F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[The Bread Guy]

Some AUS media coverage coming out of Minister MacKay's visit there:

Australia and Canada share a common concern that the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will be delayed, possibly requiring acquisition of an expensive interim air combat capability.

To present a united front, Australia and Canada will now conduct top level talks on procurement and capability issues of mutual concern.

As well as JSF, that will also touch on submarines, with both Australia and Canada experiencing big problems on maintaining submarine capability.

Visiting Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Canada wasn't backing away from plans to acquire 65 JSF aircraft but shared all of the same concerns as Australia.

He said the good news was that the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant of JSF, to be acquired by both Canada and Australia, was progressing well, unlike the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) and carrier variants.

"We are purchasing them at a time when they will be in peak production around 2014-15. Our fleet of F-18 Hornets will have to be taken out of use in 2017," he told reporters.

"So there is a degree of urgency for us when it comes to this procurement being on time and being on cost."

Australia is considering acquiring up to 100 JSF aircraft but has so far contracted to buy just 14, with the first to be delivered in 2015. Decision time on the next tranche of 58 will come in 2012-13.

The JSF has faced steady criticism that it will be late and too expensive and won't deliver the promised level of capability.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith said he and Mr MacKay had agreed to conduct a regular strategic dialogue on shared procurement, acquisition, capability issues.

He said he was very concerned that delay in JSF meant it was rubbing up against the Australian schedule for retiring older F/A-18 Hornets around the end of the decade.

"I have always been of the view that this project will get up because the US is absolutely committed to the capability," he said.

"But the risk for Australia and other partners like Canada is on the delivery side, on the schedule side and also on the cost side." ....

Australian Associated Press, 12 Sept 11

 

[Haletown]

Interesting . . .  over at the F-16.Net thread on the F-35 . . .  looks like the PR guys are working overtime to make the CF-35 procurement folks look like they don't know what they are doing.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-13143-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-75.html

Scroll the last entry and read on. 


OR    . . .    maybe it is some slick Canuck camo paint job like the fake cockpit on our Hornets??  ;D

 

[WingsofFury]

Meanwhile, work on making the Super Hornet more F-35 like entered the stealth design phase over the weekend at NAS Oceana.  Sadly, the best tests occurred on rainy days but the afterburners provided an easy target for any heat seeking ordnance.

(Not photoshopped - it really was this crappy at NAS Oceana last weekend)

 

[PMedMoe]

That is one cool shot!  :nod:

 

[WingsofFury]

Lockheed Martin still confirming $65M per plane

F-35 jet a bargain at $65M?

It includes quotes from Senator McCain from back in May and makes no reference to the flight testing which has been underway during the summer months which show system progression.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Lockheed Martin still confirming $65M per plane

F-35 jet a bargain at $65M?

It includes quotes from Senator McCain from back in May and makes no reference to the flight testing which has been underway during the summer months which show system progression.

Versus the company's estimates elsewhere, from a different VP:

The F-35s in low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 4 are expected to exceed their contracted cost target, but fall below the negotiated ceiling price, says Tom Burbage, vice president of F-35 program integration for Lockheed Martin .... The LRIP 4 per-unit cost targets are as follows: $111.6 million (CAD$ 117.7M) for the conventional takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) version; $109.4 million (CAD$ 115.4M) for the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) aircraft; $142.9 (CAD$ 150.7M) for the first production carrier variant (CV) ....

Canadian dollar prices calculated via xe.com just before posting here.

 

[WingsofFury]

Thanks for sharing that piece - tough to keep track of all the new ones coming out.

Quoted from the above:

Though final estimates are not yet in, Burbage says the company is already working to reduce the cost of these LRIP 4 units. “Everybody is actually feeling reasonably good about it,” he says. “It doesn’t mean that we aren’t going to have any overruns, but it is within the bounds of being manageable.”

Is it just me or has anyone, in any article written, noted that the cost per unit isn't what the government is focused on?  Instead it is the $9B for 65 airframes with the mods and spares included in that round figure?

Based on the above noted price of $111.6M per airframe, Canada's $9B could buy 80 aircraft without the modifications and spares, et cetera (not that we would) so I think it is very reasonable that our purchase will end up buying 65 at that price thus leaving us with roughly $1.8B to spend on the mods, training, and armament.

 

[Haletown]

The F-35 Test Program continues to make remarkable progress and is now ahead of schedule. 

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/10/video-f-35b-completes-first-sh.html


The LIRP-4 aircraft are coming in at a lower than expected cost and the projections for the the price the government forecast look more and more accurate.

Certain parties will continue to slag the program. They will take every piece of news that can be twisted and distorted and twist and distort it. They will not explain that all aircraft development programs have issues and problems, that resolving them is normal and the process is designed to find shortcomings and fix them. 

But I digress.  Canada is in line to receive a remarkable aircraft of extraordinary capabilities that will serve our pilots, the RCAF and  Canada very, very well for 30-40 years.  In a world growing more unstable by the day, with economic, religious and historical grievances being torqued by opportunistic politicians and vested interest groups,  Canada needs to equip its Armed Forces with top of the line equipment.  We have started to do so - acquiring C-17's, Leo2's, M-777's are all steps in the right direction. So is the F-35.  The Navy needs to be re-built next and we'll see what happens in the near future with the announcements about the national shipbuilding program. 

Fingers crossed.

It will be a great day when the first CF-35A is in service. 

 

[Larkvall]

It will be a great day when the first CF-35A is in service.

My gut still tells me we are going to get screwed on this one.

