F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Sea Toby]

Will development of the F35 be affected by the newly announced defence cuts? Not having seen anything that outlines what's getting axed, I can only speculate that this could be one project to receive less funding.

No firm numbers have been released, and probably will not be until the mark up for next year's budget is sent to Congress in a month or so. Speculation is we will continue to buy 30 for another year or two instead of bumping up to 50, alike last year. No one is in a hurry to buy more considering the budget cuts and the budget deficit.

The Army and the Marines, the ground forces, are going to see the most cuts, whereas the Air Force and Navy will see the least cuts. Keep in mind these cuts are over a ten year period, not just for next year. The Obama administration intends to set the US armed forces to fight one war while holding with another instead of fighting two wars.

The cuts should be targeted instead of across the board.

 

[ADMk2]

Will development of the F35 be affected by the newly announced defence cuts? Not having seen anything that outlines what's getting axed, I can only speculate that this could be one project to receive less funding.

It seems that JSF will be "limited" to 30 aircraft per year for the next few years (I say limited sarcastically because most manufacturers would be over the moon with contracts to build 30 aircraft per year for the next 4 years at least - basically the size of MMRCA project deliveries but still not good enough for JSF apparently...) in line with Adm Venlet's recommendation until the development and testing issues identified in the Quick Look Review and the Technical Baseline Review are sorted out, at which point production will ramp up again.

This means around 170 less, Low Rate Initial Production JSF aircraft will be produced over the next 4 years as I understand

No idea whether the lost aircraft will be backfilled later or not from Full Rate Production.

That was the point of my comment to Air Force Brat earlier.

 

[colay]

It seems that JSF will be "limited" to 30 aircraft per year for the next few years (I say limited sarcastically because most manufacturers would be over the moon with contracts to build 30 aircraft per year for the next 4 years at least - basically the size of MMRCA project deliveries but still not good enough for JSF apparently...) in line with Adm Venlet's recommendation until the development and testing issues identified in the Quick Look Review and the Technical Baseline Review are sorted out, at which point production will ramp up again.

This means around 170 less, Low Rate Initial Production JSF aircraft will be produced over the next 4 years as I understand

No idea whether the lost aircraft will be backfilled later or not from Full Rate Production.

That was the point of my comment to Air Force Brat earlier.

With reduced order quantities, we can expect the unit costs to increase jusr when initial foreign orders are scheduled for production. Is there any indication how much the surcharge will be? They can't be happy about this development. I'm guessing the price quoted to Japan will have to be revised in the final contract? Similar adjustments to Australian order?

 

[ADMk2]

With reduced order quantities, we can expect the unit costs to increase jusr when initial foreign orders are scheduled for production. Is there any indication how much the surcharge will be? They can't be happy about this development. I'm guessing the price quoted to Japan will have to be revised in the final contract? Similar adjustments to Australian order?

The LRIP IV aircraft are coming in at about $116m and the F135 engines are coming in at about $12m and that is with less than 30x aircraft.

I think any partner nation buys will be above the "30 per year" limit that seems to be presently imposed on the production phase. In any case the outer year LRIP phases is when the partner nations will be starting to receive their aircraft (Australia for instance IIRC off-hand is due to receive her first 2 aircraft in LRIP 6, with 6 in LRIP 7 and 6 in LRIP 8).

A lot of the problems that have led to this phase have come about through design immaturity. Most aircraft require hundreds, if not thousands of fixes during development, but unlike most the F-35 is slandered because of it.

In 3-4 years time when we start to see the first partner nation fighters begin to be delivered, I wonder just how many of these current "major issues" will still exist?

I'd suggest very few...

 

[LGB]

Part of the issue is that the high concurrency in the F-35 was justified because computer modeling was supposed to reduce the amount of changes normally discovered through flight testing. It was in fact not supposed to go through SDD like other aircraft. The problem is not that the F-35 is behaving like other aircraft through flight testing but rather the structure of the program was based on it doing far better than average.

The LRIP IV aircraft are coming in at about $116m and the F135 engines are coming in at about $12m and that is with less than 30x aircraft.

I think any partner nation buys will be above the "30 per year" limit that seems to be presently imposed on the production phase. In any case the outer year LRIP phases is when the partner nations will be starting to receive their aircraft (Australia for instance IIRC off-hand is due to receive her first 2 aircraft in LRIP 6, with 6 in LRIP 7 and 6 in LRIP 8).

A lot of the problems that have led to this phase have come about through design immaturity. Most aircraft require hundreds, if not thousands of fixes during development, but unlike most the F-35 is slandered because of it.

In 3-4 years time when we start to see the first partner nation fighters begin to be delivered, I wonder just how many of these current "major issues" will still exist?

I'd suggest very few...

