The F-35 Discussion Topic (No Holds Barred II)

Politics | Tue Sep 22, 2015 3:33pm EDT
Related: Politics
"Pentagon, Lockheed eye agreement on next F-35 contracts this fall"
FORT WORTH, Texas | By Andrea Shalal

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/22/us-lockheed-martin-fighter-idUSKCN0RM2D120150922

The U.S. Defense Department on Tuesday said it hopes to reach agreement this fall with Lockheed Martin Corp on contracts for the next two batches of F-35 fighter jets in a deal that could be worth $15 billion.

"We're still in negotiations," Frank Kendall, defense undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, told reporters after a ceremony marking the rollout of the first F-35 jet built for Norway. "I hope that they'll conclude by this fall."

Officials with Lockheed, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier, echoed Kendall's view that negotiations for 60 jets in the ninth batch of jets, and 100 jets in the 10th batch could be wrapped up a bit earlier than initially predicted.

Pentagon and Lockheed officials had previously said only that they hoped to reach a deal by the end of the year.

U.S. defense officials are in separate talks with Lockheed for the aircraft, and Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp, for the jet's F135 engines.

The department in November 2014 awarded Lockheed a contract valued at $4.7 billion for an eighth batch of F-35 fighter jets, a 43-jet deal that lowered the average price per jet by 3.5 percent from the last contract.

The government signed a separate contract valued at $1.05 billion for an eighth batch of engines built by Pratt & Whitney.

U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan said the failure of Congress to pass a budget for fiscal 2016, which begins Oct. 1, could result in a long-term resolution continuing spending at last year's levels, which would trim the Pentagon's planned F-35 purchase by 19 jets, 16 A-model jets and 3 B-model jets.

"Those airplanes are moving down the production line today, so if we’re not able to buy them in FY16, we'll have to do something to ensure that those airplanes eventually get bought," he said.

Kendall said a long-term continuing resolution would have a "very negative effect" on the F-35 program, which is just preparing for a major ramp up in production that the department is counting on to lower the cost of the new aircraft.

He said the department was looking at whether to hold off making some of the major commitments it planned in fiscal 2016 until the congressional budget issue was resolved.
 
"US officials: F-35 will outmatch any aircraft in development"
22 September, 2015 BY: James Drew Fort Worth

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-officials-f-35-will-outmatch-any-aircraft-in-dev-417067/

The Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer sees no aircraft in development anywhere today that would be “seriously competitive” against the Lockheed Martin F-35 in combat.

The fifth-generation multirole fighter has been in development for 14 years and the B-model has only just achieved operational status with the US Marine Corps, but the US military remains confident that it is still introducing a cutting-edge weapon system capable of outclassing even modern, supermanoeuvrable Russian and Chinese aircraft like the Sukhoi T-50 (PAK FA).

Speaking after the unveiling of Norway’s first F-35A in Fort Worth, Texas, Kendall and F-35 programme executive officer Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan expressed complete confidence in the aircraft’s capabilities.

“It’s the finest fighter airplane in the world and nothing compares to it,” Bogdan says. “I’d put this airplane up against any airplane in the world today, tomorrow and for the next 20 or 30 years and we’ll come out ahead.”

Bogdan was responding to a question about whether the F-35 could hold its own against the latest Russian jets, particularly the T-50 that will reportedly enter service in 2016 in a limited capacity.

“We don’t expect any airplane that’s currently in development to be seriously competitive with this airplane,” Kendall adds.

The comments come amid concerns about the jet’s manoeuvrability after it was outpaced during air force flight trials against a Lockheed F-16 earlier this year. Meanwhile, Russia and China have been hard at work on their own next-generation combat jets, particularly the Sukhoi Su-35 “4++ generation fighter” as well as the fifth-generation Russian T-50 and Chinese Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31.

Bodgan again took aim at those claims, saying the F-35 “can pull 9gs and can turn almost equal to our modern fighters” despite not being “uniquely designed” as a highly agile, dogfighting aircraft.

