F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[MarkOttawa]

1) USMC F-35B oh oh:

Pentagon weapons tester calls F-35 evaluation into question
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/09/15/pentagon-weapons-tester-calls-f-35-evaluation-into-question/

2) But problems for USAF achieving this:

U.S. Air Force still evaluating options for F-35 'block buy'
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/14/us-lockheed-fighter-airforce-idUSKCN0RE22220150914

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Congressional front:

Long-Term CR Would Impact F-35 Software Development

The US Air Force is concerned that development of follow-on software for the F-35 joint strike fighter could be in peril if the Pentagon is forced to operate under a stop-gap spending measure next year.

Development of the as-yet undefined Block 4 software, which will come online sometime in the 2020s, would feel the impact of a long-term continuing resolution (CR), Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, director of the F-35 integration office, told reporters on Monday [Sept. 14] during the Air Force Association’s annual conference...
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/09/14/long-term-cr-would-impact-f-35-software-development-us-airforce/72262306/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

More on Congress:

General Warns Budget Woes May Limit F-35 Purchases in 2016

The head of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program says the fifth-generation aircraft is past the “slow and steady progress” of development stage and is now all about continuing modernization of the aircraft.

The acquisition effort has reached the point where officials see production in the next few years ramping up from about 30 to 40 planes a year to “something over 120 a year,” said Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan during a presentation Tuesday at the Air and Space Conference near Washington, D.C...

The Pentagon’s largest acquisition program is “rapidly growing and accelerating,” but will hit a major speed bump should Congress fail to pass a 2016 defense budget and end up with another continuing resolution, he said.

The limitations imposed with a continuing resolution will reduce by about two-thirds what the Air Force intended to spend next year on transitioning from a development program to one focused on modernization, Bogdan said. It will also impact the Lot 10-series of aircraft – about 19 planes already being built – by reducing what it can afford to spend, he said.

“If we’re on a continuing resolution in ’16, the amount of money we have to spend” will be dramatically reduced to roughly the same $40 million it spent in 2015, Bogdan said. “That’s about a third of what we intended to spend in ’16 to do that planning.”

More pressing still, is that another CR will make it impossible for the Air Force and Marine Corps to buy all the Lockheed Martin Corp.-made F-35s currently being built for a 2017 delivery. The Air Force has 16 planes in the Lot 10 group and the Marine Corps three, Bogdan said. The 19 planes, all told, would cost about $2 billion, he said.

“So if we’re capped … those 16 Air Force A-model planes and those three Marine Corps planes, they’re orphans,” he said. “I can’t buy them. I won’t have the authority or the money to buy them.”

It could mean bumping the purchase to the next fiscal year – which will add to the costs, he said...
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/09/15/general-warns-budget-woes-may-limit-f-35-purchases-in-2016/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

More on the US numbers game:

U.S. Air Force warns F-35 order review could damage program

U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff General Mark Welsh on Tuesday warned that short-term moves to revise downward the Air Force's planned purchase of 1,763 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 stealth fighters could damage the program and scare off foreign buyers.

"Let’s delay this discussion for a little while until we see what happens in the world," Welsh told reporters at the annual Air Force Association conference, citing efforts by Russia and China to field more advanced fighter aircraft of their own.

"All we do right now is risk damaging a program that's now gaining some momentum and is about to become operational," he said.

Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, who takes over as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff this month, sparked questions about possible changes to the U.S. military's plans for a total fleet of 2,457 F-35s during his U.S. Senate confirmation hearing. The Pentagon later said no formal review was underway.

Admiral John Richardson, who takes over as chief of naval operations on Friday [Sept. 18], also told lawmakers he would take a hard look at the Navy's current requirement for 340 F-35 C-model jets that can take off and land on aircraft carriers...

Welsh told reporters the program was doing well after years of cost overruns and technical challenges, and it was critical to keep moving toward full production to ensure continued cost reductions. He said the jet was likely to cost about $80 million per plane by 2019, comparable to other fighter jets.

