F-35 Lightning II (2) testing and production thread

reply to post by waynos


damm right its political.
still sooking over the tanker desicion

More news on the IG front of BAE and the fact that it may be a US based problem not anything related to the head office from what I can gather.

The DoD inspector general (IG) found no evidence of any compromise. However, it found that processes used by its own investigative agency - the Defense Security Service (DSS) - were inadequate to determine whether security procedures devised by BAE Systems' US subsidiary were sufficiently robust.

www.flightglobal.com...

Still leaves me a bit befuddled on my they are still talking about this in public. I understand being accountable but like this is some either tattling on someone else or people who can't even agree on a good story for both sides before throwing crap at each other.

Found a nice little interview and video done by the Dallas news on the F-35 and production etc in the plant. Enjoy!

Looks like we are looking at a "delay" of another year for the F-35 program. The "delay" is actually the lengthening of the SDD phase so as to be sure all is well. Here is what Aviation Week reported.

The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Executive Steering Board meeting in Amsterdam on April 22 has discussed the possibility of extending the JSF system development and demonstration (SDD) program by one year to late 2014, according to Dutch state secretary for defense procurement Jack de Vries.

A decision on this is expected in the fall, he further said. Such an extension also would lead to a longer initial operational test and evaluation program, now scheduled to last from 2011-2014.

At this point all information is coming from the Dutch but I'm sure we will see news of this more so in the coming months. Be safe I say but this could also hurt them in the long run. I think its a semi none issue as people lives are more important just sucks that they have fallen behind.

As for the operating cost, De Vries said the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) used “incomparable” sets of cost figures for the F-16 and the F-35, leading to a distorted outcome. “The F-35 will not be more expensive to operate than the F-16,” De Vries said. He also said GAO’s findings are based on the U.S. maintenance, infrastructure, training and logistic support structure, which would be different from that used by the Netherlands.

De Vries wrote that he plans to use both Pratt & Whitney’s F135 and GE/Rolls-Royce’s F136 engine on the two F-35A aircraft that the Dutch plan to order in 2009 and 2010 to take part in F-35 initial operational test and evaluation. This is to be able to compare the operational performance, maintainability and supportability of both types to make an informed engine choice for series production, he said.

To say it simply De Vries is giving a voice of reason that has been so lacking in this program. His smart move of actually looking at the numbers for the operating the plane and seeing through smoke as well as testing both powerplants is all smart moves.

My only request now is that the freaking Canadian government would open their mouths to try and talk about how the DND is finding dealing with the possibilities of this plane which many have just assumed will replace the CF-188s.

shame that but get it right the first time i say

hope there is no panic from participating countries.

reply to post by Jezza


If you where going to see it then you already would of. In the long run this one year thins is small compared to price tags and engine issues. A year yeah its a problem but its probably not even a full year and the expanded testing is a catch 22 right.

The cost/complexity spiral threatens the viability of the USAF as a persistent global force.

King for a day, and I'd spend 200 billion marked for JSF procurement and buy 100 USAF modified P-8's @ 250 million per

25 billion

2250 F-18E's @ 55 million per

125 billion

364 F-22 Raptors @ 137 million per

50 billion


550 total Raptors is more like it, 100 P-8's would prolong the life of the strategic bomber fleet, and 2250 F-18's is a lot of capable birds in the sky. If I thought there was a chance in hell the F-35 program is going to deliver 2200 planes for 200 billion, I would be ok with the purchase. It ain't gonna happen.

I'd like to hear someone explain how F-35's will be cheaper in 10 years than an F-15K is now. *Beating dead horse*

I've seen three references now that the Canadians are lowering the expected unit buy to 65 (from 80)...

This will be the first aircraft to use satellite communication links for web based logistical support, thus integrating the craft into the US Militaries Net-Centric warfare model.

Web-based logistics is good, but being too dependent on satellites for this would be a bad idea. Satellites can be knocked out of the sky with Lasers.

reply to post by _Del_


Can you link to any of them Del? Personally that 60 number is an issue for me since the plane is less capable with the single powerplant and the fact that we originally bought 138 CF-188s and now we are buying half that for the next gen? sorry the plane isn't that revolutionary.
Mind you only 80 CF-188s where modernized but still why not the extra 20. Personally I feel like Canada is getting the crap deal here with also the fact that we don't ever talk about our purchases but love to complain about 30-40 year old SeaKings. Most Canadians don't give a flying (fillin blank) about the military until the stuff is so old it kills someone.