The programme chief insists the aircraft is designed for long-range kills, and can spot a potential combatant long before coming into visual range. “That dogfight is going to end very, very quickly,” he says.

Bogdan and Kendall’s confidence in the F-35 was seconded by Royal Norwegian Air Force chief of staff Maj Gen Per Egil Rygg, who is relying on the JSF to replace an aging fleet of F-16s.

Speaking to Flightglobal on the sidelines of the rollout, Rygg said Russia is going to need to think more carefully about pigging Norway’s airspace once the F-35 is on patrol.

“For us, the Russian activity is more of a routine,” he says. “We’ve done that [air interdiction mission] for years and years and they are fairly predictable. I think with the introduction of this capability, they will see we have quite a capability in the area and they will probably have to think about that.”
 
"Canadian Liberals Would Scrap F-35 Buy"
Bill Sweetman and Guy Norris | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Sep 21, 2015

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/canadian-liberals-would-scrap-f-35-buy

Weeks before the Oct. 19 Canadian federal election, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal party has committed to scrapping plans to buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighters to replace the air force’s CF-18 Hornets.

Instead, the party would launch a competition for a less expensive substitute, and eliminate “first-strike stealth” from its requirements, as part of a strategy that emphasizes air defense and maritime capabilities. This is the first such specific commitment from a major Canadian political party.

Election numbers and political predictions suggest there is a strong chance the fighter deal will be opened to competition, whether or not the F-35 is excluded. “One way or another, the F-35 in Canada is dead,” a Liberal politician with experience in fighter programs says.

Canada is one of the five largest potential and current F-35 export customers. JSF program office director Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan told the ComDef conference in Washington Sept. 9 that “you will not see a bomb-burst on my watch” — that is, program partners going their separate ways — so a Canadian competition would be a public blow to the effort. Conversely, it would be a major opportunity for rivals: “Everybody who isn’t Lockheed Martin is a bit thrilled today,” a Dassault representative says.

Recent polling shows all three major parties – the centrist Liberals, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s incumbent Conservative party and the left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) – running neck and neck, each within one or two points of 30% of the vote. Observers see the most likely result as an attempt by one party to form a minority government, but this has to be able to muster enough votes to pass a government, with a Liberal-NDP alliance being more likely than an Liberal-Conservative pact.

Canada is a partner in the F-35 program and a signatory to the 2006 production, sustainment and follow-on development agreement, but has not ordered any aircraft. The Harper government attempted in 2010 to procure the F-35 on a sole-source basis, but despite an absolute majority has been unable to because of pro-competition procurement laws and political opposition.

A 2012 report by Canada’s auditor-general challenged the Department of National Defense’s justification for an exemption to the laws, and the Harper government transferred authority for the fighter program to a special secretariat within the nation’s public works department. The New Democrats have consistently called for a competition.
 
As long as they get a seat on the front row on Day 1 I don't care what they buy. ;)
 
sferrin said:
As long as they get a seat on the front row on Day 1 I don't care what they buy. ;)
This really has nothing to do with the F-35 but opposition just being "Harper and the CPC like it so I don't" juvenile politics.
 
The National "The Super Hornet" CBC

Published on Feb 27, 2013

Terry Milewski gets exclusive access to the Super Hornet, a fighter jet that's said to be just as good as the F-35, but half the price.

https://youtu.be/VR8wxQrJwVM
 
More to do with Harper's amateurish attempts to bypass his own nation's laws with a bogus set of requirements.

Apparently the Cons weren't confident in the ability of their favorite jet to win a competition.
 
"F-35 - Runaway Fighter" - the fifth estate CBC

Published on Sep 2, 2014

It could yet prove to be the most expensive defense purchase in Canadian history -- $25 billion and counting. The military promises it's the best fighter jet available, but some critics are saying it's a turkey hatched from a bad idea: a do-it-all plane that might not do anything well-at-all.

https://youtu.be/RwA4RaaJSeI
 
LowObservable said:
More to do with Harper's amateurish attempts to bypass his own nation's laws with a bogus set of requirements.

