F-35 Program - General Discussion

[John Fedup]

Source (usual stuff infront)
.news.com.au/technology/innovation/f-35-stealth-fighter-under-intense-attack/story-fnpjxnlk-1227579827067?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=technology

And Wiki for F-35 see souce [190]
A 2015 Pentagon report found these issues:[190]

The Joint Program Office is re-categorizing or failing to count aircraft failures to try to boost maintainability and reliability statistics;
Testing is continuing to reveal the need for more tests, but the majority of the fixes and for capability deficiencies being discovered are being deferred to later blocks rather than being resolved;

End sources

Ah so Canadians less independant that actual contractors lying. Not to sure about that as this was before election and requested by their government, who at the time were "For" F-35 purchases.

Please level your attacks at the F-35 contractors in equal measure ?

The lifetime 48 billion cost for 65 F-35s was the auditor general's estimate. Take out the assumed 9 billion acquision cost and you have an annual operating cost of around 1 billion per year based on 30 years. Our current CF-18 fleet is over 30 and many will see 40 years before replacement. With our current GDP of 1.787 trillion US (over 2 Trillion CDN), the program isn't exactly going to bust the bank!

 

[Distanstar]

You are making a lot of accusations about contractors lying etc., so please cite specific instances with reliable verifiable sources that will withstand legal scrutiny or withdraw your accusations and apologise.

One. For your information Wikipedia is not regarded as an authorative or reliable source.

Two. There are people on here who actually know things about the F35 that are not in the public domain and where they are able too, they will comment.

Three. There are people on here who actually do have some modicum of familiarity with the subject upon which they are discussing and in some fields some of tese people would be regarded as experts.

Four. There is a significant amount of misinformation, incorrect information and downright untruths, being promulgated on the internet and in the media by opponents to the F35 program. The authors of these have no, or very little knowledge of the aircraft or the program, yet they claim to know all about it. Criticism and opposition is fine, however it should be based upon actual facts, not mistruths and untruths fabricated by the ignorant hairy unwashed, who should know better. Very unprofessional.

Five. If you are going to be disrespectful of other posters on here, especially those who are knowledgeable upon the subject, the Mods will undoubtedly take a dim view and stir into action. Don't upset the Mods because they always win. They are grumpy at the moment because they haven't been fed for a while.

Six. New posters are always welcome but please read and abide by the rules.

Seven. If you want to use the standard news media as a source, be aware that as a general rule they are very ignorant of defence and defence related issues. They also tend to be quite biased.

Not all of us think that the F35 is the be all to end all - no platform ever is, however any issues that we may have with this, or any other platform, are based upon informed knowledge and thought.

Ok so in reply;
1.
The Wiki source {190} is "'DOT&E Report: The F-35 Is Not Ready for IOC and Won't Be Any Time Soon’". 12 March 2015. Retrieved 12 March 2015.

Is that ok, of high enough standard for you. Its the US own report on the contratctors.
2.
There is also me who knows details about military programs thats not to be made public but hey. And damn right they shouldnt post. But most my statements are based on reliable information 90% of which is from the DOT&E and some from other sources drawing from that information to try and make sense of costs etc.
And by the way personal opinion is still ok here right ?
3.
I enjoy the reply of experts, its a way we can all learn something. But when they comment it woudl be good they atleast acknowledge how far off the final product will be from the original contracted spec.
4
Agree completely, sorting disinformation from many sources including the contrators themselves is difficult and posts on sites like this help to sort the wheat from the chaff.
5
No Disrespect intended but I have recieved some replies in a very condesending tone as well. Mods rule and thats the way it should be. I am very much against flame posts.
6
Dont think I have broke the rules... if I have tell me direct and I will stop it.
7
Yep agree with the media issue but the quotes I took were from the actual underlying reports and then people asked for the source so I gave it in every instance.
8 F-35 isnt doomed but when did a report from government showing contractors not reporting faults correctly not = lying. A report is a legal document issued from a company.

