F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[jack412]

Thanks for that, SLD have some very good interviews.

For those that may have an interest, the review of the Defence Annual Report 2010‐2011 meeting will be broadcasted today
Watch Parliament – Parliament of Australia
[you may need to click compatability view to show the accept button, depending on your browser]

started now with the timetable for the f-35 being 1415 – 1545, It was said that ADF will include a response to APA's submission
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...eannualreport_2010_2011/hearings/program3.pdf

 

[colay]

Thanks for that, SLD have some very good interviews.

For those that may have an interest, the review of the Defence Annual Report 2010‐2011 meeting will be broadcasted today
Watch Parliament – Parliament of Australia
[you may need to click compatability view to show the accept button, depending on your browser]

started now with the timetable for the f-35 being 1415 – 1545, It was said that ADF will include a response to APA's submission
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...eannualreport_2010_2011/hearings/program3.pdf

I'm looking forward to reading the transcript..

 

[ADMk2]

Quick summary of AVM Osley's evidence:

It is ADF's belief that there were significant errors of fact in APA and REPSIM's submissions.

ADF are very happy with the Technical Baseline Review and satisfied that improved JSF Program Management is now in place.

The SDD phase remains fully funded.

At an International partners meeting chaired by Australia on 15 March 2012, ALL partner nations committed to JSF and outlined when their planned orders would be placed. (No details of orders given, but no Country is planning on abandoning the program).

Australia still has an indicative IOC planned for the end of 2018 for JSF. This IOC date has not yet been approved by Government, because that will require ADF to produce a range of options for Government approval and these options are planned to be delivered for Government consideration in 2013.

JSF remains within approved cost for RAAF's stage 1 (acquisition of 14 aircraft and supporting elements).

The scheduled delivery of RAAF's initial aircraft remains on track for 2014 and the first 2 aircraft are about to commence production.

The analysis provided by APA and REPSIM is inconsistent with analysis of combat capability conducted by RAAF and all other partner nations including all 3 US services as well as (obviously) Lockheed Martin.

RAAF believes this analysis is flawed due to overly optimistic assumptions about potential threats and a lack of detailed knowledge of the combat capabilities of the F-35 aircraft.

AVM Osley confirms the F-35A will provide a 30% increase in combat configured range when compared to the F/A-18A/B Hornets we currently operate.

AVM Osley confirmed that the Pacific Vision 2008 exercise did not test air combat capability of any aircraft, but rather base survivability in the Pacific theatre and what options may be available to allied forces in the Pacific area in the event of war. Combat aircraft themselves were incidental in this exercise. AVM Osley also confirmed that APA analysis of this exercise was not accepted by ADF or RAND as being valid.

AVM Osley confirmed that ADF and allied nation analysis of the F-35 capability included analysis of overall capability including supporting aircraft, data-linking capability, operational tactics and electronic attack capabilities and without a detailed and thorough understanding of capabilities in all these areas only a flawed analysis was possible.

AVM Osley confirmed the F-35 is meeting it's current not to exceed weight requirements and has not exceeded this figure since the SWAT program in 2004. AVM Osley confirmed there is no expected issue with F-35 exceeding it's NTE level.

AVM Osley stated the APG-81 radar has now been proven in operationally representative exercise environments and has proven to be superior to ANY legacy fighter radar system present in the exercise.

AVM Osley said it was unlikely the approval for the additional 12 JSF aircraft (of the 14 in stage 1) would be granted by the Government in 2012 as it was not a high priority.

Then Dr Jensen waded in...

He put to AVM Osley that the JSF can only carry 2 AMRAAM missiles in the majority of scenarios and at best 4 and as the AMRAAM only has a PK of 0.5, this leaves JSF dangerously exposed against aircraft with larger missile loads.

AVM Osley did not respond on the basis of classified information about the JSF's weapons capabilities but stated he did not agree with those sort of assumptions and did not recognise those figures as in any way authoritive but would not be drawn on the figures as relating to RAAF weapon systems capabilities.

AVM Osley confirmed that all the RAAF analysis of the JSF is centred on it's performance as a tactical unit of 4 aircraft and that in all the analysis they have done, including in manned flight sim testing, the JSF has prevailed against all threats, when the strengths of the JSF can be exploited.

AVM Osley confirmed that it is possible to create scenarios where the JSF does not, "answer all our prayers" but reiterated it is more than capable enough when the totality of capability is considered.

Jensen then moved into it's signature and how easily it might be detected and AVM Osley confirmed that though there are many systems available which might detect the JSF, he stressed that there is a very large difference between detecting an LO aircraft and tracking or targetting an LO aircraft. There is a further difference between targetting and tracking an LO aircraft and putting a weapon on it or sharing data between various systems on the LO aircraft's location, noting that that location does not remain static.

AVM Osley confirmed that RAAF is currently funded for 14 aircraft but authorisation to proceed with the final 12 of the 14 aircraft has not yet been received.

RAAF has not yet sought funding or approval for IOC in 2018 and options to deliver IOC and what IOC will actually mean will go to Government in early 2013.

AVM Osley confirmed there is no current plan to put a maritime strike weapon on the F-35A model (at IOC).

He stated however that RAAF is planning to add extra money to clear the AGM-154C1 JSOW at the F-35A's initial entry to service to ensure it has maritime strike capability by 2020. RAAF is also intending to piggy-back off the USN's work in this area and their intention to put AGM-154C1 on the F-35C at IOC.

AVM Osley confirmed RAAF intends to maintain it's capability to conduct stores compatibility testing with JSF, however as we won't have instrumented aircraft, our testing will be conducted by our AOSG staff on USAF instrumented aircraft.

(In this discussion it was mentioned that additional stores have already been integrated on RAAF Super Hornets by AOSG to allow us the full sovereign capability to deploy our Super Hornets overseas as we wish).

AVM Osley also confirmed some additional capabilities have already been included in the JSF flight test program at RAAF's request, in particular flight tests and additional capability to ensure compatibility with RAAF's KC-30A refuellers. No further expansion on what this might mean was made however.

AVM Osley confirmed when pressed by Jensen on the issue, that all F-35 variants have demonstrated comparable acceleration to F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft with external fuel tanks.

The funniest thing in the hearing though was Jensen's assertation that defence are, "living in an idolised world where everthing works" with respect to JSF's capabilities.

I nearly sprayed coffee over my living room when I heard that. It's not as if he is doing the exact same thing when he opines that all the "SU" missiles work perfectly!!!

And now I have to race to work...

 

[weegee]

How funny that again all the people in the know STILL agree to stick with the program and find nothing wrong with it at all! Yet people who have only a fraction of the information at hand claim that the sky is falling and the JSF is the cause, and when their scenarios are challenged they are the ones that have the flawed ideas etc
Thanks for the update.

 

[gf0012-aust]

How funny that again all the people in the know STILL agree to stick with the program and find nothing wrong with it at all! Yet people who have only a fraction of the information at hand claim that the sky is falling and the JSF is the cause, and when their scenarios are challenged they are the ones that have the flawed ideas etc

It won't stop them sprouting crap on their blogs (where they keep out anyone who is a dissenter) or on the forums where they're a protected species

the best thing for the JSF is for them to keep on making claims...

and they still think that they know more about air combat and contemp warfare than those who do it for a job......

current rated pilots or professional bloggers - gee, who do you think has more credibility...

 

[jack412]

I found it funny when after a few, "sorry, that's getting into secret stuff and this is a public committee meeting" he offered to go incamera and explain why APA/repsim are full of it, but the chair declined saying the room wasn't swept for bugs and he wasn't sure of the clearance of some members

 

[LGB]

The issue with the F-35, the detractors and cheerleaders aside, is not it's capabilities but rather it's cost and time schedule. There are many strong supporters of the program who remain critical regarding affordability and schedule.

Certainly these issues differ from among customers but lumping all criticism of the program into the nut job camp, and clearly those people exist, has not served the program well.

There is no question the program was seriously mismanaged as has been stated by the current head of JPO Adm Venlet. Dismissing all the critics including JET, GAO, and others in retrospect only cost a significant amount of time and money.

As of today the current estimate as expressed in the FY2013 USAF and USN Budgets is $112 million unit flyaway for 1,763 A's and $139 million for 321 C's. Leaving aside whether those numbers represent affordability the real issue is much these numbers actually increase over time and how realistic 1,763 is for the USAF given the budget environment, current and future force structure reductions, etc.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The issue with the F-35, the detractors and cheerleaders aside, is not it's capabilities but rather it's cost and time schedule. There are many strong supporters of the program who remain critical regarding affordability and schedule.

I haven't come across anyone in here who has not been critical of the program management - nobody in here has rose coloured glasses on as far as thats concerned.

Certainly these issues differ from among customers but lumping all criticism of the program into the nut job camp, and clearly those people exist, has not served the program well.

haven't seen that either - the problem is that the naysayers have responsibility for their own image management - and the logic of some does place them in the nutjob camp. again, the binary logic hasn't served them well. esp on their own claims to expertise which have time and time again been shown to be hollow at best and vacuous if being generous

they don't serve their own arguments well by behaving in such a manner.

There is no question the program was seriously mismanaged as has been stated by the current head of JPO Adm Venlet. Dismissing all the critics including JET, GAO, and others in retrospect only cost a significant amount of time and money.

and some of those criticisms weren't justified - again, even proponents have acknowledged the mismanagement and procurement model - but POGO etc didn't cover themselves in glory as an example

As of today the current estimate as expressed in the FY2013 USAF and USN Budgets is $112 million unit flyaway for 1,763 A's and $139 million for 321 C's. Leaving aside whether those numbers represent affordability the real issue is much these numbers actually increase over time and how realistic 1,763 is for the USAF given the budget environment, current and future force structure reductions, etc.

australian buy prices have not shifted in the last 6 years beyond the projected $67-70m - despite all the hysteria that they were $200m planes etc....

considering that oversight on cost runs is done by the Central Agencies in australia, then any price that was heading north would be picked up in the Gate Reviews etc.....

4 years ago a flyaway price for Typhoon was $120m AUD, the JSF was $67m then, and it' $67m today

of course a reduction in buys will impact on the partners, but unless the USAF cuts the fleet by half they're still going to be cheaper than the Typhoon (and far better in ewarfighting fitout by a golden mile)

My indifference towards the hysteria from the other side is that the arguments to support their case have often bordered on deceptive conduct - and often from people who's last exposure to classified material (which is relevant no matter how much the detractors try to trivialise it) is greater than 5 years and often closer to 10 years - and in some cases, they've never seen any material thats controlled in their life.

JSF program management has been a problem, no-one is ignoring that - but to try and draw an association between platform capability and competency to flawed program management and the US funding model is lame by any mans logic.

it always struck me as odd that the lust for the F-22 conveniently ignored that its the same manufacturer for JSF, that improvements in the F-22 latter blocks were due to JSF developments and conveniently ignored that the F-22 has only recently only come back out of the stockyard due to design defects.

 

[AMTP10E]

And they still haven't fixed the oxygen problem on the Raptor yet.

 

[LGB]

GF it's great for Australia that the currency situation helped to cushion the price increase. My concern, however, is centered upon the actual cost for the 2,374 the US is planned to purchase. The average projected unit flyaway is now $120 million, as shown in the current FY13 Budgets. The A's are $112 million.

Now frankly if the cost is the same $67 million (I'll assume REC) for Australia as projected 5 years ago that's great but for the US the cost has risen very considerably. It's a matter of debate if the current cost projections will impact the overall buy and I'd argue probably not. The issue is the future cost increase. At some point price will impact the total buy assuming we're not there already.

The other area of concern is the decade old USAF 1,763 total buy. That's not going to happen given current and future force structure reductions together with the certainty that one or more USAF strike wings will be flying a fighter sized UCAS instead of the F-35. The numbers will be far closer to 1,300 for 12 wings and could fall as low as 1,100 for 10. It's difficult to see the cost for the US for the A's to not end up north of $120 million unit flyaway.

My other comments on supporters of the program being critical were not aimed at anyone in particular. There does seem to be a tendency to lump all criticism into the crazy camp which is amplified on various discussion forums.

 

[jack412]

the price was AU$75m in 2008 yr $ at an exchange rate of 92c, which works out to US$68m, so far the f-35 is still under budget and we have an average all up AU$160m put aside, by the look of it, that will be under budget too, but I dont have a problem with adding $10m risk to it if that will help because over the lifetime cost, $10m is nothing

 

[SpudmanWP]

The $112 in the budget docs is in "Then Year" dollars and includes non-recurring flyaway items and is an average of all F-35s bought (including the LRIP airframes).

The current LM $65 estimate is for the average Recurring Flyaway Cost (not to include the non-recurring items) in FY2010 inflation adjusted dollars.

 

[jack412]

and partners don't pay US non recurring costs

 

[gf0012-aust]

My other comments on supporters of the program being critical were not aimed at anyone in particular. There does seem to be a tendency to lump all criticism into the crazy camp which is amplified on various discussion forums.

I didn't see that you were having a crack.

there are fundamentalists on both sides if you rub hard enough, but in my direct experience, and through unfortunate association, I've found that the most vocal of the detractors are still trotting out the same old canards that have been disproved time and time again.

often the detractors selectively ignore the fact that even those positive towards what the JSF can and will bring to the table, are critical of program management.

the detractors continue to play the ball against people like me (and I do find their commitment to having a shot at people such as myself as borderline farcical considering that I have no influence over anything but when my dog eats his one meal per day)

that kind of approach continues to diminish their arguments and reinforces the frailty and lack of depth of the debate. hence why I now take the position that they can "go for their life" in having a regular shot across the bows as they are diminishing their credibility in the mainstream press - let alone amongst those who actually have a real; job in modern force development.

as before, and has been said on here, when ashton carter came out to australia last year he was supportive of the aust procurement model for JSF and its something that the US was to inject across some of their major capital acquisitions (the contingency model).

will the 8 other partners see prices go north if the US dramatically alters volume buys - sure, are any of them looking at dumping the JSF because of it? No, and its been repeatedly no from the group despite all the claims from those with a contradictory view.

partners have discussed deferred buys, none have travelled then path of reduced buys, and 3 countries are keen to fill any slots if any of the 8 elect to defer as well. partners will look at back filling as its part of any ongoing risk mitigation, but when those announcements hit the press it still doesn't mean cancelled orders, it means deferred orders (which will happily get taken up by Japan, Israel and most likely Singapore)

the bottom line is that all the hysteria in the world and so proudly postulated on other forums has not resulted in reduced orders or rejection of the capability needed. In fact we're finding that as more theatre exercises are conducted (purple and blue flag type),. the more its reinforcing the need for JSF as part of the future warfighting mix

ironically, what its also reinforcing is what the JSF can bring to the table as part of the team fight and what F-22 can't.

my advice? ignore the hysteria and follow the battle rythmn of considered debate

pace, pace and pace.

 

[SpudmanWP]

and partners don't pay US non recurring costs

They do for the most part. Partners will be buying after most of the non-recurring costs have been spent.

I was just trying to make an Apples to Apples comparison. When most people say "it costs $X but we were promised $Y", they fail to mention what X and Y include.

 

[jack412]

someone may know here but I'm pretty sure we don't pay US non-recurring, I think we do put in for some bits and tooling, but that's also a recurring cost.
with the US having some 6 or so different costings and all of them are right, it's very easy to get an X vs Y price

edit..I guess that sales to partners so far will show if this is the case

 

[Andrew McL]

The partners don't pay any NRE, BUT, some of those costs are passed on in the price you pay for the aircraft.

URFC is the cost most people are working on, but some partners will have a higher degree of spares support, maintenance facilities, more simulators, may or may not have an LO coatings facility etc, so program costs will vary considerably.

 

[Sea Toby]

The partners don't pay any NRE, BUT, some of those costs are passed on in the price you pay for the aircraft.

URFC is the cost most people are working on, but some partners will have a higher degree of spares support, maintenance facilities, more simulators, may or may not have an LO coatings facility etc, so program costs will vary considerably.

Yes, some nations will be spending more for more stuff, but they would also be spending as much with another new aircraft as well. The cynics wish to pump up the price of a new aircraft and include these costs as if they wouldn't be included with another new aircraft. Unfortunately, they are.

 

[jack412]

The partners don't pay any NRE, BUT, some of those costs are passed on in the price you pay for the aircraft.

URFC is the cost most people are working on, but some partners will have a higher degree of spares support, maintenance facilities, more simulators, may or may not have an LO coatings facility etc, so program costs will vary considerably.

yes the about $70-75m URF is the very base, I saw an estimated procurement price of about $140m that I wouldn't disagree with and when you add servicing, fuel etc. you would get a similar cost structure that turned our $54m URF super hornets into $250m each over 10 years

 

[the concerned]

People will keep doubting its capabilties until they actually see it. whats needed is to put the aircraft out there at shows like Farnborough and dubai/Singapore. maybe make a mix f-22/f-35 show of force at red flag show people its capabilites then you will get silence.