Apparently the Cons weren't confident in the ability of their favorite jet to win a competition.

And the cost scandal...

"Auditor General Reveals Harper Cabinet Lied About Cost of F-35 Jets"

Published on Apr 5, 2012

On April 5, 2012, Auditor General of Canada Michael Ferguson tells reporters that the Harper Cabinet knew about major cost increases for F-35 jets it agreed to buy. Yet, for nearly two years, Harper and his Ministers lied about the cost to Parliament and the Canadian people.

https://youtu.be/IBZPZfYqxws
 
LowObservable said:
More to do with Harper's amateurish attempts to bypass his own nation's laws with a bogus set of requirements.

What was bogus about them? Specifically.
 
"AF Releases RFI for Re-Winging A-10s"
Sep 21, 2015 02:03 UTC

Source:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/af-releases-rfi-for-re-winging-a-10s-mdba-delivering-sea-ceptor-hardware-in-prep-for-camm-call-for-rn-to-open-competition-on-3-1b-maritime-patrol-contract-031078/


The Air Force released a Request for Information external link on Friday to identify potential industry sources for the re-winging of an unspecified number of A/OA-10A close air support aircraft. Over half of the A-10 Warthog fleet is already undergoing a re-winging program, with Boeing acting as prime contractor for 173 of the aircraft, with options for an additional 69. The RFI comes despite repeated calls by the Air Force’s top brass to retire the fleet early in order to free up money and resources. These calls have been blocked, with this latest RFI part of the A-10’s Thunderbolt Lifecycle Program Support (TLPS) program, intended to keep the aircraft flying until at least 2028 external link.
 
U.S. Refuses to Transfer Key Tech for Fighter Jet Project
22 Sep 2015 Jun Hyun-suk

"The U.S. has refused to transfer core technologies connected to the next-generation F-35 fighter jets to Korea, throwing plans to acquire 40 of them for the Air Force into disarray.

Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer, had agreed in negotiations in September last year to transfer the technologies to Korea. But U.S. government intervention means the entire project worth W20 trillion is up in the air (US$1=W1,177).

According to data New Politics Alliance for Democracy lawmaker Ahn Gyu-baek obtained from the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, the military signed the contract with Lockheed Martin last September to buy 40 F-35As for W7.34 trillion.

Lockheed Martin promised to provide Korea with technical assistance on 25 technologies, including the AESA radar. In the negotiations Lockheed Martin boasted that those technologies are worth several trillions of won.

The AESA is a state-of-the-art radar with electronic warfare capabilities that can search and track targets more quickly and precisely than other existing radars. Korea wanted to deploy the next-generation fighter jets warfare-ready by 2025 with these technologies on board.

But the U.S. government did not approve the transfer of four of the 25 technologies for security reasons. DAPA reportedly locked horns with Lockheed Martin over these technologies until the last moment of negotiations.

Despite Lockheed Martin's breach of contract, DAPA has no effective means of calling it to account. Instead, it has decided to develop two technologies -- the AESA radar and the infrared search and track sensor -- on its own and the others in cooperation with a European firm.

But Ahn said it is by no means certain DAPA will succeed, and even if it does there could be compatibility problems with the American equipment."

Source: http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2015/09/22/2015092201153.html
 
bobbymike said:
This really has nothing to do with the F-35 but opposition just being "Harper and the CPC like it so I don't" juvenile politics.

Truth!

1. The federal Liberals are promising to cancel the F-35 and invest in ships... or something (incidentally the last time they did this we ended up with "slightly used" British scrap).
2. Shipyards are concentrated in Atlantic Canada and to a lesser extent the west coast.
3. Three guesses where the federal Liberal parties strongest support base is.

If the Liberals get their way the F-35 will be sacrificed so the Liberals can stick it to mean old Mr. Harper, and serve up a big dollop of pork for their most loyal voters in the maritimes.
 
