F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[WingsofFury]

F-35B refuels from a KC-130J successfully.  Hopefully there won't be a problem when they install the probes on the A variant and then they'll be able to tank off the current Herc and Polaris tankers in the RCAF fleet.

Photo: First U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Joint Strike Fighters perform aerial refueling from KC-130J

On Oct. 2, two U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Joint Strike Fighters conducted the first aerial refueling with a KC-130J Hercules in the sky above Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.

The aircraft involved in the air-to-air refuel operations belonged to the Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501, from Eglin, whereas the tanker was a KC-130J from Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 252, based out of Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, N.C.

Photos at the link ->  http://theaviationist.com/2012/10/04/f35b-aar/

 

[Haletown]

De-spinning the numbers    . . .  an interesting read.

" So let’s analyze where the cost estimates came from, starting with the acquisition cost — the cost to design, develop, test and produce 2,443 planes in multiple variants for three different military services.

It’s true that the defense department’s official estimate of what the price-tag will be to acquire the F-35 program of record has risen from an original baseline of $177 billion to $331 billion in fiscal 2012 dollars, but it isn’t true that most of the increase is due to screw-ups by the prime contractor.  The contractor is responsible for about 40% of the increase, resulting mainly from the need to change the original design in response to excessive weight and other problems encountered in development.

But 25% of the increase is traceable to changes in the way the government projects future costs in a program where the vast preponderance of acquisition costs still lie in the future.  Even though prime contractor Lockheed Martin has delivered each production lot to date at a lower unit cost than the government predicted, the official “parametric cost estimates” are grounded in experience from legacy programs that does not match up well with the actual F-35 experience.

Another 22% of the cost increase has resulted from delays in development of the F135 engine that will power the fighter.  The engine is provided to the prime contractor as “government-furnished equipment” and thus its part of the cost increases can’t be blamed on Lockheed Martin.  And then there are the spare parts and so-called non-recurring items the government simply forgot to include in its original cost estimates; those account for 7% of the increased costs.  An added 4% of cost increases result from growth in the scope of the development program at the behest of the government, and additional costs for war reserve spare parts.

In other words, most of the increases in the acquisition cost of the F-35 have nothing to do with the performance of the prime contractor.  And at least a third of the increases were caused by choices the government made in calculating the cost — estimating methodology, overlooked items, increases in scope, etc.  Lockheed Martin certainly made its contribution to the increases, but the reflex of politicians and pundits to blame the prime contractor for rising costs misses most of what is going on in terms of the acquisition price-tag.

As for the trillion-dollar estimate for operating the F-35 during its years of active service, that number is ridiculously misleading.  For starters, the government decided to provide a “then-year” estimate, which means it had to undertake the heroic task of estimating what the inflation rate would be for every year between now and 2065.  Most of the trillion-dollar support bill is nothing more than imaginary inflation estimates that are unprovable and tell us nothing about the program’s claim on military buying power.

When you remove the effects of inflation and examine the cost of operations and sustainment in deflated base-year dollars, it magically collapses to about $417 billion (something like half a trillion in today’s dollars).  That’s still a 170% increase from the original estimate for support costs, but if you then pick apart why the increase has occurred, it turns out only about a fifth of it is caused by program growth arising from items like projected labor costs.  All the rest results from changes in the scope of the program or the rules the government used to estimate costs.

For instance, it decided to calculate costs over 50 years rather than 30 — something it has never done before in an aircraft program — and that increased the support cost estimate by $19 billion (in 2002 dollars).  It expanded the number of operating bases and training centers from the original baseline, which increased the estimate by $15 billion.  It decided to include the cost of midlife capability upgrades, a factor never included in cost estimates for previous programs, which added $28 billion to the calculation.

The bottom line is that half of the entire cost now attributed to the F-35 program for lifetime operations and sustainment is the result of changes made by the government since its inception in how estimates should be calculated and what the scope of the program should be.  I don’t mean half of the increase, I mean half of the whole cost.  Few of these changes are attributable to mis-steps by the prime contractor.  The government simply decided to do its estimates differently."

rtr  http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2012/10/15/super-weapon-why-have-f-35-fighter-costs-increased/

 

[Haletown]

first airborne F35A JDAM release . . . some interesting background info about the meticulous level of the testing program.

http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/2012/10/video-f-35a-drops-2000-pound-jdam/



That plane will look so much better in an RCAF color scheme  :nod:

 

[Haletown]

JSF Program  - Current Status

F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts
October 15, 2012
Program Status

