Further delays in US F-35 testing schedule

[MarkOttawa]

From AW&ST:

F-35 Replan Adds Time, Resources For Testing
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?topicName=Check6&id=news/awst/2011/02/07/AW_02_07_2011_p25-287076.xml&headline=F-35%20Replan%20Adds%20Time,%20Resources%20For%20Testing&channel=&from=topicalreports

Details of the revamped F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program are emerging and showing that, despite more than nine years of work, almost six years of challenging development and testing still lie ahead for the Lockheed Martin-led project.

Both flight testing and software development have been replanned using industry-standard productivity rates rather than the aggressive—and unachievable—assumptions on which the original program was built. This means many more sorties to refly flight-sciences test points and for regression testing of mission-system software changes.

The replan adds 2,000 flights to the program—for a total of 7,800, just 600 of which have been completed—and extends development testing to October 2016. In addition to more refly and regression flights, the new plan adds sorties for test-pilot training and builds in a 500-flight margin for unexpected flight-sciences and mission-system issues.

For the mission system, the replan means more software development engineers, more integration laboratory capacity—and more time. The final software standard, Block 3C, is scheduled to be released to flight test in June 2015. Of the 8 million lines of code on the aircraft, “we have 4 million to do, but we still have four years of development,” says Eric Branyan, deputy general manager of the F-35 program.

Software development has undergone a significant change with the decision to “sunset” the Block 0.5 standard originally planned to be released for training. Numerous issues with the software led to the decision to move early to the Block 1 standard, which includes new processing hardware, says Branyan.

In F-35 parlance, Block 0.5 provides basic “aviate and navigate” capabilities, Block 1 introduces onboard sensor fusion, Block 2 integrates weapons and data links, and Block 3 provides the full capability planned for development...

Software development has been replanned around conservative industry-standard rates for defects per line of code, requiring additional resources. Lockheed is adding 110 software developers to the 300 already in place, and an extra integration test line will be ready by late 2012. “We have much higher confidence in the schedule,” says Branyan...

In addition to increasing the re­sources for flight tests, the replan essentially decouples flight-sciences work on the three variants, he says. This is intended to overcome the impact of delays in testing the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) F-35B on the smoother-running conventional-takeoff-and-landing F-35A and F-35C carrier variant [emphasis added]...

More:

Early Warning on JSF Delays
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a9d65f000-2715-442a-ae57-50b88a5d7203

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Why one should not be too credulous about F-35 timeline claims:

A Tale Of Two Tales
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a3435460b-254b-41c8-a47e-71ec6ff56f30

"If you don't follow the defense business closely, then you can be excused for believing that the F-35 joint strike fighter is in trouble."

That was Lockheed Martin consultant and ubiquitous defense analyst Loren Thompson, in November 2009. Let's just say that with $21 billion in development overruns and five years' worth of delays, I would hate to see Dr Thompson's idea of a program that was in difficulties.

As noted yesterday, the public record is replete with warnings, going back to 2005-06, that the Joint Strike Fighter program's schedule and budget were unrealistic. Until March 2010, however, only two actions were taken: the 2007 decision to reduce the number of flight tests and flight test aircraft (which has now effectively been reversed) and a one-year schedule slip in 2008.

At the same time, rather than heeding warnings, the JSF program office, Lockheed Martin and their supporters insisted that everything was under control...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

The more hopeful view:

Repairing the F-35 Program
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a55590fb8-2da7-4769-9827-920983076d87&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

“I think we have succumbed on the F-35 program to adding too many things too quickly,” says a veteran Pentagon program manager.

Moreover, the Joint Strike Fighter’s problems have been compounded because the development effort was launched without a complete test plan.

Paul Kaminski, speaking as a private citizen, picked out three aircraft programs –  the F-16, the F-117 and the F-35, all products of Lockheed Martin – to show how some programs function smoothly, others become delayed and some are repaired along the way. He is CEO of Technovation, Inc., a former under sec. of defense for acquisition and technology, a former director for low observables technology and the current chairman of the Defense Science Board. A DSB research effort is looking into how acquisition can be speeded up, made cheaper and better aligned with military missions.