These guys are spending our money, and while I get the "there doing their best" and "its difficult" as a tax payer if I walk into mc Donalds and I order a big mac, dont give me a cheese burger, say its the same as a big Mac, suggest that my original order was actually a cheese burger, report to me that the cheese burger has more cheese in than it actually came with and finally charge me twice the cost and take longer to deliver than contractually obligated.

Do you get that argunment becasue I think that is a very fair analogy of what has occured uptil now with the F-35.

We can all hope the Cheese burger gets a few more paddy's and the special source so we can finally get our Big mac but I am not so sure.

 

[ADMk2]

I'd like to share your optimism but I dont think it matches the reallity;

For costs; The Australian Defence Force earlier this week told a Senate inquiry that $17 billion had been earmarked for the purchase of F-35 Strike Fighters so far, but a total of $24 billion would eventually have to be spent on the machines.

Going up 7 billion in a week of comments scheesh.

And may be wrong because of Canada's independant cost analysis;

"An independent Canadian audit into the true cost of its proposed 65 F-35 fighter fleet produced a figure of $48 billion."

First of all, if you want to debate facts, perhaps you should try using them? Here is EXACTLY what the chief of Australia's F-35 acquisition program said:

Air Vice Marshal Deeble: The current budget for the JSF program, including the infrastructure elements, is $17 million. That includes recent updates to exchange rate.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Seventeen billion or million?

Air Vice Marshal Deeble: Seventeen billion, sorry. That includes the purchase of 72 aircraft. The first aircraft were purchased in LRIP 6. The value of that was $126.7 million for those first two aircraft. Over the life of the production, which will go out to 2023, we are expecting the average cost of our aircraft to be $90 million each.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Has that come down from earlier estimates, as a matter of interest?

Air Vice Marshal Deeble: We are currently on a learning curve. There are number of factors that impact on the cost of the aircraft. They include a learning curve. As you get more aircraft through that production line, you get greater understanding of how the efficiencies can be gained. There is also an aspect associated with volume. Over the next three years, we anticipate that we will move from about four aircraft up to eight aircraft being manufactured a month. We are at the point of increasing production.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: My next question was the time frame for delivery. You are saying four aircraft in the next—

Air Vice Marshal Deeble: The first two aircraft were purchased under LRIP 6, and they were delivered in 2014. The next aircraft that we will receive will be Low-Rate Initial Production 10. That will be in 2018. Eight aircraft will be purchased at that point in time. The following year, in LRIP 11, we will purchase another eight aircraft. Following that, on an annual basis, we will be purchasing 15 aircraft each year out to 2023, where we will purchase the last nine aircraft to take us to a total of 72 aircraft.

So where does the 'increase' to $24B even get mentioned there?

Secondly, you need to understand these are package costs, not per unit costs. The 'package' includes infrastructure upgrades, training and support systems, weapons and everything you need to operate these aircraft as a capability and is therefore ALWAYS larger than just the cost of an aircraft.

Some nations, Australia included, includes costs such as fuel, the cost of aircrew (even down to salaries...) and other actual expenses, some do not. The 'surprise' cost of the Super Hornets, included EVERYTHING you need to operate 24 Super Hornets at their planned flying rates for an initial 13 years of service. JSF is similar.

So tell me, does every aircraft program include all these costs in their public statements? The answer is a simple no. So don't bother trying to 'compare' costs because they simply aren't comparable unless you are aware of all the factors that go into those costs.

As an example:

The publicly stated value of Saudi Arabia's 72x Eurofighter purchase is £20.9 Billion. (AUD $42.9 BILLION) at present.

The publicly stated value of Australia's 72x F-35A purchase is AUD $17 Billion.

(Time to impersonate typical internet Anti-JSF'er).

HOMG! That means Eurofighters cost AUD $595m EACH right???

No wonder we are buying F-35's! They only cost AUD $236m each!

The DOD report said that actual faults were being moved forward into future Tranches and being reported as solved and also reported fixes from redesign were being reported as solved when infact the problems were still there after the re-design. Ie you cant believe the statements from the contractors because they have been lying (misreporting) to congress let alone the wider public.

So if your going to say things are getting better, by relying on reports then its been independantly proven thats not the case.