 Cumulative flight test activity totals for 2012 as of October 10, are provided below:
o F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) jets have flown 404 times.
o F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft have completed 327 flights.
o F-35C carrier variant (CV) jets have flown 207 times.
 Since December 2006, F-35s have flown 3,043 times and accrued more than 4,808 cumulative flight hours. This total includes 91 flights from the original test aircraft, AA-1; 2,366 SDD test flights; and 586 production-model flights. For video highlights of the F-35 program, click here
.
 On September 4, the Edwards Air Force Base team launched six aircraft (AF-1, 2, 7 and 3 chase) to the Sea Test Range with tanker for three separate missions.
 On September 6, AF-6 conducted the first flight using ALIS 1.0.3 release.
 On September 11, BF-5 flew the first Block 2A maturity flight to support LRIP 4 flight clearance.
 September 11-12, BF-3 flew two flights with the modified weapon bay flipper door with results indicating reduced loads.
 On September 12, five jets at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., (PAX) – BF-2, 3, 4, 5 and CF-2 – were airborne at the same time.
 On September 13, CTOL achieved 2,000 flight hours.
 On September 20, STOVL aircraft achieved 900 flights.
 On September 27, BF-15 ferried to Eglin Air Force Base from Fort Worth, marking the 20th jet at the base.
 On October 2, KC-130J refueling training began at Eglin AFB.
 On October 3, STOVL variant achieved 350 vertical landings to date.
 On October 4, BF-17 ferried to PAX.
 On October 11, the CV variant achieved 400 flights to date.

F-35 Fleet Status
F-35 Deliveries
 37 F-35s have been delivered to the Department of Defense:
o 12 System Development and Demonstration (SDD) aircraft
o 25 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) aircraft, including two international F-35s
 This includes 3 LRIP aircraft that have completed DD250 at Fort Worth

System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Fleet
 14 F-35s comprise the SDD test fleet. There are six F-35As assigned to Edwards AFB, Calif., and five F-35Bs along with three F-35Cs stationed at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.

Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Aircraft
 There are 20 LRIP F-35s based at Eglin AFB, Fla.
 There are two LRIP F-35s based at Edwards AFB, Calif.
 There are eight LRIP F-35s undergoing checkout flights at the F-35 production facility in Fort Worth, Texas.

Funding
 Long-lead funding approved for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) lot 5 and an undefinitized contract action (UCA) was signed on Dec. 9, 2011(approx. 30 aircraft)
 Full funding approved for LRIP lot 4 (31 aircraft)
 Full funding approved for LRIP lot 3 (17 aircraft)
 Full funding approved for LRIP lot 2 (12 aircraft)
 Full funding approved for LRIP lot 1 (2 aircraft)

Steady progress, no surprises, knocking off the test points.  A very sad day at CBC HQ.

http://f-35.ca/2012/f-35-program-update-and-fast-facts-october-15-2012/

 

[Retired AF Guy]

This article from the National Defence University gives a pretty good explanation of the F-35s capabilities and how its introduction will change air warfare. Re-produced under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act.

The F-35 and the Future of Power Projection

By Robbin F. Laird and Edward T. Timperlake

The F-35 is called a joint strike fighter (JSF), and its ability to work with, leverage, and enhance the capability of power projection forces is at the heart of the next 20 years of rebuilding U.S. and allied forces. The “geriatric condition” of U.S. forces and the past 10 years of ground combat in faraway areas make it clear that a fundamental reconstruction is required. Yet much of the discussion inside the Beltway treats the F-35 as if it were simply a tactical aircraft replacement for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps fleets. It is really a “flying combat system” rather than a tactical aircraft, which allows the United States and its allies to look at power projection in a very different way.1 It also allows the United States and its allies to get the best value out of their forces.

The F-35 will replace multiple aircraft in the fleet, and by so doing, it will create significant economies of scale and savings. The aircraft is 80 percent common across the fleet, and savings come from software commonality, new approaches to digital maintenance, and flight-line enhancements and improvements. Possibly the F-35’s most important capability is its ability to combine information with Aegis systems and other command and control systems operated by allies worldwide. This sharing capability will not only enhance combat capability but also dramatically change the way the United States can work with its allies. This article discusses several aspects of the change, which is disruptive in nature. If the culture of thinking about combat does not change, and we think of this as the next iteration of what the Services will have for combat aircraft, the entire revolution will be missed.

The rest of the article is here.

 

[Kirkhill]

So the JSF is a "Universal Fighter".

Perhaps it needs a "Universal Soldier" to support.  ???

 

[Haletown]

So the JSF is a "Universal Fighter".

Perhaps it needs a "Universal Soldier" to support.  ???

Hmmmmmm  "Universal Soldier" . . . maybe we could write a song with that title.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Perhaps it needs a "Universal Soldier" to support.  ???

I thought we already had those, we just call them Combat Engineers  >

 

[Haletown]

Oh this is gonna hurt the peace at any price folks over at the ReeDoh Institute for the Military and Aviation Challenged.

Ditto for the  fear mongering fools the CBC puts on TV in their anti JSF Crusade programming.  I am sure full apologies will be forthcoming from the usual suspects and experts who are so eager and available to get in print and on TV when they have bad news to flog.

"Lockheed is on track to hit its target unit "flyaway" cost, excluding development, of $67 million in fiscal 2012 dollars by 2018,"

$67 mil . . .  maybe we should buy another 20 aircraft . . .  we can afford them now  ;D



www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/lockheed-fighter-idUSL1E8LOJXR20121024?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologySector


Also, a good summary and some valid input to the A2A refueling debate from a very well qualified ex RCAF zoomie.

http://f-35.ca/2012/flying-the-f-35-canadian-defence-review-october-2012/

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

Definitely good news overall.  Lets hope there aren't any unforeseen issues that pop their ugly head up.

