're getting rid of one.

Maybe we can sell on the other two as test aircraft to Italy, or rent 'em to Spain for tests of Juan Carlos, to get some of our money back. In the meantime, I suppose they have enough commonality to be useful for training & testing.
Mission systems wise they'll be useful and for CTOL operations they should be fine too.

Obviously there will be a maintenance burden but I wouldn't think they would be a complete white elephant.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
They will never be anything except test & training aircraft in British service. We are not going to operate two F-35B in a fleet of F-35C, keeping enough spares stocks & trained technicians for the lift gear to enable us to put them aboard ship, or deployed to bases abroad, alongside the CTOL aircraft.

They can be useful in those roles, but I think it would still make sense to pass them on to another customer as soon as possible. If we can get enough for them to afford one more F-35C, I - and I think the RAF & FAA - would be very happy.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
They will never be anything except test & training aircraft in British service. We are not going to operate two F-35B in a fleet of F-35C, keeping enough spares stocks & trained technicians for the lift gear to enable us to put them aboard ship, or deployed to bases abroad, alongside the CTOL aircraft.

They can be useful in those roles, but I think it would still make sense to pass them on to another customer as soon as possible. If we can get enough for them to afford one more F-35C, I - and I think the RAF & FAA - would be very happy.
As early birds they can't leave the US anyway. Later down the track I doubt HM Govt. will pay the extra $$ to upgrade them to a block standard that they can take home with them. So the USMC will pick them up at some stage just a matter of when and where. Of course until then they will still be very important for the RN/RAF to develop skills on the F-35. Just they will probably be removing the hover landing from the curriculum.
 

moahunter

Banned Member
Sen McCains letter.

View attachment 4713


None of the points raised are easy to answer for the Sec of Defence
The questions are interesting. Its something I don't really understand in respect of military contracts. Why should the government be on the hook for failures by Lockheed to develop the plane efficiently? Especially when you consider that Lockheed was originally in competition to produce this plane with Boeing. IMO it should have been possible to put in place a rock solid contract straight after that competition for X number of planes, at X price, with no revisions after that. You would think Lockheed might have then managed the project better (for example, perhaps scrapping F35b when they realized how difficult it was proving), if they had understood the government wasn't just going to automatically bankroll every cost overrun.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The questions are interesting. Its something I don't really understand in respect of military contracts. Why should the government be on the hook for failures by Lockheed to develop the plane efficiently?
Because thats not how this program works. Many people make the mistake of assuming that this and many other complex projects (military or other) are the same as a small scale commercial contract that they may be familiar with from their personal life.

This is NOT a case of Lockheed signing a contract with the US Govt. to provide x F-35s on y date for z dollars. But rather the entire project is managed and run by the US Govt., the F-35 Project Office, with Lockheed being the commercial services provider. It is the USG's project, they own it, they run it and they designed it. Lockheed may not be delivering the services on time and budget to the USG but they are not responsible for managing the project.
 

moahunter

Banned Member
^well, it was clearly a mistake then not to turn over management of the project to Lockheed with a clear set of specifications / expectations. At least then there would be an accountable party, rather than a limitless blank check from the American people. Some of those questions in McCains letter are very interesting, I'm looking forwarding to seeing the reply as to what would be the legal obligations and costs, if for example, taxpayers decided to terminate the program, and what the Department plans to do to stop future cost over-runs.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
^well, it was clearly a mistake then not to turn over management of the project to Lockheed with a clear set of specifications / expectations. At least then there would be an accountable party, rather than a limitless blank check from the American people. Some of those questions in McCains letter are very interesting, I'm looking forwarding to seeing the reply as to what would be the legal obligations and costs, if for example, taxpayers decided to terminate the program, and what the Department plans to do to stop future cost over-runs.
There is a reason why many such programmes are not managed by a commercial entity. Such entities exist to make a profit. Sinking significant funding into R&D or SDD, without a guarantee of success, threatens profit. From a financial perspective, it would not usually be in a defence company's interest to fund development.