By the way shouldnt someone be going to jail for all these lies and exagerations ??:?2

You do understand what the term 'development' means don't you? Problems are found in testing. They are studied, fixes identified and tested again and resolved.

F-35 is in DEVELOPMENT. It is not yet finished. Why is it an issue when a minor problem with F-35 is identified, the internet screams blue murder? When a PAK-FA crashes, there is no apparent problem?

Remember the engine fire 'problem'? Problem was studied, the cause was identified and a solution devised and rolled out to the fleet.

Remember the catapault problem? The internet proclaimed the death of the -C model over that 'unsolvable design issue'. Except a professional engineering and test effort easily solved that 'problem' without issue...

http://youtu.be/HwsnMVohrM8

Remember the 'melting decks and exploding asphault' 'issue'? The internet proclaimed the 'death spiral' for the - B model over that 'unsolvable' issue. Well call me crazy but it appears they managed to solve these 'problems' too...


http://youtu.be/FAFnhIIK7s4


http://youtu.be/zW28Mb1YvwY

 

[Distanstar]

First of all, if you want to debate facts, perhaps you should try using them? Here is EXACTLY what the chief of Australia's F-35 acquisition program said:




So where does the 'increase' to $24B even get mentioned there?

Secondly, you need to understand these are package costs, not per unit costs. The 'package' includes infrastructure upgrades, training and support systems, weapons and everything you need to operate these aircraft as a capability and is therefore ALWAYS larger than just the cost of an aircraft.

Some nations, Australia included, includes costs such as fuel, the cost of aircrew (even down to salaries...) and other actual expenses, some do not. The 'surprise' cost of the Super Hornets, included EVERYTHING you need to operate 24 Super Hornets at their planned flying rates for an initial 13 years of service. JSF is similar.

So tell me, does every aircraft program include all these costs in their public statements? The answer is a simple no. So don't bother trying to 'compare' costs because they simply aren't comparable unless you are aware of all the factors that go into those costs.

As an example:

The publicly stated value of Saudi Arabia's 72x Eurofighter purchase is £20.9 Billion. (AUD $42.9 BILLION) at present.

The publicly stated value of Australia's 72x F-35A purchase is AUD $17 Billion.

(Time to impersonate typical internet Anti-JSF'er).

HOMG! That means Eurofighters cost AUD $595m EACH right???

No wonder we are buying F-35's! They only cost AUD $236m each!





You do understand what the term 'development' means don't you? Problems are found in testing. They are studied, fixes identified and tested again and resolved.

F-35 is in DEVELOPMENT. It is not yet finished. Why is it an issue when a minor problem with F-35 is identified, the internet screams blue murder? When a PAK-FA crashes, there is no apparent problem?

Remember the engine fire 'problem'? Problem was studied, the cause was identified and a solution devised and rolled out to the fleet.

Remember the catapault problem? The internet proclaimed the death of the -C model over that 'unsolvable design issue'. Except a professional engineering and test effort easily solved that 'problem' without issue...

http://youtu.be/HwsnMVohrM8

Remember the 'melting decks and exploding asphault' 'issue'? The internet proclaimed the 'death spiral' for the - B model over that 'unsolvable' issue. Well call me crazy but it appears they managed to solve these 'problems' too...


http://youtu.be/FAFnhIIK7s4


http://youtu.be/zW28Mb1YvwY

Um ok FACTS ONLY

The Australian Defence Force earlier this week told a Senate inquiry that $17 billion had been earmarked for the purchase of F-35 Strike Fighters so far, but a total of $24 billion would eventually have to be spent on the machines.

Did you notice it was to the senate from the Defence force not chief of aquisitions.
So its a Fact.

About the costs yep sure its TOTAL Cost but for 72 Aircraft. Its still bags load more money that was origially quoted told to the public etc etc etc. Dont you get that ? we never wrote a blank cheque.!!

Do you even know what the original per unit price of F-35 was to be? 28 million in 1994 dollars about 68 million US in todays dollars. FACT
FACT
Dont you think Governments and contractors should be kept to what they tell the public ?