The only trouble is come 2020 when they get delivery, the F-35 is cheaper than the Rafale and Superhornet. apple for apple
 
Sferrin - The SoR included 28 "mandatory requirements", 25 of which could be met by any fighter on the market. The three others were an RCS standard (arbitrary, since it was not linked to measures of survivability), a directional datalink (again, not linked to any LPI criteria) and an infrared-based (low-light being excluded for no cited reason) all-round vision system.

Moreover, it was created between May 2010 (when the DND was told it could not use the "not in the public interest" escape clause to avoid a competition, and June 30 2010, when the final version was dated, around the time that DND announced it would use the "single qualified vendor" exemption. It is unarguable that the SoR was created to justify that position, which is why the DND worked very hard to keep it out of public circulation even though it contained no remotely sensitive information and was not classified.

BillG - If that's so, then no Canadian government will be politically able to reject it. So now's LockMart's chance to submit an offer with a firm, fixed procurement cost and guaranteed CPFH. Go for it!
 
All requirements are for all intents & purposes arbitrary.


Mach 1.6, 2.0, 2.5...


Same for range, g-pull, etc.
 
LowObservable- It may be not too far away. I understand JPO are going for a multi 3 year buy from 2018. That will need to be finalized soon, to have the long lead time items ordered.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/29/lockheed-fighter-idUSL1N0YK0QX20150529
 
BillG said:
The only trouble is come 2020 when they get delivery, the F-35 is cheaper than the Rafale and Superhornet. apple for apple


The price is never going to be that low for the F-35. Hell, we can't even get Pratt to reveal the powerplant costs. I know they've been saying $85 million flyaway costs, but they're at around $100 million now for the A variant without the engine and it's rumored to be in the $20 mill range for it's engine. That would mean they will be building the F-35 for $65 mill, less the engine? Yeah, I have a bridge to sell you.
 
"Marine defends decision to declare F-35 fighter operational"
by Marc Selinger
September 23, 2015

Source:
http://www.examiner.com/article/marine-defends-decision-to-declare-f-35-fighter-operational

The U.S. Marine Corps is pleased with how its new F-35B Lightning II fighter jet is performing almost two months after it declared the aircraft ready for combat, according to a key general.

The F-35B is “doing very well,” Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, the service’s deputy commandant for aviation, said Sept. 22 after speaking at the Modern Day Marine exposition in Quantico, Virginia.

The Marines are gearing up to use the stealthy, short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing aircraft in a major training exercise this winter at Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in California, Davis said. In addition, the service is getting ready to stand up its second F-35B squadron in June.

A recently disclosed report by the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation questions whether the Marines conducted enough real-world-like testing before announcing July 31 that the F-35B had achieved its initial operational capability (IOC) with a 10-jet squadron based in Yuma, Ariz. But Davis insisted that the testing, which included flights in May from the aircraft carrier-like USS Wasp amphibious assault ship, was more than adequate. “We got all of our data points and then some,” Davis said. “We got everything done that we wanted to get done out there.”

One of the report’s specific criticisms is that the Lockheed Martin-built F-35B was not tested as part of a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) that includes various other aircraft. Davis countered that such testing was not required to achieve IOC. “We’re not scheduled to deploy as a MEU until 2018,” Davis said. “But we could deploy as an F-35B carrier based on what we learned out there.”
 
SpudmanWP said:
All requirements are for all intents & purposes arbitrary.

Mach 1.6, 2.0, 2.5...

Same for range, g-pull, etc.


I give the AF more credit than that. Numerous operational analysis modeling tools are available to assess mission effectiveness and perform requirements generation at the conceptual level. You can trade air vehicle characteristics in various threat scenarios and see how well the notional configuration does.
AFRL certainly has these tools, so do all the primes.
One example is Suppressor, which I hear is being supplanted by this.


Whether the final requirements are actually derived that way, or overruled by someone who thinks he knows better, i don't know. That's always a possibility!
 
I know that there are a lot of tools to analyze aspects & benefits of features.


LO was just pointing to the requirements that are F-35 specific (for the time being) and claiming they were added for the sole purpose of excluding all other fighters & did not have supporting info.


