F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[MilEME09]

Jason Fekete's article fails to note, however, that Dassault has indicated a willingness to build any Rafale ordered entirely in Canada and with 100% technology transfer (Yes, for those who don't like it: In Quebec, which has 60% of Canada's total aerospace industry and 90% of all the airplane beginning-to-end construction industry).

This, if effected, would give both Canada and Dassault serious economic advantages: For Canada, the manpower and a lot of the parts would be built here, and therefore payable in Canadian dollars outside the vagaries of the dollar on the market. For Dassault, the coup of selling Rafales to another Western power would be a great marketing tool and, being able to build them in Canada would mean they could greatly reduce their cost per plane as compared to those assembled in France, a second bonus of international sales.

Part of me wants Dassault to win for this reason, right now it would have the greatest economic impact, and with a low loonie, Dassault would have less of an investment required on their part.

 

[PuckChaser]

The C model was flyaway ~$97M USD in 2013. That's $126.1M CAD, without inflation, plus the cost of the technology transfer, and the money we'll have to dump into Bombardier to retool an entire factory to produce the planes. We'd be lucky to get away with sub $180M CAD an airframe, and then we'd have a factory that would be shuttered as soon as the last one rolls off the line, because we'll be flying them for 40 years without ever replacing one.

Whatever we buy needs to be built off-shore. We will never, ever, buy enough aircraft over a sufficiently short timeline to justify maintaining a combat aircraft assembly line.

 

[Kirkhill]

The C model was flyaway ~$97M USD in 2013. That's $126.1M CAD, without inflation, plus the cost of the technology transfer, and the money we'll have to dump into Bombardier to retool an entire factory to produce the planes. We'd be lucky to get away with sub $180M CAD an airframe, and then we'd have a factory that would be shuttered as soon as the last one rolls off the line, because we'll be flying them for 40 years without ever replacing one.

Whatever we buy needs to be built off-shore. We will never, ever, buy enough aircraft over a sufficiently short timeline to justify maintaining a combat aircraft assembly line.

Seen that movie:

 

[a_majoor]

Given the reality of the aerospace industry and looking back on Mark Ottawa's article with timelines for closing various production lines, there is a huge risk the only "not F-35" airplane will be the Gripen.

Now it looks like there may be a potential lifeline (especially given the glacial speed of defense procurement in Canada): Korea.

Given the Koreans have the technical and management skills to have taken abandoned American initiatives to term (the K-2 tank fires munitions based on the US TERM (Tank Extended Range Munitions), the K-21 IFV is largely built out of composites and the K-11 Infantry weapon is the OCIW) on time and on budget, there is a very good chance this aircraft will be introduced when they say it will. And adding another 65+ aircraft to the production line will bring the unit costs down considerably, big bonus for us....

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/01/south-korea-starts-kf-x-project-to.html

South Korea starts KF-X project to develop indigenous next-generation stealth fighter

South Korea officially kicked off its ambitious KF-X project to develop indigenous next-generation fighter jets to defend it airspace within the next decade.

Despite setbacks last year in acquiring some key technologies for the fighters from the United States, the DAPA unveiled a detailed timeline for the project in cooperation with the Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI), the local aircraft manufacturer. KF-X stands for Korean Fighter Experimental.

“The KF-X project will take a leading role in the development of our aviation industry,” Chang Myoung-jin, head of the DAPA, said Thursday. “As requested by our Air Force, we will make all assurances that a fighter jet with superb capabilities can be deployed in a timely manner and develop a locally-made fighter jet that all Koreans can be proud of.”

In November, Indonesia’s government signed on to the project, agreeing to pay 20 percent of the total cost of development. It will participate in some designing and receive access to some technologies and a prototype.

The Korean government allocated some 8.5 trillion won ($6.67 billion) to develop indigenous mid-level fighter jets to replace the Air Force’s antiquated F-4 and F-5 aircraft. Another 9.6 trillion won is earmarked for the production of the 4.5th generation fighters, which are expected to outperform the KF-16-class fighters, bringing the total budget for the project to 18.1 trillion won.

KAI is expected to begin production of the KF-X in 2018, finish designing by September 2019 and come up with six prototype fighters by 2021, according to the DAPA. It will spend the next four years doing flight tests to complete development by 2026.

Once development is finalized, 120 fighter jets are expected to be built by 2032.