 

[Sea Toby]

It seems that JSF will be "limited" to 30 aircraft per year for the next few years (I say limited sarcastically because most manufacturers would be over the moon with contracts to build 30 aircraft per year for the next 4 years at least - basically the size of MMRCA project deliveries but still not good enough for JSF apparently...) in line with Adm Venlet's recommendation until the development and testing issues identified in the Quick Look Review and the Technical Baseline Review are sorted out, at which point production will ramp up again.

This means around 170 less, Low Rate Initial Production JSF aircraft will be produced over the next 4 years as I understand

No idea whether the lost aircraft will be backfilled later or not from Full Rate Production.

That was the point of my comment to Air Force Brat earlier.

This long world recession is hurting just about everybody, the US too. If the US is having problems with budget deficits, you can pretty much count the rest of the world is having the same problems. Nations who are waiting for larger US orders will have to wait the recession out and live with the aircraft they have now..

 

[CheeZe]

Does anyone know what kind of an interest the Singapore Air Force has in the project? I've read that they've put money into it but I can't figure out whether that means they're interested in procurement.

 

[ADMk2]

Part of the issue is that the high concurrency in the F-35 was justified because computer modeling was supposed to reduce the amount of changes normally discovered through flight testing. It was in fact not supposed to go through SDD like other aircraft. The problem is not that the F-35 is behaving like other aircraft through flight testing but rather the structure of the program was based on it doing far better than average.

Yep well, there's nothing for it now but to either keep going under a more realistic, re-structured development and flight test program and develop the aircraft to as capable a standard as it can be made to be (which will be very high indeed) or to cancel the thing and continue flying F-15's, F-16's and F/A-18's for several more decades whilst other nations roll out much more capable aircraft and start all over again with a new clean sheet fighter design. That should be quite cheap I imagine...

That's the big issue with the vocal criticism of the F-35. It's all based on 20/20 hindsight and what SHOULD have been done. Tremendous. So what SHOULD be done now that we are in this situation is something few to none of them bother to consider and the few things they have suggested can be torn apart as easily as the issues they identify with the F-35.

It must be nice having all the answers. I just wish I knew who that person is....

 

[ADMk2]

Does anyone know what kind of an interest the Singapore Air Force has in the project? I've read that they've put money into it but I can't figure out whether that means they're interested in procurement.

Singapore and Israel each joined the JSF as Security Cooperation Partners in 2003. They contributed about $50m at that point to:

The JSF Security Cooperation Participation (SCP) concept developed requiring ~$50M investment per country. The goal is to provide an opportunity for friends/allies to participate in JSF with goal and to be “well informed” customers in the process. The SCP consists of JSF vision/framework formalized in a National Armaments Director NAD-to-NAD Letter of Intent (LOI). It also consists of JSF “business details” formalized in a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA). SCP dialogue was conducted goverment-to-government; Singapore and Israel are participating under the SCP designation.

basically the investment allowed them much greater insight into the program than non-participants at a much earlier time and with guaranteed access to aorcraft early in the build phase, should a contract be forthcoming.

Doesn't mean they are committed to buying, but I'd be astonished if they didn't.

A two tier force of advanced F-15's and F-35's is going to provide one hell of a TACAIR force.

 

[colay]

Does anyone know what kind of an interest the Singapore Air Force has in the project? I've read that they've put money into it but I can't figure out whether that means they're interested in procurement.

Singapore signed on as a Security Cooperation Participant in the F-35 System Design and development phase. This gives them access to privileged information on the aircraft that they may use for planning purposes. It also gives them an early place in the queue should they wish to eventually place an order for aircraft.

I interpret this to mean that the RSAF is seriously considering the F-35 as a replacement for its F-5 fleet in the near term and possibly for its F-16s further down the road.

 

[StobieWan]

Quicky - I'm confused a bit as to what the decision to defer production of 120 F35 means for the C model - are there any details as to how the run is broken down and where that leaves F35C in terms of it's in service date.

More importantly for the Royal Navy, I wondered what that meant for costs and delivery of the C model?

Ian

 

[jack412]

All this is in the LRIP builds, there is nothing said about full rate production numbers.
Building less LRIP's [30] for a few years will have a higher price for those, but not by a huge amount. UK buys at URF cost, a lot of the USA costs they are talking about isn't included in URF and won't affect the UK
I think the unit recurring flyaway [URF] full rate production price of 2018+ will be very similar to what they forecast now

 

[StobieWan]

All this is in the LRIP builds, there is nothing said about full rate production numbers.
Building less LRIP's [30] for a few years will have a higher price for those, but not by a huge amount. UK buys at URF cost, a lot of the USA costs they are talking about isn't included in URF and won't affect the UK
I think the unit recurring flyaway [URF] full rate production price of 2018+ will be very similar to what they forecast now

Ah - that's a piece of the puzzle I didn't have Thanks!

