F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Haletown]

the 65 x F-35's will actually do a lot more than the current CF-18 fleet because of the additional missions it can fly like ISR & EW.

Nice to know the F-35 Test Program is working and producing the results needed to move on from LRIP.  That finding engineering and technical issues is normal in aviation seems to be lost on the aviation ignorati that we hear from regularly.

Good balanced view here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/25/us-usa-defense-fighter-idUSTRE7AO1AT20111125

 

[Good2Golf]

No.  Based on current estimates, if the Hornets cost $X to operate, the costs over 20 years of flying the F-35 will be 20 times $X plus $7B.

Is there any Departmental information stating definitively that the $7B in-service support Vote 1 monies associates with the NGFC/F-35 project is INCREMENTAL to existing fighter force Vote 1 National Procurement/ISS resource levels?

Looking at the RPP 2011-2012 Planned Departmental Spending figures for Aerospace Readiness of $2.33B for 2011/2012, decreasing slightly to just below $2.0B for following years, a "guesstimate" of approximately 40% of Aerospace Readiness going towards the overall CF188 capability (O&M and ISS/NP) would equate to an existing $0.8B annual cost.  If that estimate is "retained" over the future 20-year period, it alone would result in the accounting capture of $16B of equivalent existing CF188 readiness and maintenance costs.

Two extremes in potential budgetting exist for F-35 20-year life-cycle costs, then: a) $7B is entirely incremental, or b) $7B is a complete subset of the anticipated future expenditures of $16B (est.) for the in-service support plan (ISSP).

a) results in $32B (CY - current year) for a 20-year NGFC programme costs of [$9B capital acquisition, $16B baseline ISSP, $7B incremental F-35 related ISSP], or

b) results in $25B (CY) for 20 years of F-35 . [$9B capital acquisition, $16B ISSP ($7B of which has been pre-identified as being required by F-35)]

My "non-fighter guy" gut feel looking at other program numbers is that the F-35 program does have some ISS-related "overlap" with the current CF188 ISSP, so the numbers would come in somewhere between those extremes, likely in the $28-30B range over the 20-year period.

:2c:

Regards,
G2G

 

[aesop081]

  That finding engineering and technical issues is normal in aviation

Of course it is normal. Thats not the key issue. Finding significant issues with an aircraft in LRIP has significant implications for long-term full production. As G2G said, it may end up being more cost effective to scrap LRIP lots after FP starts but if the changes are that significant, the redesign would add extensive delays to FP aircraft.

The recent rounds of structural issues with the F-35 are a direct result of the weight-shedding program that had to be implemented a while back.

aviation ignorati

A group which i am not a member of.

 

[Kirkhill]

.....

It should be interesting to see what the Auditor General would say, a few years down the road, about other Canadian Forces aircraft capital projects that have programmed a relatively robust flight test program prior to final production configuration?

......

Whatever was done, it will have been wrong.  >

Happy auditors are scarce.

 

[Good2Golf]

Whatever was done, it will have been wrong.  >

Happy auditors are scarce.

They do have a job to do, and the taxpayer in me understand that and actually appreciates it.  I've worked with the AG's folks on a number of occasions and I must say that the folks were nothing but professional.  They provided me numerous opportunities to confirm that they were getting the gist of what I was describing.  In my experience, when they report on things, the issues that are brought up are more often than not, very valid.  if anything, the weakest points in most AG reports is getting the detailed context right that, realistically, only those folks deeply involved in a project may ever see -- what that means though, is that the AG and their team often gets the perspective that captures the intent of the regulations that should ensure accountability and appropriate use of funds on behalf of the taxpayers, and that's what should be #1.

Regards
G2G

 

[Haletown]

The recent rounds of structural issues with the F-35 are a direct result of the weight-shedding program that had to be implemented a while back.

Haven't heard that . . . do you have a source for that claim?

 

[aesop081]

Haven't heard that . . . do you have a source for that claim?

I'll try and find it again, i have it in paper form somewhere here at home. I can't recall the actual numbers but the F-35 design had to shed weight a few years back. My contention is that this has resulted in the structural issues ( some at least) we are seeing today.

 

[cupper]

I'll try and find it again, i have it in paper form somewhere here at home. I can't recall the actual numbers but the F-35 design had to shed weight a few years back. My contention is that this has resulted in the structural issues ( some at least) we are seeing today.

I seem to recall seeing or hearing something along those lines as well.

 

[Haletown]

Wouldn't be surprised if someone somewhere made the claim.

All aircraft design is a weight/strength tradeoff.  Can't recall a plane that hasn't been initially over design weight and lots of very successful aircraft have had fatigue or cracks or whatever.

Nothing to worry about . . .  been there done that.

It will be such a wonderful day when there are CF-35 squadrons lined up on Canadian ramps.