The program has been falsly reporting progress ITS A FACT.
from 'DOT&E Report: The F-35 Is Not Ready for IOC and Won't Be Any Time Soon’". 12 March 2015. Retrieved 12 March 2015.
Quote
The Joint Program Office is re-categorizing or failing to count aircraft failures to try to boost maintainability and reliability statistics;
Testing is continuing to reveal the need for more tests, but the majority of the fixes and for capability deficiencies being discovered are being deferred to later blocks rather than being resolved;
End Quote

Do you get that the contractors were deliberatey not counting failures to give better stats.... I mean seriously do you get it ??
They have been found NOT to be fixing issues but pushing them forward. This is not a positive its ok statement, its a FACTUAL accusation of malpractice.

The F-35 may turn out ok, but it will always be over budget late and not actually capable of the initial set of capabilities that was proposed to the participating countries. So you want facts there it is.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The publicly stated value of Saudi Arabia's 72x Eurofighter purchase is £20.9 Billion. (AUD $42.9 BILLION) at present.

The publicly stated value of Australia's 72x F-35A purchase is AUD $17 Billion.

(Time to impersonate typical internet Anti-JSF'er).

HOMG! That means Eurofighters cost AUD $595m EACH right???

No wonder we are buying F-35's! They only cost AUD $236m each!

even with the canadians pulling the plug - and not even factoring in the plus 4 partners as replacement slots - the estimates for the ave platform costs for RAAFs JSF's are still factored in at $90m each

the costs aren't determined by Defence either - they're established by Central Agencies, so even if RAAF wanted to run biased numbers they can't.

Aust has actually been praised by the way that ADO calculates real costs - there are a number of NATO and principle partners who are looking at adopting the same cost determination structure as its more realistic.

ie calculations include through life costs, METS/RTS, exchange rates, realistic contingency, infrastructure mods to meet full op capability, ancilliary costs such as bare base mods. etc.....

 

[ADMk2]

Well provide a link then and prove your point. I quoted the EXACT conversation on JSF to the Senate by Air Vice Marshall Deeble, the head of the AIR-6000 program.

So show us where the cost has blown out. Here is the full 300+ page transcript to help you. I have been through the document and I didn't see it. I also cut and pasted the entire JSF commentary I saw into my earlier post and there was no $7b 'blow out' discussion, but I'm sure you will be able to find it, seeing as though you only concern yourself with 'facts'.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo..._2015_10_21_3923.pdf;fileType=application/pdf

Here also is the Defence Industry Daily coverage of Australia's F-35 program which does an excellent job of cataloguing all the various contract announcements. I can see no sign of a cost increase to $24b...

Future Fleet: Australia’s F-35 Commitments – Choices

As for your repeated posting of the same DOT&E report, why don't you post the JPO response? There isn't a single issue in that report that isn't 'known' and isn't being addressed. Not a single 'show stopper' just a list of issues that any developmental aircraft has.

Remember when the Super Hornet had alleged 'show stopper' wing drop issues? How'd they turn out? Remember when that PAK-FA engine exploded? Has that stopped the program?

No. These are development issues, common place in aviation. Every program has them and every major program addresses them.

As to earlier cost assumptions, do you understand what the word 'assumption' means? Tell you what. When you're old enough, buy a house and then guess exactly what it will be worth in ten years, make a statutory declaration under oath about this and when the reality proves differently to your guess, hand yourself in to your local police station and admit to your own perjury... Because that is what you are expecting of the JPO staff.

Those costs are loaded with assumptions. The build-rate being a primary example. IF the F-35 had of been built at the rate it was originally projected to be and developed at the rate initially planned and funding agreed to, it would have cost what they said. But external factors meant it hasn't been.

The US Congress mandated a Joint program. It mandated a build rate and then failed to provide the funding it agreed to in order to achieve these things. Then it reduced the yearly build rate and here we are.

But hey, its all Lockheed Martin's fault apparently...

They could and should have executed better I agree. But they are building the best all-round combat aircraft in the world today and I for one am glad the RAAF is getting a decent sized fleet of them.

 

[barney41]

By way of comparison, the LWF Program that led to the F-16 had an anticipated fly away cost of US$3M for a production aircraft. The actual cost of a F-16A production jet was $14.6M. Note these are Wiki figures with attributed sources.