Wasn't sure if we were forking out over LRIP block 5/6 or working to flyaway,

Ian

 

[ADMk2]

Quicky - I'm confused a bit as to what the decision to defer production of 120 F35 means for the C model - are there any details as to how the run is broken down and where that leaves F35C in terms of it's in service date.

More importantly for the Royal Navy, I wondered what that meant for costs and delivery of the C model?

Ian

The breakdown of these future phases will be something like this:

Pentagon Contract Announcement

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued January 6, 2011)

United Technologies Corp., Pratt & Whitney Military Engines, East Hartford, Conn., is being awarded a $194,097,296 advance acquisition contract with fixed-price line items for long lead components, parts, and materials required for the delivery of 37 propulsion systems for the Lot VI F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program (18 conventional take-off and landing [CTOL] for the Air Force; six short take-off and vertical landing for the Marine Corps; seven carrier variant for the Navy; four CTOL for the Italian Air Force; two CTOL for the Royal Australian Air Force; and associated spares.

Work will be performed in East Hartford, Conn. (64 percent); Bristol, United Kingdom (25 percent); and Indianapolis, Ind. (11 percent), and is expected to be completed in September 2012.

Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy ($37,137,996; 19.1 percent), the U.S. Marine Corps ($84,683,000; 43.6 percent), the U.S. Air Force ($54,929,988; 28.3 percent), and the governments of Italy ($11,564,208; 6 percent) and Australia ($5,782,104; 3 percent).

This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1).

The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting (N00019-11-C-0082).

-ends-

 

[jaffo4011]

the following link makes interesting reading re the current issues the f35 programme is facing,some more serious than others and which may have a particular impact on the uk's plans for the new carrier programme and its air wing........

F35 – CONGRESSIONAL REPORT Analysis - The Phoenix ThinkTank - Naval Think Tank

its interesting to note that plans are afoot to integrate the eurofighter typhoons helmet display systems into the f35 due to major issues with the current set up.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Those plans have been in place, with signed contracts, for many months. The purpose of the BAE helmet is to only display HUD data and not any video data. Night vision will be provided the way it always has, by way of flip-down NVGs.

The BAE selection will give VSI breathing room to fix the issues with the current setup and be accepted as a viable helmet later.

 

[RobWilliams]

Those plans have been in place, with signed contracts, for many months. The purpose of the BAE helmet is to only display HUD data and not any video data. Night vision will be provided the way it always has, by way of flip-down NVGs.

The BAE selection will give VSI breathing room to fix the issues with the current setup and be accepted as a viable helmet later.

NV capability on the F-35 is provided by EODAS, night vision goggles are not used on this aircraft according to Northtrop Grumman

The following video from Northtrop Grumman says "For navagation functions, DAS imagery replaces bulky night vision goggles or NVGs" and "DAS video imagery is projected directly onto the pilots helmet visor". Specifically 3:50 onwards.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfCCw-yH6LI"]F-35 Distributed Aperture System (EODAS) - YouTube[/nomedia]


EDIT: This is also backed up from NG's website, saying that EODAS provides night vision capability ( + the linked video can be viewed on NG's website in the link i've added if you doubt its origins)

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/

 

[SpudmanWP]

You misunderstood what I was referring to. The NVGs will only be used with the surrogate BAE helmet (due to its inability to do video), not the VSI helmet (the one that supports EODAS, but is currently having trouble with lag and vibration).

 

[RobWilliams]

You misunderstood what I was referring to. The NVGs will only be used with the surrogate BAE helmet (due to its inability to do video), not the VSI helmet (the one that supports EODAS, but is currently having trouble with lag and vibration).

Ah i see, i was unaware that an interim BAE helmet even existed, i knew they were doing something with the HUD but that was it. Nothing detailed so i just wrongly assumed they were making some contribution to the VSI design.

My mistake

BAE gets contract for alternative F-35 helmet-mounted display – AUSA 2011 - Defense News Show Scout Premium

Interestingly, the above link claims Ancia Barham of BAE Systems says that the helmet can still recieve imagery from EODAS. Plus BAE seem pretty confident this helmet would be chosen over the VSI (using the words "once the VSI design proves to be a failure" rather than if)

 

[SpudmanWP]

Here is the relevant part from the FY2011 IOT&E report (Nov 2011).

The program began pursuing a dual path to resolve the
technical shortfalls and provide a system that will enable
flight test to proceed and meet operational mission needs.
One path is to complete development of the original
helmet-mounted display system by the end of SDD
Block 3. The alternate path is to integrate a technically
mature, existing helmet-mounted display system that
addresses the symbology stability problems that have
been discovered, but requires an additional night vision
system (such as existing night vision goggles) to provide
night combat capability, and does not display Distributed
Aperture System imagery on the pilot’s visor.