In September 2014, the Korean government signed a 7.34 trillion won deal with Lockheed Martin to buy 40 F-35A jets and receive technical support for Korea’s project to build its own next-generation fighter jet.

Korea initially asked for 25 technologies from the U.S. defense contractor. The DAPA belatedly admitted in September that Washington had rejected export licenses for four core technologies pertaining to its F-35 stealth fighter jets. There still are worries over whether the United States will transfer the remaining 21 technologies in a timely manner and some doubts whether the development and building of the fighter jets will be feasible within the tight timeframe of a little over 10 years.

 

[PuckChaser]

Gripen NG flyaway is $147M CAD with the dollar right now, its improvements over the standard model shot it up to 100M Swiss Francs.

F-35A at LRIP-8 (next one up) with engine is projected to be $108M USD, or $140.4M CAD at current currency levels. Are the Liberals going to push for an inferior aircraft for more money?

 

[GR66]

I'll preface this by saying that I have no knowledge or experience with aircraft production or maintenance.

If Dassault is offering full technological transfer as well as production in Canada it there any opportunity to turn this into something similar to what some people hoped the shipbuilding strategy would be in terms of industrial development for the aerospace industry?

I understand that the Rafale is in current production so would it be possible to get the first, small batch produced there to provide us aircraft for pilot and maintainer training, examination of our support infrastructure and training/experience for our Canadian industrial partners who could maybe be also be trained in the production techniques they will need.

Since follow-on production would be Canadian could we then purchase new aircraft in batches in such a way that we could keep the production line open for an extended period of time?  For example, purchase a squadron's worth over x-year production run...pause for re-tooling, etc. based on lessons learned in the first batch, maintenance on the original aircraft, incorporation of new technologies, etc....then order another batch...repeat.

I'm sure that it would make the unit cost per aircraft higher than purchasing offshore because of a lower rate of production, but it might ensure that we have ongoing access to new airframes over an extended operational life (which wouldn't be guaranteed if we went with the F-18s or F-15s or possibly even Gripens) since it is OUR production line.  Would the higher per-unit cost be offset by being able to spread out the purchase cost over a larger number of years and reduce the cost of mid-life upgrades by having each new batch incorporating the kind of improvements you'd need for an upgrade?

Curious about the other pitfalls of this approach?

 

[dimsum]

Gripen NG flyaway is $147M CAD with the dollar right now, its improvements over the standard model shot it up to 100M Swiss Francs.

F-35A at LRIP-8 (next one up) with engine is projected to be $108M USD, or $140.4M CAD at current currency levels. Are the Liberals going to push for an inferior aircraft for more money?

For political points and optics, since they campaigned hard on not allowing the F-35 in the race at all?  Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

 

[Ostrozac]

Are the Liberals going to push for an inferior aircraft for more money?

You know, if we threw an extra billion at Lockheed Martin, and asked politely, they would probably deliver the F-35 disassembled, and we could put them together with Canadian union labour. When we're at that point in ridiculousness, we may as well start assembling MiGs or Sukhois at the Dorval factory. It would be pointless, but at least we'd get a good deal. After all, the Ruble is tanking right alongside the Canadian dollar.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Slow production ramp-up until 2018:

Lockheed Martin Corp is expecting “additional production expansion” for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, Chief Executive Marillyn Hewson said on Tuesday [Jan. 26].

Hewson said in an earnings call she expected planned deliveries for 2016 to increase to 53 aircraft.

She said Lockheed was expecting 59 or 60 F-35 deliveries in 2017, rising to around 100 deliveries in 2018.

She added that Lockheed had achieved its goal of delivering 45 aircraft in 2015.
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-lockheed-f-idUSL2N15A1L6

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Journeyman]

..... we could put them together with Canadian union labour....using Ikea hex wrenches and indecipherable instructions.    ;D

 

[PuckChaser]

How do you think the Gripen's are made?

 

[a_majoor]

But shipping Gripens to theatre in flat boxes is so handy 

 

[Bearpaw]

More F-35 woes?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/f-35-stumbles-again-test-111500323.html

Bearpaw

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Isn't it just a matter of keeping your Kaspersky account current?  ;D

 

[MarkOttawa]

Pentagon bun-fight:

Opinion: F-35 Software Fixes Likely To Take Time
Lessons from JSF software glitches
Bill Sweetman

There are two levels of concern about the latest critical memo on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) from the Pentagon’s director of operational test and engineering (DOT&E), Michael Gilmore.
[Story here http://aviationweek.com/defense/testing-chief-warns-jsf-software-delays ]

The first is that it is time for the Defense Department to resolve the friction between the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) and DOT&E, which has now reached the status of public flaming. The second is the question of whether late and defective software is a feature, rather than a bug, of any defense system as complex as the JSF.