 

[Distanstar]

Well provide a link then and prove your point. I quoted the EXACT conversation on JSF to the Senate by Air Vice Marshall Deeble, the head of the AIR-6000 program.

So show us where the cost has blown out. Here is the full 300+ page transcript to help you. I have been through the document and I didn't see it. I also cut and pasted the entire JSF commentary I saw into my earlier post and there was no $7b 'blow out' discussion, but I'm sure you will be able to find it, seeing as though you only concern yourself with 'facts'.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo..._2015_10_21_3923.pdf;fileType=application/pdf

Here also is the Defence Industry Daily coverage of Australia's F-35 program which does an excellent job of cataloguing all the various contract announcements. I can see no sign of a cost increase to $24b...

Future Fleet: Australia’s F-35 Commitments – Choices

As for your repeated posting of the same DOT&E report, why don't you post the JPO response? There isn't a single issue in that report that isn't 'known' and isn't being addressed. Not a single 'show stopper' just a list of issues that any developmental aircraft has.

Remember when the Super Hornet had alleged 'show stopper' wing drop issues? How'd they turn out? Remember when that PAK-FA engine exploded? Has that stopped the program?

No. These are development issues, common place in aviation. Every program has them and every major program addresses them.

As to earlier cost assumptions, do you understand what the word 'assumption' means? Tell you what. When you're old enough, buy a house and then guess exactly what it will be worth in ten years, make a statutory declaration under oath about this and when the reality proves differently to your guess, hand yourself in to your local police station and admit to your own perjury... Because that is what you are expecting of the JPO staff.

Those costs are loaded with assumptions. The build-rate being a primary example. IF the F-35 had of been built at the rate it was originally projected to be and developed at the rate initially planned and funding agreed to, it would have cost what they said. But external factors meant it hasn't been.

The US Congress mandated a Joint program. It mandated a build rate and then failed to provide the funding it agreed to in order to achieve these things. Then it reduced the yearly build rate and here we are.

But hey, its all Lockheed Martin's fault apparently...

They could and should have executed better I agree. But they are building the best all-round combat aircraft in the world today and I for one am glad the RAAF is getting a decent sized fleet of them.

Ok better source same statement I saw and referenced, so I didnt make it up.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/...-pay-millions-more-new-jets-after-canada-exit

that says

"Australian Defence Force officials told a senate inquiry earlier this week that the budget for the F-35 purchases was $17 billion, but the initial outlay and ongoing costs have been put as high as $24 billion."

Also
2014 Budget has 24 billion over the forward estimates for F-35 costs to go from 14 F-35 + additional 58 F-35.

This was Announced (media report below with reference)

In April 2014, Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced the government would buy an additional 58 F-35 Join Strike Fighter jets at a cost of $12.4 billion. It will cost another $12 billion to keep the fighters operational over their active lifetime. The 58 aircraft are an addition to the 14 F-35s Australia already had on order.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/f35-...oalition-mp-20140616-zs9po.html#ixzz3pZmZFHPh
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

The F-35 is one big cost blow out... remember.

The build rate was decreased when the US gov was advised of the first 32 f-35 costing up to 203 million each and 300 million if you include shared R&D costs.
Thats not JPO's fault.?? Ha.

I am not an F-35 hater. I hope its a success.

but we should never let corporations run a program so poorly as this, with so little oversight, and get so big that the are "too big to fail"

 

[OPSSG]

New members are reminded to meet minimum standards for posting and the provision of references to source challenges issued. Being evasive is not acceptable. May the Mod Team suggest that new members take the time to read, digest and understand the information provided in Air Power 101 for New Members, before posting again.

Learning from existing reference and pinned threads can be good starting place, for a bit of catch-up reading before posting, again.

Continued failure to follow instructions, clearly given will have repercussions.

 

[vonnoobie]

What people need to take into account is the more advanced we get with tech the more tricky it becomes. We aren't building machines that are practically slapped together with a few thousand line of coding, We are building machines that have to be precise the less then a millimeter with millions lines of code. Eventually it will become second nature to us but we have not yet crossed that threshold and we wont if we aren't willing to put up with the hard yards.

