F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[LGB]

Projecting cost based on LRIP contract price, and ignoring the built in increases, vs the projections of Dr Carter, Adm Vinlet, and DOD as expressed in budget documents is not exactly more accurate.

As of today, not including the results of the review, the average cost of the F-35 according to those overseeing the program is not affordable. Now one certainly hopes that they can bring costs down but to say they're not living in reality based on cherry picking LRIP numbers is really not supportable.

The LRIP contract does not include long lead funding from prior years, does not include the engine (GFE), and includes a cost overrun exposure of 120% past which LM is entirely responsible. When the aircraft are actually delivered then we'll know how much they actually cost.

Forecast. An interesting term loaded with a huge amount of assumptions.

Let's deal with reality instead of assumptions. The cost of every single LRIP batch has been on a sliding scale downwards.

The latest known cost for LRIP IV aircraft is $8-9m per aircraft below this "forecast". There is no reason to believe this trend won't continue as production continues to increase.

Anyone who says otherwise is denying the reality that greater numbers of a platform being produced leads directly to the reduction in the cost of that individual platform...

Smoke and mirrors are all well and good. So are contract prices. Real contracts and real deliverables are where "costs" should be taken from.

I'll continue to refer to the contract prices, it would be nice if everyone else did...

 

[gf0012-aust]

When the aircraft are actually delivered then we'll know how much they actually cost.

austgov has consistently ballparked their figure and even with $ fluctuations and the GFC thats the price we still hold - even as recently as 3 weeks ago RAAF gave a closed hearing figure - way below the hysterical numbers chucked out by the usual naysayers.

 

[jack412]

GF, from what I have read not counting the first 2 LRIP's. I'm guessing it's under $70m URF
or $130-40m mission ready turn key on our runway with infrastructure etc (AUPC),
or $300m ea, total cost over 30 years, am I close ?

a. 2008 TYD @ 92c exchange AUD75m URF average over the 100 units (USD68m)
b. 2011 TYD USD70m FRP URF
c. 2011 TYD 130-40m AUPC

the other thing I'm reading is that there may be a f-35 asian hub in Darwin
http://defense.aol.com/2011/11/16/a-new-strategic-moment-for-darwin-and-australia/?icid=related4

 

[Abraham Gubler]

the other thing I'm reading is that there may be a f-35 asian hub in Darwin
A New Strategic Moment for Darwin and Australia?

The Australian F-35 Alliance has been pushing for a regional hub leveraging the Australian investment in F-35 support and training. Rather than making this Australian infrastructure be RAAF only they (and the DoD, DMO, ADF, etc) want it to be open for regional F-35 operators (including the US, Singapore and anyone else who buys it) to compete for their business.

I very much doubt said F-35 infrastructure will be based in Darwin nor that Darwin would provide some kind of advantage over its likely location at Williamtown or Australian SE seaboard. Such a facility would be used for training (Sinagpore) and depot level maintenance (US) and the displacement between Darwin and the SE seaboard is not significant for these kind of operations.

 

[Volkodav]

When people harp on about project costs they seem quite happy to roll all of the money already spent into the unit cost of a minimum number of aircraft to be built but never mention the fact that if the aircraft doesn't enter service that this same money has been spent for no result and therefore has been pretty much a waste.

Yes bad projects and projects overtaken by events need to be reviewed and if necessary killed but to cancel a project that has delivered what was promised is not just wasteful it is stupid, it kills capabilities, companies, industries and sometimes destroys economies, just look at the UK.

 

[ADMk2]

Projecting cost based on LRIP contract price, and ignoring the built in increases, vs the projections of Dr Carter, Adm Vinlet, and DOD as expressed in budget documents is not exactly more accurate.

As of today, not including the results of the review, the average cost of the F-35 according to those overseeing the program is not affordable. Now one certainly hopes that they can bring costs down but to say they're not living in reality based on cherry picking LRIP numbers is really not supportable.