Somehow I believe that even if they provided detailed info on how each feature added to the survivability, effectiveness, and cost structure of the requirement that he would still have a problem with it.
 
SpudmanWP said:
I know that there are a lot of tools to analyze aspects & benefits of features.


LO was just point to the requirements that are F-35 specific (for the time being) and claiming they were added for the sole purpose of excluding all other fighters & did not have supporting info.

I wonder if he'd have felt the same if the criteria contained, "Mach 2, and 60,000ft ceiling", and consider them equally "bogus".
 
Spud - First, when 25 mandatory requirements could be met by an F-16 and three can only be met by one aircraft, I would not call that indicative of a disciplined requirements process.

Second, I suggest you read the auditor-general's report. The timeline is compelling.


Sferrin - If the unique mandatory requirements were Mach 2, supercruise and 65,000 feet it would be equally apparent that the fix was in. Now present a real-world case where that happened.
 
LowObservable said:
Spud - First, when 25 mandatory requirements could be met by an F-16 and three can only be met by one aircraft, I would not call that indicative of a disciplined requirements process.

Second, I suggest you read the auditor-general's report. The timeline is compelling.


Sferrin - If the unique mandatory requirements were Mach 2, supercruise and 65,000 feet it would be equally apparent that the fix was in. Now present a real-world case where that happened.

" The three others were an RCS standard (arbitrary, since it was not linked to measures of survivability), a directional datalink (again, not linked to any LPI criteria) and an infrared-based (low-light being excluded for no cited reason) all-round vision system."

I'd agree that the all-around vision system, and to a lessor degree the directional data link, raise an eyebrow, but if the customer is looking for a stealth aircraft one really can't complain when they specify a low RCS. If they changed the criteria after the bids were in that's one thing, but if they were looking for a stealth aircraft from the start. . .*shrugs* Personally, if I were Canada and could pick whatever I wanted, I'd pick Mig-31s or F-15SGs.
 
The directional datalink is there specifically due to the low RCS requirements.


With a low RCS, one of the ways that your adversary will be looking for you is passive EW. If you used a omnidirectional datalink like Link-16, then you would be severely putting yourself at risk of detection. With SA being an ever-increasingly important aspect of planning & prosecuting an attack, the need to freely share info is paramount to your success in the mission.
 
LowObservable said:
three can only be met by one aircraft, I would not call that indicative of a disciplined requirements process.


So... either the requirements need to be met by multiple existing aircraft or none at all?
 
"Replacement for F-16: Belgian industries conclude initial agreements with US Lockheed Martin"
Thursday, 17 September 2015 19:50

Source:
http://brusselstimes.com/business/4102/replacement-for-f-16-belgian-industries-conclude-initial-agreements-with-us-lockheed-martin

The American defence industry giant Lockheed Martin, builder of F-35 fighters, the American company Esterline, and four Belgian companies - Esterline Belgium (formerly Barco), Sonaca, Sabca, and Ilias Solutions - signed a memorandum of understanding this Thursday in Brussels.
It assumes the founding of “industrial partnerships” with a market share of several billion euros with the stated goal of replacing Belgium’s ageing F-16, although the Belgian government has not as yet requested any offset agreements which could be linked to this new “contract of the century.”

According to the American aircraft manufacturer, “this Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) demonstrates Lockheed Martin's interest to explore every opportunity for industrial cooperation in the areas of advanced defence technologies, aerospace industry, IT, and security.” “This MoU encompasses all the industrial partnership possibilities that Lockheed Martin might pursue in Belgium” should the F-35 “Lightning” be chosen by the federal government, the group added in a statement.

Jack Crisler, the Lockheed Vice President for “strategic development” of the F-35, has stressed in his speech to the Belgian press that at this stage the Belgian government has not yet expressed the need to formulate the economic consequences of the expected purchase of “thirty to forty” - according to informed sources - new fighter-bombers. "But this is very likely” as the time to make a decision gets closer, he predicted.
 