Yes they are more costly and less capable then originally promised but realistically how many military projects (or even civilian for that matter) actually deliver on what was originally promised? Most don't.

Either way there is no real alternative out there at a cheaper price but rather more costly. Pushing forth with the F-35 really is the smartest decision, Have come too fare now and worse case we have the Rhino's to fall back on.

-----

Question to those more knowledgeable with the RAAF and combat aircraft. Would there be any benefit in operating a mixed fleet? ie: Operating the Super Hornets as we role out the F-35's, Then moving on to replacing the SU's with the F/A-XX Program? I'd imagine it would be more costly operating two differing aircraft types though would it allow us to be more up to date in modern tech and capabilities (ie: avoid our capability being made useless half way through it's life because some one made something better)?

 

[Distanstar]

New members are reminded to meet minimum standards for posting and the provision of references to source challenges issued. Being evasive is not acceptable. May the Mod Team suggest that new members take the time to read, digest and understand the information provided in Air Power 101 for New Members, before posting again.

Learning from existing reference and pinned threads can be good starting place, for a bit of catch-up reading before posting, again.

Continued failure to follow instructions, clearly given will have repercussions.

Was that edit fix the isssue or is it the link ?
I am unsure about the evasive comment, I have tried to show all sources in reply ?

 

[ADMk2]

Ok better source same statement I saw and referenced, so I didnt make it up.

F-35 fighter jets: Australia could pay millions more for new jets after Canada exit | SBS News

that says

"Australian Defence Force officials told a senate inquiry earlier this week that the budget for the F-35 purchases was $17 billion, but the initial outlay and ongoing costs have been put as high as $24 billion."

Also
2014 Budget has 24 billion over the forward estimates for F-35 costs to go from 14 F-35 + additional 58 F-35.

This was Announced (media report below with reference)

In April 2014, Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced the government would buy an additional 58 F-35 Join Strike Fighter jets at a cost of $12.4 billion. It will cost another $12 billion to keep the fighters operational over their active lifetime. The 58 aircraft are an addition to the 14 F-35s Australia already had on order.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter purchase 'a great national scandal' says Coalition MP
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

The F-35 is one big cost blow out... remember.

The build rate was decreased when the US gov was advised of the first 32 f-35 costing up to 203 million each and 300 million if you include shared R&D costs.
Thats not JPO's fault.?? Ha.

I am not an F-35 hater. I hope its a success.

but we should never let corporations run a program so poorly as this, with so little oversight, and get so big that the are "too big to fail"

You said and I quote:

The Australian Defence Force earlier this week told a Senate inquiry that $17 billion had been earmarked for the purchase of F-35 Strike Fighters so far, but a total of $24 billion would eventually have to be spent on the machines

So do you now admit this claim was factually incorrect? There has been absolutely no: $7b increase in a week.'

The ADF never said any such thing to the Senate and I have posted the transcript of what they did say and quoted it directly below to prove this. Only the media have said this.

Yet, you want people indicted in a criminal court on such 'evidence'? Having put many a person before criminal courts, suffice to say your 'evidence' doesn't amount to prima facie, let alone a standard of proof required in a criminal court.

So the $12.4 figure has to have another $12b added in support costs, to reach the media speculated $24b they say these 'machines' now cost? Those figures don't add up to a single fact and with such rubbery figures, what's a mere $400m between friends?

The fact is, a fleet of 100 modern fighter jets operated over 30 years is going to add up to an astronomical figure, if you add the cost of each years flying hours together. Feel free to check out the budget portfolio statements, including the forward estimates. There is NO astronomical rise in expenditure when JSF enters service, so ADF (who are the ones actually buying the things...) don't see any significant increase in support costs for these aircraft, compared to the aircraft they are replacing...

 

[John Fedup]

What people need to take into account is the more advanced we get with tech the more tricky it becomes. We aren't building machines that are practically slapped together with a few thousand line of coding, We are building machines that have to be precise the less then a millimeter with millions lines of code. Eventually it will become second nature to us but we have not yet crossed that threshold and we wont if we aren't willing to put up with the hard yards.