 

[The Bread Guy]

My gut still tells me we are going to get screwed on this one.

Glad to be wrong, and I'm far from a tech SME, but that's my gut so far, too.

 

[Kirkhill]

I come down on Haletown's side of the argument.

Every technical project goes through its development phase - often called commissioning when you are building one-offs.  I have never yet seen a plant work as intended on the day it is commissioned.  The commissioning effort is intended to ensure the plant (or aircraft) is brought up to the contracted standard.

I believe that in the past the F35 would have been "commissioned" with a larger number of "prototype" aircraft that would never make it into squadron service.  Those costs would have been "lost" in the sense that they resulted in no "deliverables".  Deliverables being things that the silly buggers in the accounting department can count (and weigh).  Ideas, concepts, solutions and other engineering artifacts have no value because they can't be weighed.....but I digress.  In the F35 case almost every "prototype" is being salvaged and modified to the current standard and will eventually enter squadron service.

The Spitfire was fielded in over 24 variants.  If the F35 were fielded in the manner the Spitfire was we would already have aircraft flying but in a dozen or so variants with pilots cursing some and singing the praises of others while the mechanics regretted that their mothers' bore them.

This project is progressing as all projects do, to the consternation of those that believe that life can be defined by process.  A flyable aircraft at a reasonable cost will result..... If only because Lockheed wants the spare parts business for the next 100 years.

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... I believe that in the past the F35 would have been "commissioned" with a larger number of "prototype" aircraft that would never make it into squadron service.  Those costs would have been "lost" in the sense that they resulted in no "deliverables".  Deliverables being things that the silly buggers in the accounting department can count (and weigh).  Ideas, concepts, solutions and other engineering artifacts have no value because they can't be weighed.....but I digress.  In the F35 case almost every "prototype" is being salvaged and modified to the current standard and will eventually enter squadron service.

The Spitfire was fielded in over 24 variants.  If the F35 were fielded in the manner the Spitfire was we would already have aircraft flying but in a dozen or so variants with pilots cursing some and singing the praises of others while the mechanics regretted that their mothers' bore them ....

Never heard it put quite like that before - thanks.

 

[Larkvall]

My biggest concern with this program is the US's looming deficit/budget crisis. If they start cutting back on the number of planes the cost is going will go up.

 

[Haletown]

Speaking of development difficulties . . .  guess the airplane . . .


A static wing test wing failed 22% below requirements – both wings were totally destroyed. 
In current dollars it cost about $250 million to totally redesign the wing.
The aircraft  project was many years late and far over budget. Congress tried repeatedly to kill it.
The LRIP aircraft did not meet weight, fuel burn, payload and range specifications.
There were technical problems with mission software and landing gear.
A  GAO report revealed that while the original budget was $X billion for 210 aircraft, the 120 aircraft already ordered at that point had already cost almost $X billion, almost doubling the original unit cost.

 

[trampbike]

Speaking of development difficulties . . .  guess the airplane . . .

I'm going for... the F-18!

 

[Haletown]

I'm going for... the F-18!

No . . . but it is an aircraft that has been or is in service with the CAF/RCAF

 

[Container]

Globemaster?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Globemaster?

:+1:

 

[Haletown]

Globemaster?

BINGO !!  The CC-177 it is.

So when you read all the F-35 bad press and hear all the fear mongering from critics and opposition members, remember that vested interests are at play. 

Crap happens when you build complex technological systems.  It all doesn't go right the first time out of the box.  And yet the CC-177 is a superb aircraft and a great addition to the RCAF.

So will the F-35 be a great addition to the RCAF.


Now if they could just fix the pictures at http://f-35.ca/ . . .  they have the gun blister on the correct/ port side now but they have left off the "Canada" part below the cockpit glass.

Sooner or later they'll get it right 8)

 

[The Bread Guy]

..... in the House of Commons (the Minister, in response to an NDP question in the House) .....

These aircraft, as the House will know, will replace our aging CF-18 fleet of fighter jets. These aircraft, like other aircraft, have served our country extremely well. They are used in Libya today. They have been used in previous missions, but that they aging. As a matter of course we are taking the responsible step of following a procurement process that has been in place for a significant period of time in which a number of countries are participating …. We committed $9 billion for the replacement of the CF-18. In fact, it not only includes the cost of the aircraft, this will include: spares, weapons systems, infrastructure and training simulators as well as the contingency associated with this important procurement. We are purchasing the most cost-effective variant at the prime of peak production when the costs will be at their lowest. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer has admitted to that. Why are the NDP members constantly against getting the best equipment for the best forces in the world?

..... and on TV (this time, the Associate Minister of Defence on the price and costs):

An overall $9 billion cost estimate is more honest than relying on individual plane costs, says the minister handling the purchase of Canada’s new fighter jets. Despite a promise by manufacturer Lockheed Martin that Canada will get its F-35 fighter jets at a cost of $65 million each, Julian Fantino, Associate Minister of National Defence, says the government’s overall $9 billion estimate is the more honest number. The cost of the F-35 depends on the number of planes ordered by other countries, as well as on how early Canada wants to get its order. The manufacturing cost goes down as more planes come off the assembly line, with Canada expecting the U.S. to absorb the bulk of the F-35′s development costs. “There are just so many variables, and that’s why I think the more honest, ethical response to all these issues is the $9 billion figure, which in fact will be the ceiling that Canada will be investing in these particular aircraft,” Fantino told Evan Solomon, host of CBC’s Power & Politics ….