The LRIP contract does not include long lead funding from prior years, does not include the engine (GFE), and includes a cost overrun exposure of 120% past which LM is entirely responsible. When the aircraft are actually delivered then we'll know how much they actually cost.

We know how much they cost today. Contrary to some 'popular' belief the LRIP 3 aircraft being delivered at present and the LRIP IV aircraft to be delivered over the next 18 months have a REAL cost. Not a forecast cost. Not an 'estimated' cost. A REAL contracted price.

A price (for LRIP IV) that is $8-9m below the 'forecast' cost referred to in your earlier post, GFE and F135 included. IF they cost more than contracted price, the contractor wears the additional cost from LRIP V onwards

Regardless of the doom and gloom cost 'estimates' the actual price of the F-35 LRIP F-35 aircraft is approaching the FRP of current 4th Gen fighters...

Really hard to see why Countries are increasingly starting to object to pay the same dollars for 4th Gens when orders for 5th Gen fighters placed now or within the next 12 months and due for delivery post 2015 will be cheaper and far more capable...

 

[jack412]

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/F-35-SAR.pdf
Current SAR estimate of RF and dividing by the number built to get URF
page 30
with the delays you will probably have to shift a couple of more years

2002$
2007 2 @ 205m
2008 6 @ 158m
2009 7 @ 141m
2010 10 @ 122m
2011 22 @ 108m
2012 19 @ 102m
2013 24 @ 89m
2014 40 @ 75m
2015 50 @ 70m
2016 70 @ 61m
2017 80 @ 63m
2018 80 @ 59m
2019 80 @ 58m
2020 80 @ 58m
2021 80 @ 58.1
2022 80 @ 58.7
2023 80 @ 58.7
2024 80 @ 59m
2025 80 @ 59m
2026 80 @ 59m
2027 80 @ 60.5
2028 80 @ 62m
2029 80 @ 62.5
2030 80 @ 63m

 

[moahunter]

It seems the decision to commence limited production while flight testing was still being completed was an expensive mistake:

Venlet also noted that the original plan for concurrency with the F-35 where the fighter was built while flight testing and ground testing was completed has proven to be a miscalculation. He added, " You'd like to take the keys to your shiny new jet and give it to the fleet with all the capability and all the service life they want. What we're doing is, we're taking the keys to the shiny new jet, giving it to the fleet and saying, 'Give me that jet back in the first year. I've got to go take it up to this depot for a couple of months and tear into it and put in some structural mods, because if I don't, we're not going to be able to fly it more than a couple, three, four, five years.' That's what concurrency is doing to us."

...

"It's a fighter made out of metal and composites. You always find some hot spots and cracks and you have to go make fixes. That's normal. This airplane was maybe thought to be a little bit better, wouldn't have so much discovery. Well, no. It's more like standard fighters," Venlet said.

DailyTech - Vice Adm. Venlet Requests Production Slow Down for F-35 Lightning II

Linked to this, and budget issues I think, it seems delaying production of more planes may be on the cards:

The Pentagon’s purchase of F-35 Lightning II combat jets may have to be stretched out, the top U.S. uniformed official said.

“We are committed, that is to say, the U.S. military, to the development of the fifth-generation fighter, clearly,” Army Gen. Martin Dempsey said at an Atlantic Council event in Washington on Friday. “There are some fact-of-life changes that we’ll probably have to make based on the ability to procure it on timelines that we’d like to have.”

Dempsey: DoD’s F-35 buy may be stretched out - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

GE also seems to be concerned, they have suspended funding for the alternative engine program:

General Electric and partner Rolls Royce have stopped financing their F136 afterburning turbofan designed for the F-35 Lightning II, the two companies announced Dec. 2.

The pair had been privately funding the developmental effort — dubbed the alt-engine — after the Defense Department formally terminated the project in April.

“The decision, reached jointly by GE and Rolls-Royce leadership, recognizes the continued uncertainty in the development and production schedules for the JSF Program,” the companies said in a joint statement. “Following termination, the GE Rolls-Royce [Fighter Engine Team] had offered to self-fund F136 development through fiscal year 2012, but will now end its development work.”