Did you read the auditor-general's report? Are you aware of the 2008 requirements process, which found that there were multiple aircraft capable of meeting Canada's requirements? Come back when you have informed yourself.
 
Link?


Are you talking about the Spring 2012 one?
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201204_02_e_36466.html

Recommendation


2.77 Recommendation. National Defence should refine its estimates for complete costs related to the full life cycle of the F-35 capability, and provide complete estimated costs and the supporting assumptions as soon as possible. Furthermore, National Defence should regularly provide the actual complete costs incurred throughout the full life cycle of the F-35 capability.


The Department’s response. Agreed. National Defence will continue to refine its full life-cycle cost estimates for the F-35 capability and commits to making the estimates and actual costs of the F-35 available to the public.


Conclusion


2.78 The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program is unique. In this context, National Defence, as the lead department, exercised due diligence in managing Canada’s participation in the Program. National Defence managed industrial participation well (together with Industry Canada), identified and communicated risks and mitigation strategies related to JSF Program participation, and assessed options before signing the 2006 memorandum of understanding (MOU), committing Canada to the third phase of the JSF Program (production, sustainment, and follow-on development.) However, National Defence did not fully inform decision makers of the implications of participation in the JSF Program for the acquisition process. In some cases, documented analysis did not exist to support decisions.


2.79 Industry Canada exercised due diligence in managing Canada’s industrial participation in the JSF Program. In partnership with National Defence, Industry Canada worked to secure industrial participation.


2.80 National Defence did not exercise due diligence in managing the process to replace the CF-18 jets. National Defence did not appropriately consult Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) on the procurement implications of the 2006 MOU for the third phase of the JSF Program or develop an appropriate plan for managing the unique aspects of the acquisition. Problems relating to development of the F-35 were not fully communicated to decision makers, and risks presented to decision makers did not reflect the problems the JSF Program was experiencing at the time. Full life-cycle costs were understated in the estimates provided to support the government’s 2010 decision to buy the F-35. Some costs were not fully provided to parliamentarians. There was a lack of timely and complete documentation to support the procurement strategy decision.


2.81 PWGSC did not demonstrate due diligence in its role as the government’s procurement authority. Although it was not engaged by National Defence until late in the decision-making process, PWGSC relied almost exclusively on assertions by National Defence and endorsed the sole-source procurement strategy in the absence of required documentation and completed analysis.


2.82 Both National Defence and Public Works and Government Services Canada disagree with our conclusion that they did not demonstrate due diligence in their respective roles in the replacement of the CF-18 jets. The departments believe that the level of due diligence was appropriate within the time frame covered by this audit.


2.83 Procuring developmental equipment can bring unique risks and challenges. In our opinion, the experience with the acquisition of the F-35 has potential lessons for development and acquisition of other military equipment. In this context, while National Defence did several things well, we have described several concerns in the chapter. We do not believe a recommendation based on these concerns is required, given that best practices and policies governing these areas are sufficient.


Funny how an open competition is not in the recommendations and the worst of the conclusions is that two departments involved did not talk enough to each other.
 
Business | Wed Sep 23, 2015 4:00pm EDT
Related: Aerospace & Defense
"U.S. Navy's F-35 test to include new helmet, full weapons load"
FORT WORTH, Texas | By Andrea Shalal

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/23/us-lockheed-fighter-navy-idUSKCN0RN27F20150923

The U.S. Navy's next round of carrier testing of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35C stealth fighter jet will include new helmets and jets fully loaded with internal weapons, a company official told Reuters.

During the tests, scheduled for the first two weeks of October, two F-35s will also test the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS), an all-weather, GPS-guided landing system being designed by Raytheon Co (RTN.N), Lockheed's F-35 program manager, Lorraine Martin, said in an interview. She spoke after a ceremony for the rollout of the first of the 52 F-35s that Norway will buy.

Martin said the second round of testing is a milestone for the jet, which has wider wings than Air Force and Marine Corps versions, holds more fuel, and is designed to be catapulted off the deck of an aircraft carrier, and then land, using a special hook and heavy arresting gear.