The JPO has responded in detail to the DOT&E’s report. It suggests that some of the problems are not as bad as Gilmore paints them, but that in some cases it is up to the customer whether to fix every bug. In the case of the interim Block 2B and 3i releases, that may not be a good use of time or money because they will not be around for long.

But there is an undercurrent of harsher criticism. A uniformed JPO manager retorted on the Defense News public Facebook page that the latest memo was “whining. Operational testing is a formality. Only the Kingdom of DOT&E cares—they have to feel important.”..

Essential JSF software runs on at least four platforms: the airplane; the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which is supposed to manage maintenance and support; reprogramming laboratories, which develop the mission data file (MDF) software that allows fused sensors to identify threats and targets; and simulators used for training and mission rehearsal.

All are functionally interlinked: ALIS and training devices need to reflect the configuration of the aircraft hardware and software on the ramp. Simulators and the airplane run on updated MDFs. The latter connection becomes crucial as air forces move toward live, virtual, constructive training, where pilots fly against synthetic threats and targets, because the MDFs determine how those objects are detected and displayed. All have suffered delays, according to Gilmore’s reports.

There is no end-state to development. The goal is to update the software on a two-year cycle, so there will usually be two standards in service at any one time in the U.S., plus customized MDFs for export customers [emphasis added].

Much of the software must be validated to a life-or-death level. Aircraft-borne code changes will require some level of regression testing (to ensure they don’t disrupt flight-critical functions). The intelligence that allows the system to distinguish a missile launcher from the village market bus resides in the MDFs...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-f-35-software-fixes-likely-take-time

Mark
Ottawa

 

[AlexanderM]

Anyone feel like Japanese?

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/01/28/japan-first-stealth-fighter-unveiled-x2-sdg-orig.cnn

 

[Kirkhill]

"There is no end-state to development."

Pugh's Wheel becomes Continuous Improvement.

 

[Bearpaw]

Perhaps a militarized version of these might take the dazzle off stealth:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/01/charles-bombardier-has-improved.html

On the other hand we should probably wait to buy the American castrated-version for our use.

Bearpaw

 

[RaceAddict]

Dutch Lightning Testers – Part 1

http://airheadsfly.com/2016/01/26/dutch-lightning-testers/

Some high praise in that article for the datalink capabilities of the JSF. It's nice to see someone not complaining about the program.

But did the Dutch F-35 pilots perhaps have a hard time ‘killing’ Dutch F-16s in simulated air combat manoeuvring (ACM) over Edwards? After all, the inability of a US F-35 to finish off a F-16 – either because it lacks sufficient maneuverability or thrust from its Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine – was much reported.

“The F-35 will have a large advantage going into the visual arena against fourth generation or aircraft like the Su-35, due to its advanced sensors, stealth and datalink capability and resulting increased situational awareness. We have already seen this during testing at Edwards”, says ‘Gladys’, one of the RNLAF pilots at Edwards.

The visual fight will most likely already be decided before the adversary knows it’s in a dogfight, continues Gladys. “Even so, slow-speed and high angle-of-attack performance is much better than many fourth generation fighters like the F-16. High angle of attack testing has been an eye-opener for previous F-16 pilots, who are not used to very good slow speed performance. Straight line acceleration is also much better. At higher speeds, the F-16 has the sustained turning advantage (as it does over many aircraft like the F-18), but only when fighting in training configurations without any missiles or bombs. When flying in combat configs, even the high speeds sustained fight becomes much closer.”

 

[AlexanderM]

Dutch Lightning Testers – Part 1

http://airheadsfly.com/2016/01/26/dutch-lightning-testers/

Some high praise in that article for the datalink capabilities of the JSF. It's nice to see someone not complaining about the program.

We should purchase 60-80 of the most advanced F-15's, then lease 24 F-35's, and use the F-35's to communicate with the F-15's making them that much more lethal. Of course with our budget it would be more like 40-60 F-15's and 16 F-35's. Note the difference between lease and purchase. Point being, how many F-35's does one need to take advantage of the sensors and datalink capabilities?