 

[Haletown]

It is a LM press release so those white specs falling off the paper are grains of salt. 


But even if they came in somewhat above this price point, say $80m each, it would still be  a far cry from the $150 - $200m per plane price points thrown around by many critics.

Good news for the RCAF.

 

[dapaterson]

One needs to be careful - some critics are including other GFE in their price points, such as engines.

The biggest problem with most debates on this (and most other military purchases) is that everyone seems to use their own costing methodology; of course the numbers don't add up and don't compare if you're not even using the same numbers to begin with...

 

[HB_Pencil]

First off I'm dubious about the LM figures, its more a positive press release and alot of their statements are "best case scenarios." I doubt they will hit $67 million in 2018. Based on the SAR and other calculations I suspect the cost point they cite will emerge 2020~2021. This assumes they will avoid the persistent 10% cost overruns the LRIP lots seem to be suffering. This is also in FY2002 baseline. Canada uses FY2008.

One needs to be careful - some critics are including other GFE in their price points, such as engines.

The biggest problem with most debates on this (and most other military purchases) is that everyone seems to use their own costing methodology; of course the numbers don't add up and don't compare if you're not even using the same numbers to begin with...

Their claim should include engines. I think the best resource to get away from this is to use the US budget data or the DoD's Selected Acquisition review. This whole KPMG fiasco basically is just having the firm check the US government's figures, and its pretty certain they will say that the Government of Canada's figures are basically right.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Is anyone else embarrassed over this F35 business?

 

[HB_Pencil]

Is anyone else embarrassed over this F35 business?

I'm embarrassed by our media and the political debate. The level of misinformation that has been put out is staggering, which has completely misrepresented key facts in order to win political points at the expense of the Canadian Forces and the our aerospace industry.

 

[Haletown]

I'm embarrassed by our media and the political debate. The level of misinformation that has been put out is staggering, which has completely misrepresented key facts in order to win political points at the expense of the Canadian Forces and the our aerospace industry.

Precisely.
 

 

[MarkOttawa]

Note considerable reduction in numbers:

"Dutch should go ahead with F-35 test project-report

The Netherlands should go ahead with participating in the F-35 fighter test programme because pulling out at this stage would incur substantial costs, a government think-tank [no, AG counterpart] said.

But the Court of Audit report stopped short of recommending whether it thought the Netherlands should stay in the whole F-35 project - which is controversial because of cost overruns and delays - or opt for a different type of plane...

Outgoing Defence Minister Hans Hillen welcomed most of the report's conclusions and said in a statement 56 F-35 planes were sufficient to meet the Netherlands' air force operations.

The Netherlands has 68 F-16 planes and Hillen said in April he would buy fewer than the originally planned 85 F-35s."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/dutch-fighter-f-idUSL5E8LO8P320121024

Mark
Ottawa

 

[HB_Pencil]

Note considerable reduction in numbers:

"Dutch should go ahead with F-35 test project-report

The Netherlands should go ahead with participating in the F-35 fighter test programme because pulling out at this stage would incur substantial costs, a government think-tank [no, AG counterpart] said.

But the Court of Audit report stopped short of recommending whether it thought the Netherlands should stay in the whole F-35 project - which is controversial because of cost overruns and delays - or opt for a different type of plane...

Outgoing Defence Minister Hans Hillen welcomed most of the report's conclusions and said in a statement 56 F-35 planes were sufficient to meet the Netherlands' air force operations.

The Netherlands has 68 F-16 planes and Hillen said in April he would buy fewer than the originally planned 85 F-35s."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/dutch-fighter-f-idUSL5E8LO8P320121024

Mark
Ottawa

The Dutch have for some time they would not have afforded 85 and signaled that it would be at most 68, maybe less. And a potential loss of 11 units spread over 5 years when over 130~150 are being produced per year isn't much of a reduction at all. Furthermore, after 2020~2022, the F-35 should have exhausted most of the potential cost savings from labour efficiencies. This means that a cut of this type will have a negligible effect on the actual costs.

Moreover the think tank was fairly positive about the F-35 as their mainline fighter. Basically it recommended that unless the RNLAF reconsiders their operational criteria, they should remain with the F-35.

 

[MarkOttawa]

The Dutch reduction of planned F-35s is 29 (85 to 56), some 35%.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[HB_Pencil]

The Dutch reduction of planned F-35s is 29 (85 to 56), some 35%.

Mark
Ottawa

I was in the process of editing my response. However the Dutch has said for over a year or two that they weren't going with 85, particularly since they have only 68 F-16s and feel comfortable with that level of capability. Having less F-35s was a long time coming for a variety of reasons, including overall budget cuts and the realization they could get away with less fighters because of the new aircraft's higher operational availability than their current F-16s. They also might purchase more in future years.