"We're really pleased with the momentum that we've got with the Navy," she said. "If you talk to the Navy's aviators, they know the aircraft has incredible importance for their ability to do what they need to do from the ship around the world."

Lockheed is building three models of the supersonic jet for the U.S. military and nine other countries: Britain, Australia, Norway, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Israel, Japan and South Korea. Denmark and Canada are also considering orders.

The Pentagon plans to spend $391 billion to develop and produce 2,457 planes over the next few decades.

Total procurement is now slated to reach 3,150, but could rise, Martin told reporters this week.

She said the U.S. government is providing information about the aircraft to other countries, identified by sources familiar with the program as Singapore, Belgium, Switzerland, Poland, Finland and Spain.

The U.S. Marine Corps in July became the first service to declare an initial squadron of its F-35B jets ready for combat, with the Air Force due to follow suit next August.

The U.S. Navy, which carried out the first round of at-sea testing on the USS Nimitz last November, plans to have an initial squadron of jets ready for combat by late 2018 or early 2019.

Martin said the jets' performance during the first round of carrier testing had helped build confidence in the program.

This time, one Lockheed and three government pilots will be using the jet's improved Generation-3 helmet, which is already being used for testing on land. They will fly with a full store of internal weapons and full fuel tanks to test the jet's performance at higher weights. There are no plans to fire the weapons, officials said.

U.S. defense officials said the tests would also include catapult takeoffs with after-burner power, more night approaches and landings, engine runs for maintainers and other parameters aimed at creating conditions that are more similar to combat.

They said the tests would not include a portable version of the F-35's complex, computer-based logistics system, with the data required to be relayed via communications links instead.
 
She is pleased with the momentum they have with the Navy. Good on her.


This would clearly not be the same Navy that's contemplating a 12-per-year production rate in the 2020s.
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/09/23/the_f-35s_biggest_threat_108500.html
 
"Pentagon Sees F-35 Having Air Superiority For 30 Years"
Excerpt from Aviation Week // September 23, 2015

Source:
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/pentagon-sees-f-35-having-air-superiority-for-30-years

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will maintain the lead in air superiority over all comers for the next 20 to 30 years despite aggressive efforts emerging from new fighter technology in China, Russia and elsewhere, program officials claim.

Making one of the boldest statements in defense of the F-35 since the leaking of a critical air combat report in July that noted maneuvering shortfalls against an F-16, JSF program executive officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan says “nothing compares to it. I’d put this airplane up against any airplane in the world today, tomorrow and for the next 20 or 30 years and we will come out ahead.”

Answering questions about the expected combat capability of the F-35 against aircraft like Russia’s fifth-generation Sukhoi T-50 (PAK FA) fighter, Bogdan says the JSF “is a very good dogfighting aircraft. It can pull 9g and turn almost equal to our modern fighters. But that’s not what it was uniquely designed to do. When two aircraft meet at the ‘merge’ in a visual engagement, this aircraft will have so many ‘smarts’ before you get there. And it will probably know about the other aircraft long before [the adversary] knows about it. The dogfight will end quickly, if it happens at all.”
 
Sundog said:
BillG said:
The only trouble is come 2020 when they get delivery, the F-35 is cheaper than the Rafale and Superhornet. apple for apple
The price is never going to be that low for the F-35. Hell, we can't even get Pratt to reveal the powerplant costs. I know they've been saying $85 million flyaway costs, but they're at around $100 million now for the A variant without the engine and it's rumored to be in the $20 mill range for it's engine. That would mean they will be building the F-35 for $65 mill, less the engine? Yeah, I have a bridge to sell you.

It's not that hard to work out the powerplant costs / get the figures with the engine.