Yes they are more costly and less capable then originally promised but realistically how many military projects (or even civilian for that matter) actually deliver on what was originally promised? Most don't.

Either way there is no real alternative out there at a cheaper price but rather more costly. Pushing forth with the F-35 really is the smartest decision, Have come too fare now and worse case we have the Rhino's to fall back on.

-----

Question to those more knowledgeable with the RAAF and combat aircraft. Would there be any benefit in operating a mixed fleet? ie: Operating the Super Hornets as we role out the F-35's, Then moving on to replacing the SU's with the F/A-XX Program? I'd imagine it would be more costly operating two differing aircraft types though would it allow us to be more up to date in modern tech and capabilities (ie: avoid our capability being made useless half way through it's life because some one made something better)?

The argument often heard here is two fast jet fleets are too expensive for a country like Canada. As Australia did this with F-111s and F-18s for years, I can't see any reason why Canada couldn't operate a mixed fleet. A mixed fleet of F-35s together with a true interceptor makes sense. Too bad the only decent modern interceptor with a 30 year lifespan isn't available.

 

[ADMk2]

What people need to take into account is the more advanced we get with tech the more tricky it becomes. We aren't building machines that are practically slapped together with a few thousand line of coding, We are building machines that have to be precise the less then a millimeter with millions lines of code. Eventually it will become second nature to us but we have not yet crossed that threshold and we wont if we aren't willing to put up with the hard yards.

Yes they are more costly and less capable then originally promised but realistically how many military projects (or even civilian for that matter) actually deliver on what was originally promised? Most don't.

Either way there is no real alternative out there at a cheaper price but rather more costly. Pushing forth with the F-35 really is the smartest decision, Have come too fare now and worse case we have the Rhino's to fall back on.

-----

Question to those more knowledgeable with the RAAF and combat aircraft. Would there be any benefit in operating a mixed fleet? ie: Operating the Super Hornets as we role out the F-35's, Then moving on to replacing the SU's with the F/A-XX Program? I'd imagine it would be more costly operating two differing aircraft types though would it allow us to be more up to date in modern tech and capabilities (ie: avoid our capability being made useless half way through it's life because some one made something better)?

I think that is entirely the 'real' plan. I will be surprised if we ever actually operate more than 72 JSF's. I think a future force of Shornets, JSF's and Growlers will provide more tactical options (particularly with the backseater and EW / standoff weapon options with the Shornet and Growler) and in many future years we will then have the option of more, later model and more capable F-35 or some newer (perhaps) capability. I hesitate to use the term 'fighter' as this future air combat capability may take other forms than a purest style 'fighter'...

I think this will also prove the cheaper option overall, though a training and support burden will remain on RAAF, I think the cost and flexibility will be worth it. It mirrors the set up the US Navy is pursuing and I think in concert with RAN and Army based strike capabilities and RAN and Army based surface to air capabilities, will provide us all the combat power we are likely to require.

 

[ADMk2]

The argument often heard here is two fast jet fleets are too expensive for a country like Canada. As Australia did this with F-111s and F-18s for years, I can't see any reason why Canada couldn't operate a mixed fleet. A mixed fleet of F-35s together with a true interceptor makes sense. Too bad the only decent modern interceptor with a 30 year lifespan isn't available.

New build F-15's, of the SA standard as designed for Saudi Arabia, are always available...

However I can't see Canada pursuing a dual force of advanced F-15 AND JSF, if JSF alone is comsidered too costly...

 

[old faithful]

Agree with AD on the 72 F35, s.
I reckon that the F18F, s and Growlers will be replaced by 24 or so 5+or 6 gen fighters around 2025 - 2035.

 

[vonnoobie]

Agree with AD on the 72 F35, s.
I reckon that the F18F, s and Growlers will be replaced by 24 or so 5+or 6 gen fighters around 2025 - 2035.

I'm not holding my breath we will get a 6th gen aircraft as they have quite simply left all the 6th gen programs too late. From program concept to introduction you need 20 - 25 years if past experience is anything to go by. With the USN Shornet fleet expected to be on it's last leg's by then I'm not so sure on if the would be able to accommodate us (unless we would be willing to wait).

More likely a 5.5 F-35 or some way down the track upgrading our Shornet's to the Advanced variant they made a few years back (That I have no idea why we haven't acquired) so as to give them a few more years of usefulness.

 

[barney41]

but we should never let corporations run a program so poorly as this, with so little oversight, and get so big that the are "too big to fail"

"Too big to fail" is pure cynicism, failing to consider what is gained for all the time and treasure invested. Try "too important to fail" as the JSF is the key to the recapitalization of the tactical air fleets of the US and friendly air arms. The fleets to be replaced eg. Vipers, Warthogs, Hornets, Harriers, Prowlers (USMC) means that the numbers will be "big" and come as no surprise. It's too important because there is no realistic alternative ie. buying and supporting larger fleets of the older jets will be even more costly and not an option. Not even mentioning that these older aircraft will be vulnerable and increasingly less viable goinb forward.

The reality is the program is on track to meeting it's IOC objectives after having overcome the inevitable rough patches in a program of this scope and complexity. No program has been subject to greater oversight and scrutiny.

 

[Distanstar]

You said and I quote:



So do you now admit this claim was factually incorrect? There has been absolutely no: $7b increase in a week.'

The ADF never said any such thing to the Senate and I have posted the transcript of what they did say and quoted it directly below to prove this. Only the media have said this.

Yet, you want people indicted in a criminal court on such 'evidence'? Having put many a person before criminal courts, suffice to say your 'evidence' doesn't amount to prima facie, let alone a standard of proof required in a criminal court.

So the $12.4 figure has to have another $12b added in support costs, to reach the media speculated $24b they say these 'machines' now cost? Those figures don't add up to a single fact and with such rubbery figures, what's a mere $400m between friends?

The fact is, a fleet of 100 modern fighter jets operated over 30 years is going to add up to an astronomical figure, if you add the cost of each years flying hours together. Feel free to check out the budget portfolio statements, including the forward estimates. There is NO astronomical rise in expenditure when JSF enters service, so ADF (who are the ones actually buying the things...) don't see any significant increase in support costs for these aircraft, compared to the aircraft they are replacing...

My original comments was
"Going up 7 billion in a week of comments scheesh"

It was irony... but also it goes to the public being informed which many of my comments are about; the numbers brandied for the F-35 by the Government have been 14 billion, 17 Billion then lately (since 2014) 24 Billion. A steadly rising number that may be justified by reasonable causes and analysis breakdowns as you suggest but its still a poor way to communicate the program to the public and in my opinion ultimately works against the F-35 Program by making it an easy target.

If Australian Media have the number wrong at 24 Billion over the life of the program, I appologise it was widely reported as I quoted it.

But your point is moot becasue I think If I asked your estimate it would be higher than 24 Billion ? for the life of the program ?

The major selling point of F-35 was Cost. Remember 3 planes sharing parts etc etc. its all in the original program outline I can paste it here but why bother you know that.

In terms of my criminal conduct statments I stand by them, but you mix them up.

The False reporting in my opinion is a criminal matter, DOT&E report found them out.
You actually agree the F-35 will never meet its original price, performance and capabilities, its in your quoted numbers, but you just let it roll.

I dont, I expect better from companies who contractually agreed to those figures, and make a profit by gaining the contract. Gaining a Government contract by false means is also a criminal matter.. but hey.

I get hammered if I dont deliver in the real world and so should they.

 

[t68]

I dont, I expect better from companies who contractually agreed to those figures, and make a profit by gaining the contract. Gaining a Government contract by false means is also a criminal matter.. but hey
.

Without seeing the actual contract I doubt they would have been silly enough to state at the end of the development program that these aircraft will cost X amount, no company in their right mind would agree to that unknown for a in-development cutting edge aircraft, look at the delays and cost increase for a relatively straight forward heavy airlifter like the A400M

I get hammered if I dont deliver in the real world and so should they.

I would agree with that sentiment if it was something that was not in development and had a mature production line