The two companies’ decision marks the end of a 15-year effort to develop an alternative to the Pratt and Whitney F135 engine that would eventually be fitted into later F-35 production lots. The process was supposed replicate the so-called “Great Engine War” between the GE F110 and Pratt and Whitney F100, which power different blocks of Lockheed Martin’s F-16 Fighting Falcon. Lockheed also builds the F-35.

GE stops funding for F-35 alternative engine - Marine Corps News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Marine Corps Times

I am guessing we may be about to hear some sort of postponement or slow down of F35 roll out.

 

[jack412]

If you want to, you could use the same links and say that they have known about the hot spots for 12 months and there will be a slowdown for a few years that has already been announced with the current number in LRIP 5, 6 and 7 to about 30 units

 

[ADMk2]

It seems the decision to commence limited production while flight testing was still being completed was an expensive mistake:

Not really. It's done that way on most aircraft programs, you can't simply build a handful of jets, develop them fully (to say F-35 Block III level) and then go straight into production of (potentially) 3000 aircraft and expect issues with the program won't occur, what has been a mistake is L-M's execution of the project so far, not the basic concept of how they have tried to execute the program.

If you tried the opposite way, you'd still have "mistake jets" but manufacturing flaws and issues would be on REAL production aircraft, rather than aircraft intended for test and initial training purposes.

You'd have manufacturing issues just as the JSF is experiencing now (as all aircraft programs do) except you wouldn't have years of experience building the things to fall back on to identify issues and resolve them. You'd have real production aircraft grounded for modification, rather than the LRIP aircraft that "test the waters" and allow a manufacturer to work out the kinks on a smaller fleet than the full production fleet. That would do a lot for your operational capability...

It's always going o be cheaper to repair a small number of aircraft than a large number obviously, but the goal with LRIP/Development into FRP is meant to provide a smooth, fast production process, that is as efficient and cost effective as possible by the time the bulk of the aircraft are starting to be built, and one that minimises possible schedule delays for the customer, badly in need of replacements for legacy airframes. If you waited until after development to start building arcraft, you'd have a much longer delivery schedule, which would effect cost and capability of your customers, something most manufacturers try to avoid...

Now the JSF project will have to upgrade aircraft, because L-M hasn't executed on the contract, but so far that's only on a fleet of around 60-90 aircraft. By the time you get to LRIP 6-7 and beyond you are starting to look at hundreds of aircraft and the cost will rise exponentially if those issues aren't addressed.

I shudder to think what the cost would be to address them, once FRP is underway...

 

[AegisFC]

GE also seems to be concerned, they have suspended funding for the alternative engine program:

GE stops funding for F-35 alternative engine - Marine Corps News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Marine Corps Times

I am guessing we may be about to hear some sort of postponement or slow down of F35 roll out.

No one was going to buy the GE engine so that isn't surprising.
Originally it was funded to provide an alternative for the main engine in case of significant delays or cost over runs, that has not happened. Both the W. Bush and Obama administrations have both tried to have that engine killed but Congress continued to fund it. It was one of the purest examples of "Pork" you could find.

 

[Sea Toby]

Not really. It's done that way on most aircraft programs, you can't simply build a handful of jets, develop them fully (to say F-35 Block III level) and then go straight into production of (potentially) 3000 aircraft and expect issues with the program won't occur, what has been a mistake is L-M's execution of the project so far, not the basic concept of how they have tried to execute the program.

If you tried the opposite way, you'd still have "mistake jets" but manufacturing flaws and issues would be on REAL production aircraft, rather than aircraft intended for test and initial training purposes.

You'd have manufacturing issues just as the JSF is experiencing now (as all aircraft programs do) except you wouldn't have years of experience building the things to fall back on to identify issues and resolve them. You'd have real production aircraft grounded for modification, rather than the LRIP aircraft that "test the waters" and allow a manufacturer to work out the kinks on a smaller fleet than the full production fleet. That would do a lot for your operational capability...