[Pentagon's F-35 program manager, Air Force Lieutenant General Chris] Bogdan told Reuters that none of the services had asked the his office to participate in a reassessment of their overall F-35 procurement plans, and he did not expect them to carry out revisions in the near future.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/16/us-lockheed-martin-fighter-idUSKCN0RG00120150916

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

More on not dog-fighting:

Carlisle: F-35s won't dogfight, F-22s will

The F-35 Lightning II will excel at air interdiction, but was not created to engage in visual dogfights, said Gen. Hawk Carlisle, the head of Air Combat Command.

The general’s comments at the annual Air Force Association Air and Space Conference came in response to a series of reports that have criticized the F-35’s inability to win dogfights with current fourth-generation aircraft.

“I know there was a lot of press about the F-16 versus F-35,” Carlisle said, referencing an internal document from Lockheed-Martin that was leaked earlier this year. The memo, written by a test pilot, found the F-35 appeared to be at a serious disadvantage when engaging in a dogfight with a Falcon.

“That’s not what the airplane was designed to do,” Carlisle said. “It’s designed to do that incredible multi-role capability with its sensor suite and the integration and the [situational awareness] it provides the pilot, its electronic warfare piece, it’s all those things that make the airplane what it is.”

Other than direct dogfighting, the general said he believes the F-35 will be able to take down anything else in the sky...

The direct, visual aerial engagements will be handled by F-22s, Carlisle said, and he lamented the decision to stop purchasing the aircraft.

“We don’t have enough F-22s,” he said. “If you look at the way we’re using them today in the current fight we’re in, if you look at what we would do in a future fight, we flat don’t have enough F-22s. But we have what we have, and they’re doing incredible work, and what the airmen flying those things are doing is phenomenal.”

Any major kinetic engagements will require both aircraft, Carlisle said, with the F-22s handling the air-to-air combat.

“You’re going to need the Raptors to be able to do some of those things against the high-end fight, to take some things down, to allow the rest of the force — which will include leading edge F-35s — to penetrate denied airspace,” he said. “You’re still going to have to do that, and we’re going to do it with the 180 or so F-22s that we have … but it’s going to be a combination of F-22s and F-35s.”..
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/afa/2015/09/16/carlisle-f-35s-wont-dogfight-f-22s/32498237/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

In absence more Raptors:

F-15C, F-35 to boost US air-to-air capacity, not more F-22s

The head of US Air Combat Command says it would be his dream to restart production of the Lockheed Martin F-22 air superiority jet as potential adversaries like Russia and China “close the gap” with Western air power.

But the chances of the Raptor, which is still considered the world’s premier air-to-air combat jet, re-entering serial production is likely to remain a dream due to year-to-year defence budget uncertainty and the introduction of the air force’s top three priorities – the Lockheed F-35 multirole fighter, Boeing KC-46 tanker, and Long-Range Strike Bomber...

Carlisle and USAF chief of staff Gen Mark Welsh point to Boeing F-15C upgrades and more dependence on F-35 and F-22 teaming as the way forward.

“We have to have the F-35,” Welsh said at an Air & Space Conference in Washington this week. “It’s not intended to be an air superiority fighter; it was designed to be a complimentary fighter and to do the multi-purpose air-to-ground work while the F-22 did the air-to-air work. The F-22 buy was curtailed and now we don’t have enough F-22s to do large theatre operations in the air-to-air arena.

“We have to supplement them with something near-term and that’s going to be the F-15C – which is why we have to upgrade it with AESA radar and other things to be credible in that arena in the next 10 years.”

Welsh says relying more on the F-15C and F-35 is the “only practical solution” to maintaining dominance in air-to-air realm – not restarting F-22 production. Although, he admits the air force has a serious capacity problem, having slimmed down from 188 fighter squadrons at the end of the Cold War to just 49 squadrons in the current five-year plan.

Today, America has four active fighter production lines including the Boeing F-15, F/A-18 and Lockheed F-16 and F-35, however, all but the F-35 line will be shuttered by the end of the decade without additional domestic or international orders...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-15c-f-35-to-boost-us-air-to-air-capacity-not-mor-416863/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Cost challenges for Dutch:

Joint Strike Fighter jet cost could rise by €550 million

The purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter jets may be more than half a billion euros more expensive than expected. According to the new estimates, the project will cost over 5.2 billion euros, 550 million euros more than the previous estimate. Higher sales tax adds another 75 million euros.

Minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert wrote this in the budget for her ministry for next year, the Telegraaf reports. The cause of the price increase is the “substantially higher” dollar exchange rate.

The Minister wrote that the budget will not yet be adapted for the new estimate. “This would require abrupt, drastic measures, while it is uncertain whether it will ultimately be needed”, Hennis wrote. “Also because the devises in several tranches over a period of years. Both changes in the dollar exchange rate and in the price (in dollars) will affect the estimates in the coming years.”

The Netherlands wants to buy a total of 37 JSF’s to replace the F-16’s. The government reached what Hennis calls “the point of no return” earlier this year when the contract was signed for the purchase of the first eight jets. The first jet will be delivered in 2019. The new jets should be fully implemented in 2024.
http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/09/16/joint-strike-fighter-jet-cost-could-rise-by-e550-million/

 

Buy was originally supposed to be 85:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/dutch-fighter-f-idUSL5N0HD0RI20130917

Mark
Ottawa

 

[YZT580]

If I read what the generals are saying correctly, the F-35 is basically useless on its own for air superiority operations and we don't own raptors.  Would we be better off buying fewer and sinking the extra cash into purchasing a couple of squadrons of something (who knows) to provide air cover for the F35s while they do whatever it is they do so well? 

 

[SupersonicMax]

Just like the Hornet is useless for a pure air superiority mission.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Cost challenges for Dutch:

And maybe the Canadians?

Michael Byers: The F-35 is now unaffordable thanks to the low Canadian dollar

The Royal Canadian Air Force’s (RCAF) hoped-for-purchase of F-35 fighter jets has hit another obstacle, in the form of a Canadian dollar that has dropped 25 per cent against its U.S. counterpart since 2013. Another, less expensive, non-developmental plane will now need to be chosen to replace the three decade-old CF-18s.

(....)

DND also acknowledged that changes in the exchange rate were a “major, uncontrollable risk to the program cost estimate.” It went on to explain that an exchange rate of US$0.755 would raise the acquisition cost by approximately $1.7 billion and the sustainment cost by approximately $2.6 billion. Sustainment costs, incurred during major repairs and upgrades, are affected by the exchange rate because this work is conducted by the F-35’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, in the U.S.

By happenstance, the Canadian dollar has been hovering around US$0.755 for the last few weeks. This means that 65 F-35s would now cost $10.7 billion — well above the $9 billion acquisition cost limit set by the Harper government — and that the sustainment cost would now be $16.86 billion, up from $14.26 billion.

On the positive side, the operating cost for a fleet of F-35s has decreased by $1.15 billion (from $20.75 billion to $19.6 billion), due to a 30 percent drop in the cost of jet fuel since November 2014. According to DND, every 10 per cent reduction in the cost of fuel reduces the life-cycle operating cost by $382 million.

Here’s the bottom line: the total cost of the F-35 program is now $49 billion — an increase of $3.2 billion from the projections provided by KPMG in 2012 and DND in 2014. This includes all acquisition, sustainment and operating costs and assumes that development, disposal and attrition costs have not changed ....

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-byers-the-f-35-is-now-unaffordable-thanks-to-the-low-canadian-dollar

 

[Loachman]

So what "less expensive, non-developmental" aircraft are available at a less unfavourable exchange rate that meet requirements, don't incur any additional costs of integration that may result from purchasing a non-US machine, and will not require replacement half-way through the expected life of the F35 (which will probably still be in service a decade or two beyond current plans)?

And exchange rates constantly fluctuate. Plus, those companies in Canada who will be part of this programme will probably do even better if the US exchange rate is not in our favour.

Michael Byers is a twit.

 

[Kirkhill]

So a 30% increase in the cost of the platform results in a 6% increase in the Life Cycle Cost  -

Thank you to all of those who demanded Life Cycle Accounting -

30% will fall outside of any normal contingency plan.

6% will fall well within any normal contingency plan,  especially one base on accrual and a 40 or 50 year planning horizon.

Let's add on another 5 years of operational life and see what the impact of a 75 cent dollar is then.

Fun with numbers.  :facepalm:

That too, Loachman.

 

[Good2Golf]

Try it with a 65 cent Looine. 

Perhaps we'll wait for the US economy to thunder in a couple of years, then buy in and save billions on the exchange rate.

 

[OTR1]

If I read what the generals are saying correctly, the F-35 is basically useless on its own for air superiority operations.............

The FRS1 Sea Harrier that the Brits deployed to the Falklands was no more than a marinised GR3 Harrier - a bomber - with a radar that might charitably be described as limited in value and wired for two 9Ls.

From memory they splashed 23 bandits, and lost zero in air combat. The Argies were not short of supersonic thoroughbred fighters, either.

Just an opinion, but methinks any prospective bandits out there will face similar ends when they tango with F-35s.

Pretty sure the RCAF boffins, brass and desk wallahs know this.........

Probably likely that they hope and pray for some level-headed and nonpartisan leadership from Ottawa on this, too.

As for exchange rates, they are no more or less an issue now than before. Comes under the 'That's Life' banner, and people have to work around that.

Ho hum.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

And maybe the Canadians?

According to Michael Byers, buying a U.S. Built f35 would too expensive because of exchange rates...and goes on to suggest we should buy a different US made fighter (the super hornet) because its price would be somehow unaffected by exchange rates?  :

 

[PuckChaser]

So what "less expensive, non-developmental" aircraft are available at a less unfavourable exchange rate that meet requirements, don't incur any additional costs of integration that may result from purchasing a non-US machine, and will not require replacement half-way through the expected life of the F35 (which will probably still be in service a decade or two beyond current plans)?

And exchange rates constantly fluctuate. Plus, those companies in Canada who will be part of this programme will probably do even better if the US exchange rate is not in our favour.

Michael Byers is a twit.

We have an even worse exchange rate with the Euro. Maybe we can get some cheap Chinese or Russian fighters?

 

[CougarKing]

Maybe we can get some cheap Chinese or Russian fighters?

You mean the twin-engined Chinese copy of the F-35 called the J31?

 

[dimsum]

Just an opinion, but methinks any prospective bandits out there will face similar ends when they tango with F-35s.

Pretty sure the RCAF boffins, brass and desk wallahs know this.........

Probably likely that they hope and pray for some level-headed and nonpartisan leadership from Ottawa on this, too.

:rofl:

I don't think you understand just how partisan Canadian politics is, especially in matters of Defence. 

 

[George Wallace]

According to Michael Byers, buying a U.S. Built f35 would too expensive because of exchange rates...and goes on to suggest we should buy a different US made fighter (the super hornet) because its price would be somehow unaffected by exchange rates?  :

And he claims to be an "Intellectual".  I have some swamp prime land in Florida that is not affected by the Exchange Rate, if he would like to give me an offer.  The guy has lost what little credibility he may have possessed with that comment.

 

[Kirkhill]

:rofl:

I don't think you understand just how partisan Canadian politics is, especially in matters of Defence.

In Canada defence is governed by Sayre & Parkinson in accordance with the Murray codicile.