reply to post by Canada_EH


here mate
link
Bloomberg is reporting that Canada has trimmed its requirement for new fighters to 65 aircraft from 80 - presumed to be F-35s because of the country's involvement in the JSF development program. The new number, still unconfirmed, is attributed to defense minister Peter Mackay, speaking at a press conference in Halifax on May 12 after Prime Minister Stephen Harper had unveiled the government's new Canada First defense strategy.
Harper's announcement contained little in the way of new detail about the strategy, which is built around a long-term funding plan calling for an automatic annual increase in defence spending from the current 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent, beginning in 2011-12. This is expected to provide the Canadian Forces with an additional C$12 billion over the next 20 years, on top of the extra C$5.3 billion over five years provided by the Conservatives since they took power in 2006.
The money will go on readiness, recruitment and re-equipment - most of the major acquisitions having already been announced, including four C-17 strategic airlifters, 17 C-130J tactical transports, and 16 CH-47 heavylift helicopters, plus new tanks, trucks and ships. Under Canada First, according to the Harper announcement, Ottawa will proceed with the replacement of "surface combat ships, maritime patrol craft, fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft, fighter aircraft, and land combat vehicles and systems".

and for australia it looks ok
THE cost of the RAAF's F-35 joint strike fighter has jumped by 37 per cent in real terms since 2001 but not enough to jeopardise Australia's most expensive defence purchase, according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

Despite the blowout in cost, the RAAF's budget for the JSF should still allow the planned purchase of 100 aircraft at a total project cost of $12.3billion, the institute says.

The author of the ASPI study, Andrew Davies, told The Australian: "It's on track for the acquisition of 100 aircraft, if that's what we decide we want. The air force appears to have enough money to fulfil the plans."

The higher Australian dollar means that if an order were placed today, the JSF would cost less per aircraft than its original estimate in 2002, when Australia decided to join the program. At the current exchange rate, buying 100 JSFs would cost about $11.9 billion - well within the RAAF's indicative budget of about $13.5 billion.
link

reply to post by Canada_EH


Somebody beat me to it. A quote I saw said they don't need as many because the F-35 is so much more capable. There are a tons of reasons this isn't really true, but I won't comment on the procurement practice of the Canadian armed forces.

reply to post by _Del_


On no please do this is the place for it lol.
What better example in the making then this program?

I tend to get long winded on these things, so I'll try to keep it short The very short version would be that you have a lot of land (well, sky) to cover and the fewer aircraft make it harder to project force at a single point, while still being responsible for the rest of the map.
Every aircraft you lose in an accident will leave a bigger mark on force strength.
While the capability of the JSF would be higher than the current a/c if it meets all it's objectives, there is no reason to think a potential opponents defensive capabilities will remain stagnant in that time frame.

That's the short version...

I'm going to have to reply soon enough to your last post there Del but I just wanted to post a link up here for an awesome interview done with Lockheed Test Pilot Jon Beesley.
Just him talking about some of his favorite aircraft and experiences. Everyone should really check it out.

link.brightcove.com...

Well lots of news to go over.

Flight Global has an article out today outlining the first foreign contract for production work to be done for the F-35 line as well as confirmation on the dropping of the Canadian Forces requested/planed planes by 15.

www.flightglobal.com...

Lockheed will receive $197 million to acquire long-lead materials for 18 new aircraft, the DoD says, with these comprising eight conventional take-off and landing F-35As for the US Air Force, eight short take-off and vertical landing F-35Bs for the US Marine Corps and two F-35Bs for the UK Ministry of Defence.

A good sign but not really a true showing to say that they are completely on target which can be expected since they only have 1 test aircraft up in the air at this point (BF-1 should be up any day now though).

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, briefing reporters on Ottawa's new defence strategy on 12 May, said his government has reduced its planned purchase from 80 fighters to 65. Canada is buying the F-35A to replace about 130 Boeing CF-18s, 80 of which are now being modernised. The F-35's greater capabilities will allow the government to reduce its planned order by a sixth, he added.

Pfft so yeah there is some B.S. in there but it does confirm the reduced numbers mentioned and supported in the thread. Also the 130 number while correct was the total number bought at the start. The CFs have been operating with around 80 aircraft for the past 10 years. Our timeline isn't as tight as say the RAFs but we do have to look forward which at least show improvement even if the aircraft in my opinion isn't what we need.

And finally a bit of double talk that I'm sure the Aussies will be "happy" with.

Lockheed, however, has publicly guaranteed Norway a unit non-recurring flyaway price of $56 million, using current dollars, while Australian newspapers quoted Lockheed officials guaranteeing a unit flyaway cost of $62 million.

Doesn't make much sense to me....?!?!

[edit on 16-5-2008 by Canada_EH]

Does 'non-recurring' equate to that old standby of the salesman; "If you buy from me today I can do you a special price"?

reply to post by waynos


It sounds like it eh? I was out with the parents last night helpin them look for a new car and yeah now that you mention it that phrasing seems some how familiar.

You agree though waynos that the UK is in a tougher spot when it comes to this whole timeline deally?

Yes, its been apparent for some time that the IOC date for the Lightning is beyond the projected EOL (End Of Life) date for the Tornado and Harrier fleet - and getting further away all the time.

I did a post, possibly over a year ago now, about the 'bomber gap'. I'll see if I can dig it out

edit; Here it is, and it was TWO years ago

The reason for the post was the removal of the Jaguar from service and the extra burden placed on those aircraft that remained, however I did also 'build in' an F-35 delay into my estimates as it was only to be expected.

[edit on 16-5-2008 by waynos]