It's always going o be cheaper to repair a small number of aircraft than a large number obviously, but the goal with LRIP/Development into FRP is meant to provide a smooth, fast production process, that is as efficient and cost effective as possible by the time the bulk of the aircraft are starting to be built, and one that minimises possible schedule delays for the customer, badly in need of replacements for legacy airframes. If you waited until after development to start building arcraft, you'd have a much longer delivery schedule, which would effect cost and capability of your customers, something most manufacturers try to avoid...

Now the JSF project will have to upgrade aircraft, because L-M hasn't executed on the contract, but so far that's only on a fleet of around 60-90 aircraft. By the time you get to LRIP 6-7 and beyond you are starting to look at hundreds of aircraft and the cost will rise exponentially if those issues aren't addressed.

I shudder to think what the cost would be to address them, once FRP is underway...

The CBO has been watching the development of the JSF like a hawk. Congress and the Pentagon/administrations have followed their recommendations to the letter outside the second GM jet engine. Finally, GE and their congressional allies have given up the ghost. In this current budget climate due to the recession there is no majority support in Congress to fund its development.

As it is the JSF program is looking at delays due more to the budget climate than with the development program. You are living in a fantasy world if you believe the GE engine will be funded.

 

[ADMk2]

The CBO has been watching the development of the JSF like a hawk. Congress and the Pentagon/administrations have followed their recommendations to the letter outside the second GM jet engine. Finally, GE and their congressional allies have given up the ghost. In this current budget climate due to the recession there is no majority support in Congress to fund its development.

As it is the JSF program is looking at delays due more to the budget climate than with the development program. You are living in a fantasy world if you believe the GE engine will be funded.

Where did I say in any aspect of my last post did I think the GE engine would be funded?

For the record, I've been against the colossal waste of time, money and resources that has gone into the F136 over many years. The F135 is performing very well and the money still to be spent on F136 would be far better used being plowed back into almost any other aspect of JSF development.

 

[StobieWan]

The CBO has been watching the development of the JSF like a hawk. Congress and the Pentagon/administrations have followed their recommendations to the letter outside the second GM jet engine. Finally, GE and their congressional allies have given up the ghost. In this current budget climate due to the recession there is no majority support in Congress to fund its development.

As it is the JSF program is looking at delays due more to the budget climate than with the development program. You are living in a fantasy world if you believe the GE engine will be funded.

Moot point really - F136 died a death a bit back and GE gave over trying to complete the work themselves earlier this month. It's neither here nor there in any event for F35 as the aircraft and engine selected are doing tolerably well. Having a second engine source for F35 isn't a key user requirement, neither does it impinge on the capability of the aircraft. In point of fact, the customer (the DOD) has been trying to delete funding for the F136 for years now.

Pointing to the fact that this has finally now happened as if it were a critical element to the program's quite odd.

 

[gf0012-aust]

AAP wire, Boston.com:

FORT WORTH, Texas—Lockheed Martin Corp. and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. have been awarded a $4.01 billion military contract to provide 30 fighter jets to the Air Force, Navy, and the Marine Corps.

The contract, announced Friday, is a modification of an earlier contract. It includes the delivery of 21 conventional takeoff and landing F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets to the Air Force, which will pay $2.64 billion. Six jets with aircraft carrier capabilities will be provided for the Navy, which will pay $937.4 million. Three jets with short takeoff and vertical landing capability are headed for Marine Corp. duty, at a cost of $426.2 million.

The contract also provides for associated mission equipment and flight test instrumentation for those aircraft, and flight test instrumentation for the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom's share of the contract is $4.1 million.

About 67 percent of the work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas. About 14 percent will be done in El Segundo, Calif.; and 9 percent at Warton, United Kingdom. Some work also will be performed in Orlando, Fla.; Nashua, N.H.; and Baltimore, Md.

Contract completion is expected in January 2014.

The Naval Air Systems Command at Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting agency.