The RCAF is getting close to being modernized.  130J's, C17's, new Chinooks, new maritime choppers, updated patrol aircraft . . hopefully the FWSAR decision soon.

 

[aesop081]

All aircraft design is a weight/strength tradeoff. 

Yes, i know. I'm a fair bit past "aviation 101".

 

[Haletown]

Good thread on the topic over at F16 net

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16493-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-0.html

 

[Haletown]

and another view . . .

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2011/12/f-35-and-crackpots-of-doom.html

Don't know what the heck is happening . . . . 

 

[a_majoor]

Regardless of what we might like or not, if the F-35 or CF-35 are cancelled, we will be in a world of hurt.

My idea of a plan "B" or "C" would be to get two seat "Super Hornets" but outfit the backseat for controlling swarms of UAV's, UCAV's and drones like the MALD. Aircraft like the X 47 and X-45 can deal with the actual penetratiomn and striking of targets, while the MALDs provide the distraction.

The main reason I see the Super Hornet as the control aircraft is it is also fast and manoueverable enough to evade attempts to down it (and it can also fight back when needed), unlike a large AWACS type platform, and being close to the swarm, can have better situational awareness than a controller in a remote location like Nevada or (say) Cold Lake operating through a satellite link.

 

[WingsofFury]

I'll try and find it again, i have it in paper form somewhere here at home. I can't recall the actual numbers but the F-35 design had to shed weight a few years back. My contention is that this has resulted in the structural issues ( some at least) we are seeing today.

The F-35B STOVL variant was in danger of missing performance requirements in 2004 because it weighed too much – reportedly, by 2,200 pounds (1,000 kg) or 8 percent. In response, Lockheed Martin added engine thrust and thinned airframe members; reduced the size of the common weapons bay and vertical stabilizers; re-routed some thrust from the roll-post outlets to the main nozzle; and redesigned the wing-mate joint, portions of the electrical system, and the portion of the aircraft immediately behind the cockpit. Many of the changes were applied to all three variants to maintain high levels of commonality. By September 2004, the weight reduction effort had reduced the aircraft's design weight by 2,700 pounds (1,200 kg).

Pretty interesting article on the entire weight loss matter here.

 

[a_majoor]

The competing Boeing XF-32 also failed the STOVOL tests due to being somewhat overweight.

It is too bad Boeing did not continue to run a parallel program even after the competition was lost (looking to capitalize on foreign sales, perhaps), a working F-32 would provide some choices and flexibility for the world's air forces today. Plan "E" might be to ask the Phantom Works to produce 65 F-32's as a batch production run (similar in manner to the way the F-117 was produced). The F-117 was produced on time and under budget, very surprising considering the experimental nature of the entire aircraft, so there is a precedent to go by.

 

[FoverF]

The competing Boeing XF-32 also failed the STOVOL tests due to being somewhat overweight.

It is too bad Boeing did not continue to run a parallel program even after the competition was lost (looking to capitalize on foreign sales, perhaps), a working F-32 would provide some choices and flexibility for the world's air forces today. Plan "E" might be to ask the Phantom Works to produce 65 F-32's as a batch production run (similar in manner to the way the F-117 was produced). The F-117 was produced on time and under budget, very surprising considering the experimental nature of the entire aircraft, so there is a precedent to go by.

The F-117 was produced in complete secrecy, without government supervision, without political imperatives to use certain suppliers,  no industrial regional offset benefit packages, and using unlicensed technology from their competitors.

Canada?

Canada can't even get an off-the-shelf aircraft on-time and on-budget.

 

[WingsofFury]

Canada can't even get an off-the-shelf aircraft on-time and on-budget.

These don't count?

CC-177
CC-130J

 

[Good2Golf]

These don't count?

CC-177
CC-130J

...don't forget CT144C's (CL-604) as well.

 

[dapaterson]

To be fair, the CC-177 wasn't on budget.






It was under budget.

 

[WingsofFury]

Hot off the press...

The 21 A variants - the first in the LRIP 5 batch - will cost approx. $126M a copy and are expected to be completed in January 2014.

Lockheed Gets $4 Billion for 30 F-35s

The Pentagon just gave Lockheed Martin a $4 billion contract for 30 early production model F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. The batch of planes, officially known as Low Rate Initial Production lot-5 (LRIP-5), was originally supposed to include 35 jets. However, the Pentagon cut the deal to 30 aircraft due to cost increases and delays in the fighter’s development program.

The Air Force gets 21 F-35As, the Navy gets six F-35C carrier variant jets and the Marines will get three F-35B short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) jets.

http://defensetech.org/2011/12/09/lockheed-gets-4-billion-for-30-f-35s/

EDIT  - I put $26M/copy, should have been $126/copy.