There have been a few rare exceptions where a defence company made 'speculative' designs some of which turned out to be very successful. The A-4 Skyhawk family comes to mind, as due a number of General Atomics UAV's. Otherwise though, a defence company can develop some of the systems to meet a capability design request/requirement but they often leave payment for such development with the group requesting the capability in question.

Basically, a government contract is quite different from normal commercial activities. Attempting to treat such activities the same between commercial and Government entities is to ignore the very real and significant different between the two.

-Cheers
 

wormhole

New Member
In response to Sen McCain's letter, here's the breakdown how the cost overrun will be shared between the government and LM and P&W.

Lockheed, Pratt to Pay $283 Million in F-35 Cost Overruns

By Tony Capaccio - Jul 20, 2011 3:09 AM GMT+0900


Lockheed, Pratt to Pay $283 Million in F-35 Cost Overruns - Bloomberg

Lockheed Martin Corp. and United Technologies Corp. will pay as much as $283 million to defray about one-third of a $918 million cost overrun on the first 28 U.S. F-35 fighters, the Pentagon’s program office said today. Photographer: U.S. Navy/Lockheed Martin/AP


Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and United Technologies Corp. (UTX) will pay as much as $283 million to defray about one-third of a $918 million cost overrun on the first 28 U.S. F-35 fighters, the Pentagon’s program office said today.

The government will cover the remaining $635 million, Vice Admiral David Venlet, the program manager, said in an e-mailed statement. In addition, the Pentagon needs to spend $136 million to make improvements to the aircraft that are not considered part of the contract overrun, he said.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
For those interested, link to youtube video of the first F35-C Steam Cat launch
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mZK8v_hn5Y&feature=feedu"]‪F-35C Launches to New Milestone‬‏ - YouTube[/nomedia]

Stop clock Pro F35

Sorry could not help myself :)
 

wormhole

New Member
Another milestone achieved. Since Venlet's arrival, the program has built up momentum. I'm looking forward to successful test program for the STOVL jet aboard the USS Wasp in the coming months.
 

Comrade69

Banned Member
we need a large thread like this with a lot of activity for the J-20

I would rather see updates about it than this.

this plane just seems...over hyped and over achieved
 

Kirkzzy

New Member
we need a large thread like this with a lot of activity for the J-20

I would rather see updates about it than this.

this plane just seems...over hyped and over achieved
I didn't know the Chinese were into public relations and giving regular updates on defence news. :p :rolling
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
we need a large thread like this with a lot of activity for the J-20

I would rather see updates about it than this.

this plane just seems...over hyped and over achieved


Overhyped? ever visited the chinese forums and seen the silliness and magical attributes they apply to planes that are mules and CTD's?

btw there is a J20 thread, I suggest that next time that you make the effort and search, or start a thread of your choice rather than injecting trollish comments.

It doesn't go down well and doesn't auger much for your future if thats your style of engagement.

Lift your own game before giving advice
 

Comrade69

Banned Member


Overhyped? ever visited the chinese forums and seen the silliness and magical attributes they apply to planes that are mules and CTD's?

btw there is a J20 thread, I suggest that next time that you make the effort and search, or start a thread of your choice rather than injecting trollish comments.

It doesn't go down well and doesn't auger much for your future if thats your style of engagement.

Lift your own game before giving advice
yes i still stand by and say this plane is overhyped and overachieved...

and sorry i didnt see a J-20 thread.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
yes i still stand by and say this plane is overhyped and overachieved...
throw away comments are easy to do.

put some technical substance behind your comments.

eg what other aircraft are competitive or comparable?
what aircraft are demonstrating similar technology paths
what aircraft have such a broad production base with multiple partners
what aircraft proposed for any other airforce are demonstrating an ability to contribute to the common operating picture to the same extent - let alone any extent

talk's always cheap - look at APA
 
Last edited:

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
yes i still stand by and say this plane is overhyped and overachieved...
Think what you want, but unless you're going to add some substance to your posts then keep it to yourself. Inane, unexplained commentary is insufficient, particularly when your post history contains numerous examples of other members spoon feeding you basic information because you apparently couldn't be bothered googling for it. There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but if you're going to expect other people to answer them then at least try to put a similar level of effort into your own posts.

Like GF said, lift your game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top