 

[T.C.P]

Japan selects the F-35

‚e‚R‚TAŽŸŠúŽå—Í퓬‹@‚ÉcÅVƒXƒeƒ‹ƒX‹@ : ­Ž¡ : YOMIURI ONLINEi“Ç”„V•·j

Well I guess the Domestic air craft parts suppliers are out of business.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Japan selects the F-35

‚e‚R‚T�AŽŸŠúŽå—Í�퓬‹@‚É�c�Å�VƒXƒeƒ‹ƒX‹@ : �*Ž¡ : YOMIURI ONLINE�i“Ç”„�V•·�j

Well I guess the Domestic air craft parts suppliers are out of business.

although we appreciate the sprit of intent, this is an international forum with emglish as the main forum language, so references need to be in either english or accompanied by a translation


this is not appearing in either of the main japanese dailies, so some validation is needed.

 

[OPSSG]

this is not appearing in either of the main japanese dailies, so some validation is needed.

There are two English languge sources on the latest developments in Japan but they both say that an annoucement will be made soon. I quoted both of them in full to avoid miscommunication.

One, from Aviation Week; and

Japan Poised For F-X Announcement

Dec 12, 2011

By Guy Norris [email protected]
Los Angeles

The Japan Air Self-Defense Force is expected to announce the result of its exhaustive F-X fighter contest this week, with Lockheed Martin’s F-35 strongly tipped as the winner.

The other contenders for the $4 billion contract, Boeing and BAE Systems, are understood to have been advised of the JASDF’s decision over the past few days. Boeing was offering the F/A-18E/F in conjunction with the U.S. Navy, while BAE Systems was leading a Typhoon bid for Eurofighter with support from Japan’s Sumitomo Corp.

Japan’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) aims to procure the first of as many as 50 F-X aircraft in fiscal year 2016. The aircraft will replace the JASDF’s aging fleet of 67 F-4EJ fighters, the first of which are scheduled to be retired from 2013.

In the run-up to the final decision, Lockheed Martin bolstered its bid by offering Japan final assembly and checkout of the F-35, manufacture of several components, integration and test, depot-level sustainment, modification, repair and overhaul. It also offered local final assembly of the aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine.

The JASDF originally hoped to begin replacing the F-4 from 2009-2010 onwards, possibly with the Lockheed Martin F-22. However, the U.S. government decision to halt F-22 production meant focus shifted to the current alternatives.

Two, from Yahoo News:

UPDATE 1-Japan likely to pick F-35 as mainstay fighter-Nikkei

Dec 13 - Japan's government will hold a national security council meeting on Friday to select the next mainstay fighter jet for the Japan Air Self-Defense Force, with Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 Lightning II leading the race, the Nikkei business daily said.

The government will choose between three models -- the F-35, Boeing Co's F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon, the daily said. The Eurofighter is developed by a consortium of three companies -- European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company or EADS.

F-35, the most expensive of the three, leads the others due to its "overwhelmingly superior performance" and stealth capabilities, the newspaper said. Once the selection is made, the government plans to deploy four new jets in fiscal 2016, with the number expected to rise to between 40 and 50, the Nikkei said.

The Japanese government has sought 55.1 billion yen (US$708.14 million) for the four jets in the fiscal 2012 budget and the total cost is estimated at about 1 trillion yen, the daily added. (US$1 = 77.8100 Japanese yen) (Reporting by Balaji Sridharan in Bangalore; Editing by Sreejiraj Eluvangal)

 

[Itsioni]

There are two English languge sources on the latest developments in Japan but they both say that an annoucement will be made soon. I quoted both of them in full to avoid miscommunication.

One, from Aviation Week; and



Two, from Yahoo News:

No announcement expected until end of week. Would wager a Eurofighter Typhoon win here. Next best thing to F22 for air defence.

 

[moahunter]

Pointing to the fact that this has finally now happened as if it were a critical element to the program's quite odd.

The timing of the announcement is about the same as recent coments by the military about it having been a mistake to comence production before testing was final. It might simply be GE is spinning it as an excuse, i.e. more delays makes it uneconomic to continue, to hide their own failings in their program, I'm not sure.