For LRIP 8, the cost of an F-35 without an engine was:
A = $94.8 million
B = $102.0 million
C = $115.7 million

With an engine, the F-35 costs:
A = $108 million
B = $134 million
C = $129 million

Therefore, the cost of the powerplants are approximately:
F135-PW-100 (A) = $13.2 million
F135-PW-600 (B) = $32.0 million
F135-PW-400 (C) = $13.3 million
 
"Lockheed Martin: Norway F-35 Rollout Celebration"

Streamed live on Sep 22, 2015

Lockheed Martin: Norway F-35 Rollout Celebration

https://youtu.be/sWMiNqIyVEg


"Norway's First F-35 Unveiled"

Published on Sep 23, 2015

On Tuesday, Sept. 22, officials from Norway, the U.S. government and Lockheed Martin gathered in Fort Worth, Texas, to celebrate the rollout of Norway's first F-35A. The ceremony marked an important production milestone for the F-35 program and the future of Norway's national defense. Learn more: http://bit.ly/1Kyrvp4

https://youtu.be/pUF37lY7mg4
 
Posted : 2015-09-23 17:15
Updated : 2015-09-23 19:22

"DAPA under fire over F-35 deal"
by Jun Ji-hye

Source:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2015/09/116_187448.html

The state-run arms procurement agency is drawing fire for allegedly lying about the terms of a contract on the transfer of technologies in a 7.3 trillion won deal to purchase 40 F-35 stealth fighters.

When the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) signed the deal with Lockheed Martin in September last year, it said it would receive 25 core technologies from the U.S. firm, along with the aircraft, and use them to develop indigenous fighter jets.

However, it admitted Tuesday that it could not receive four of the technologies because the U.S. government did not allow Lockheed to transfer them.

It is alleged that DAPA was already aware during price negotiations with the U.S. firm that the transfer of the four was unlikely.

Additionally, the transfer was not included in the official terms of the contract as Lockheed just promised to seek government approval for it under the offset agreement.

During a National Assembly audit session Tuesday, lawmakers charged that the agency therefore lied about the contract.

Rep. Moon Jae-in, chairman of the main opposition New Politics Alliance for Democracy (NPAD), said, "The military has constantly said Korea will be handed over key technologies from the U.S. through the offset deal in the F-35 contract, and these will be used in the KF-X program. Is the U.S. breaking a contract, or is the military lying?"

Later, DAPA said the U.S. decision was not a breach of contract.

The NAPD's Rep. Ahn Gyu-baek said the failure to receive the technologies will deal a setback to Korea's project to develop its own fighter jets, which is expected to cost 8.5 trillion won, to be deployed from 2025.

DAPA said Lockheed refused to include the four technologies in the contract from the beginning, citing Washington's security policies.

The four technologies are the multifunction, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, infrared search and track (IRST), electronic optics targeting pod (EOTGP) and RF jammer.

The change in DAPA's position after a year showed that the agency exaggerated the transfers and the effect although it already knew that the U.S. government would not approve the export of the four core technologies.

Ahn called on the military to ask the U.S. firm to pay compensation, saying DAPA and the Air Force have dealt with the F-35 and KF-X projects too negligently.

In response, a DAPA official said on the condition of anonymity, "We will push for cooperation with other foreign firms in developing AESA radar and IRST technologies, and will autonomously develop EOTGPs and RF jammers.

He said, "We expect the U.S. government to approve the export of the remaining 21 technologies in November."

But Ahn remained skeptical, saying "The approval of the export of the 21 technologies has also been delayed."

He said Lockheed was supposed to seek government approval by May to export them.
 
Triton said:
"Pentagon Sees F-35 Having Air Superiority For 30 Years"
Excerpt from Aviation Week // September 23, 2015

That's a really bold statement from JSF program and, to a degree, is at odds with other USAF procurement and service life extension decisions. If true, it would mean that air warfare has taken a permanent and very strange direction. Not in the direction of high-speed fighters nor the direction of VLO missile trucks, but something which has the airframe of a high-speed fighter, without the speed, and the missile truck role, without the VLO aspects and payload. I don't see how this can be true unless adversaries have no money to spend on new fighters.

I guess the publicity push for the program is in full speed before the production ramp-up funding requests.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom