F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[gf0012-aust]

The australian costing was done with a contingency element - thats got zero to do with exchange rates - its what the US DoD laments it should have done and what they seek to emulate in future force capability procurement.

seriously, I kind of get fed up with the internet chatter of gloom and doom when the people actually involved in the discussions with the USG and USAF have a far better and more coherent picture to base decisions on.

I am so glad we don't buy capability based on internet chatter and assumptions.

we'd all be screwed

a little bit of considered perspective and an overarching appreciation of why the USG and US DoD is committed to having this capability as part of her overall force development and direction would cause some pause.

I continue to see critical comment about australian pricing which has never been correct, and moreso about unit reduction using snippets of information often taken out of context and steered towards embellishing the negative opinion.

we'll be having these idiotic comparisons and claims in 10 years time

 

[Sea Toby]

The australian costing was done with a contingency element - thats got zero to do with exchange rates - its what the US DoD laments it should have done and what they seek to emulate in future force capability procurement.

seriously, I kind of get fed up with the internet chatter of gloom and doom when the people actually involved in the discussions with the USG and USAF have a far better and more coherent picture to base decisions on.

I am so glad we don't buy capability based on internet chatter and assumptions.

we'd all be screwed

a little bit of considered perspective and an overarching appreciation of why the USG and US DoD is committed to having this capability as part of her overall force development and direction would cause some pause.

I continue to see critical comment about australian pricing which has never been correct, and moreso about unit reduction using snippets of information often taken out of context and steered towards embellishing the negative opinion.

we'll be having these idiotic comparisons and claims in 10 years time

I could not agree more. One wonders how much false information would have been generated by the cynics if another aircraft was on the line? Since the cynics are opposed to any new aircraft buy, I would assume it would have been the same.

They don't get it when the Italians say the JSF will be cheaper than a Typhoon...

 

[gf0012-aust]

They don't get it when the Italians say the JSF will be cheaper than a Typhoon...

I attended a Typhoon brief a few years back where it was quoted to us as $120m flyaway.

At that time AustGov JSF was $65-67m per unit

3 years later the JSF is still in that range for Aust due to contingency pricing etc - and Typhoon still hasn't changed or even remotely gone south even though more units have been sold.

it's the same crap, different day.

 

[StobieWan]

I would agree, and when Admiral Ventlet states the cost will suck the wind out of your lungs, as the program director thats not really how you pick up sales, his concern is valid, especially given the delayed buys which will drive up everyones cost, hes trying to give us all a heads up!

What Ventlet actually said was:

""The analyzed hot spots that have arisen in the last 12 months or so in the program have surprised us at the amount of change and at the cost," Vice Adm. David Venlet said in an interview at his office near the Pentagon. "Most of them are little ones, but when you bundle them all up and package them and look at where they are in the airplane and how hard they are to get at after you buy the jet, the cost burden of that is what sucks the wind out of your lungs. I believe it's wise to sort of temper production for a while here until we get some of these heavy years of learning under our belt and get that managed right. And then when we've got most of that known and we've got the management of the change activity better in hand, then we will be in a better position to ramp up production."

Venlet also took aim at a fundamental assumption of the JSF business model: concurrency. The JSF program was originally structured with a high rate of concurrency -- building production model aircraft while finishing ground and flight testing -- that assumed less change than is proving necessary."

That's from here

JSF's Build And Test Was 'Miscalculation,' Adm. Venlet Says; Production Must Slow

Ventlet was *not* talking about the cost of the program, he was talking about the cost of continuing to build fighters concurrently with development and testing, hence the move to the right of full production. Ventlet was talking about the cost of building a bunch of jets in LRIP, then having to fix them once testing was completed.

There's always a fine line to tread in these matters and it's usually wise to start building some aircraft as early as possible so you've got more in the air to test with and do integration etc - it drives costs down early in manufacturing. Balanced against that is the cost of fixing the early production models once the verdict is in.

Ventlet was not saying "F35 costs a huge amount to buy and to own" - he was explaining why the aircraft would remain in LRIP phase a bit longer.

 

[jack412]

I've asked Air Force Brat previously to give links or check his post to minimise misinformation being posted and is why I asked my 2 questions to Air Force Brat.
The answer would of been, he was referring to concurrency cost and the partners and FMS are only buying a handful during the delayed buy period, which is far from the doom and gloom he wanted to promote.

There are other forums to have irrational debates on and for fun I partake on one of them

 

[rand0m]

Is anyone able to advise how far off we are lookng at the JSF holding six internal missles? I've read from other unconfirmed sources that there are issues with AIM9X being fired from the internal weapons bay, is this correct? If so, how big of an issue is it?

 

[SpudmanWP]

Studies have shown that 3xAMRAAMs (per bay) would require "minor modification" and that an internal 9X would require a trapeze launcher.

Exit question: Why would you want a 9X when you could have 2 AMRAAMs (after Blk5)?

 

[jack412]

I think they were looking at block 5 for 6 missiles
The UK were going to put their asaam on the door, but decided not to fund that part of the integration.
I don't know what the plans are with the US and aim-9x till the multi-sensor aim-120 replacement comes along. A lot of the problems would have been covered and known after fitting the aim-9 to the f-22, they diverted the blast when it came off the rail for example.

just to clear up costing

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
AUSTRALIA can still expect to pay an average $US70 million ($A67 million) for each Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, even as production of the next generation F-35s ramps up.

The head of the JSF program for US aerospace company Lockheed Martin, Tom Burbage, said production was now running at four aircraft per month.

"We believe over the purchase time of your 75 airplanes, that cost will average out somewhere around $US70 million ($A67 million)," he told reporters in Canberra.

 

[StobieWan]

I think they were looking at block 5 for 6 missiles
The UK were going to put their asaam on the door, but decided not to fund that part of the integration.
I don't know what the plans are with the US and aim-9x till the multi-sensor aim-120 replacement comes along. A lot of the problems would have been covered and known after fitting the aim-9 to the f-22, they diverted the blast when it came off the rail for example.

just to clear up costing

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
AUSTRALIA can still expect to pay an average $US70 million ($A67 million) for each Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, even as production of the next generation F-35s ramps up.

The head of the JSF program for US aerospace company Lockheed Martin, Tom Burbage, said production was now running at four aircraft per month.

"We believe over the purchase time of your 75 airplanes, that cost will average out somewhere around $US70 million ($A67 million)," he told reporters in Canberra.

Ah, not so - here's MBDA talking about ASRAAM integration and this is circa 2010.

VIDEO: MBDA talks ASRAAM & Meteor for F-35 - The DEW Line

 

[jack412]

it was a dead vid link for me, but the last I read, the uk are still going to put asaam [and probably aussies too] on the wings. just not the door integration
I think as well as the meteor, Israel want to put some missiles on it too, spud was saying about a common code to make it easier/cheaper, so it's just the launch that has testing

 

[swerve]

just to clear up costing...

The head of the JSF program for US aerospace company Lockheed Martin, Tom Burbage, said production was now running at four aircraft per month.

"We believe over the purchase time of your 75 airplanes, that cost will average out somewhere around $US70 million ($A67 million)," he told reporters in Canberra.

Nice to see Burbage putting his neck on the line with a firm price, eh? Oh - wait a minute - he didn't. He said something vague & non-committal, which he can't be held to. As always.

 

[jack412]

wouldn't it be an 'about' price till it's a MYB price, there would be a spread on that of x%
so do you think it's just lucky we had an initial 2007 'guess' of $75m and that didn't include the money put aside incase we were under in our 'guess' ?

 

[StobieWan]

it was a dead vid link for me, but the last I read, the uk are still going to put asaam [and probably aussies too] on the wings. just not the door integration
I think as well as the meteor, Israel want to put some missiles on it too, spud was saying about a common code to make it easier/cheaper, so it's just the launch that has testing

If you get a black window in a normal web page, there's a "play" button just to the right, MBDA spokespersonable goes into detail about door integration.

There's two big assists for getting any missile into or onto F35 - universal armaments interface, which is an across the board way to fit kit and integrate it with the on board systems, and then of course, the flight software is common across the board. UAI offers an apparently straight forward of plugging stuff in without access to source code, meaning export customers can easily add their own local weapons and other systems.

 

[StobieWan]

Nice to see Burbage putting his neck on the line with a firm price, eh? Oh - wait a minute - he didn't. He said something vague & non-committal, which he can't be held to. As always.

Well, without a firm timescale for orders, it'd be difficult to do so - you'd need to know what aircraft were being ordered in what numbers and when to give a price that was near enough on.

 

[SpudmanWP]

There is also the issue ow what partners (and Japan & Israel & SKorea, etc) will be ordering and when.

This is an area where the US could step up and be a leader (and reverse the damage to the program that it did in the latest "restructure") by guaranteeing build rates and stop this BS delaying of LRIP.

 

[ADMk2]

Nice to see Burbage putting his neck on the line with a firm price, eh? Oh - wait a minute - he didn't. He said something vague & non-committal, which he can't be held to. As always.

As always? As always indeed for a person being asked to comment on a price of something for which he has not received a confimed and detailed order...

Would you expect less from the CEO of the Eurofighter consortium?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Nice to see Burbage putting his neck on the line with a firm price, eh? Oh - wait a minute - he didn't. He said something vague & non-committal, which he can't be held to. As always.

Its irrelevant what Burbage says in public - its about what we or anyone else signs up to
in the respective country contract

and repeatedly, the Govt and RAAF price for JSF has not varied even 5%. Of course thats influenced on absolute initial partner nation orders - but as no one has cancelled, and as there are 3 other "potential partners" willing to slip into any slots that have openings, where the existing 8.3 might defer, then that risk is identified already

as opposed to Typhoon price to Australia where there was no commitment and where sales already have occurred and where they could have factored them in to seduce other buyers.

Its still $120m for less capability to AustGovs factored price of $67m (And UKGovt/BAE still can't provide other options which come with the USG and LM offer). Interoperability with other systems at the overall systems level (GIS/INT/COP/Air Command and Theatre systems are a big deal for us)

LM's public price announcements don't impact on negotiated prices with AustGov, and if they go formal, then contingency cuts in and the Govt determines whether that variation triggers other options, including deferring the absolute final requirement.

 

[gazzzwp]

F35 jsf

There is unfortunately a mountain of negative publicity regarding this aircraft and I thought it would be interesting to pull together research on the issue to see what the real case may actually be.

The criticisms seem to fall into these main areas:

1) Over budget. Not in itself a surprise or even a major concern in view of the fact that the concept itself is very advanced and NATO is looking for the aircraft to be the mainstay of it's fighter capability for the next 40 years.

2) It's offensive missile capability is insufficient. Apparently it carries only 2 air to air missiles.

3) It's maneuverability is inferior to it's competitors; worryingly one of these could be the Sukhoi SU-35.

4) The program is running increasingly late, and latest estimates have put the in service date optimistically as 2014 and some sources as late as 2018. Is this a concern? What is the life span of the current F16's and does NATO have any other new build fighter aircraft available within a shorter time frame? Does it leave a serious time gap within which NATO aircraft could be lacking in the event of a conflict with one of the other (semi) superpowers?

5) The software has still not been finalised and because of the aircraft features is overly complex and will be difficult to de-bug.

6) There are a host of mechanical problems; see below for list :

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

7) It's stealth rating has already been downgraded from 'very low observable' to 'low observable' with apparently major implications.

So politics aside and looking at the issue from the aspect of NATO capability what does this all add up to?

 

[RobWilliams]

Wouldn't it be more appropriate posting your queries/concerns in the already well established F-35 thread rather than creating a new one?

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/f-35-multirole-joint-strike-fighter-2013/

 

[SpudmanWP]

There is already a JSF thread, but I'll bite:

2) It's offensive missile capability is insufficient. Apparently it carries only 2 air to air missiles.

It's only is limited to 2 AAMs when in it's most stealthy config and doing a bombing run. If there is a high enough threat, then F-35s can be dedicated to the escort role and carry 4 internal AAMs. They are already designing an upgrade tentatively planned for Blk5 (pre 2020) that will give the F-35 6 internal AAMs.

3) It's maneuverability is inferior to it's competitors; worryingly one of these could be the Sukhoi SU-35.

To understand the issue you must understand why maneuverability has historically been important. The main reason was to get your target in front of your missile's seeker in order to achieve a lock. With the F-35's EODAS, they do not have to maneuver in order to achieve a lock. This is not to say that the F-35 is not maneuverable as it was designed to be in the same class as the F-16/18 in that area.

4) Does it leave a serious time gap within which NATO aircraft could be lacking in the event of a conflict with one of the other (semi) superpowers?

No. Worst case you spend a few extra million or trim ops for a couple of years.

5) The software has still not been finalised and because of the aircraft features is overly complex and will be difficult to de-bug.

There is no evidence of any "debug" issues with the software. Since the F-35 is still in SDD, the software is obviously not done yet (although a vast majority of it has been written).

6) There are a host of mechanical problems; see below for list :

Problem will always crop up in SDD, that's the point. The important thing to see is that they are minor and none are "Program Killers".

7) It's stealth rating has already been downgraded from 'very low observable' to 'low observable' with apparently major implications.

Not officially. The Program Office and LM continue to call them VLO. Anybody else saying otherwise is guessing based on "looks".

In recent testimony (I assume under oath), LM stated that due to their verification of the F-35's true RCS and updated sims (both computerized and piloted), that the F-35's LER (Loss Exchange Ratio) has been upgraded from 3:1 to 6:1. If there was any truth to the VLO to LO change then this would not have happened.

So politics aside and looking at the issue from the aspect of NATO capability what does this all add up to?

NATO's capability will evolve to levels that only the F-22 and F-117 have enjoyed up to this point.