Another problem involves a lack of coordination between the interrelated demands of acquisition and test and evaluation. A particular issue for F-35 was the undefined nature of the test program that has cost the 10-year-old  program five years of delays.

“It’s amazing to me how many programs we start and sign contracts for that don’t have a test plan,” he says. “That’s the rule, not the exception.”

However, he does see ways to repair the F-35 program even this far into its development.

“Some of the things that the Secretary [Robert Gates] has done of late are helpful, for example putting on probation the pace and nature of the [vertical landing F-35B] airplane, setting standards for performance and breaking it up into some pieces,” Kaminski says.  “But it’s hard to walk this dog back after all the requirements are in place and signed-up to.”

Another handicap is that such a program comes along so infrequently and in such long cycles that it is almost impossible to avoid the operational push to put everything in the first version. What Kaminski recommends instead are programs with block upgrades like the F-16...

...there is still room and time for improvements in the F-35 test program, he says.

“It requires discipline because the first tendency is to put everything in the first block,” Kaminski says. “You have to reserve what goes into the first block for what has earned its way onto the system and what is sufficiently mature to be integrated.”..

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

As for the engine (still only one type so far
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a6b18ec68-64c2-4ddc-b8d7-c872c2d6d716&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest ):

Cost of F-35 engine production declines, but delays and upgrades raise development price
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/11/353066/cost-of-f-35-engine-production-declines-but-delays-and-upgrades-raise-development.html

Pratt & Whitney has reached an informal agreement with government officials to slash 16% off the total price of the next batch of 37 engines to be ordered for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

At the same time, the company acknowledges the cost of the overall F135 engine development programme will grow by about $1 billion to support a three-year extension of flight tests and to improve the engine's performance and durability...

The pending contract award for the fourth lot of low rate initial production (LRIP) shows the company is making progress, says Warren Boley, president of Pratt & Whitney's military engines business.

Getting to a "handshake agreement" with the government on an LRIP price tag, however, took months longer than expected.

"I turned in my proposal on Sept 15, 2009, and I said it should be a 5min negotiation," Boley says. "It took 16 months."

In the extended discussions, P&W increased the cost savings about 2-3% compared to its original proposal, Boley says. P&W has committed to lowering the F135's price tag to $10 million per engine with the 250th unit, he says, although he declined to identify the F135's current unit recurring flyaway cost.

If P&W reaches its goal, the 250th F135 engine will cost the same as the F119 that powers the Lockheed F-22A Raptor, although the former weighs 680kg (1,500lb) more and produces 20% more thrust, Boley says.

Continuing to reduce the recurring cost of the F135 will not be affected by recent decisions that will increase the non-recurring cost of the engine's development...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

I.e. don't tell the bad news yet:

Top 3: Notes from CSBA's press conference on DOD budget
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/02/top-3-notes-from-csbas-press-c.html

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis hosted a press conference about the Fiscal 2012 defense budget this morning. CSBA Senior Fellow Todd Harrison's
http://www.csbaonline.org/about/people/tharrison/
full analysis is posted online here. Below are some notes from the press conference:

1. Avoiding the F-35 death spiral -- Harrison's position on the DOD's $380 billion F-35 program is complicated. In short, he believes the current program is based on a false premise, but this isn't a good time for DoD officials to set the record straight. Says Harrison:


    "It's not realistic to think we'll end up buying the full 2,400 aircraft in the budget right now. [On the other hand], it would not be wise for the DoD this year to signal to our allies that we're going to cut back on our buys. ... That's going to affect a lot of our allies, and that could actually put the program into a death spiral. We don't need to make the decision about cutting the number of JSFs until 2017, 2018 and 2019."..

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Dissident]

This is making it sound more and  more like the A400.

 

[GAP]

F-35 engine shows challenge of belt-tightening
By Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY
Article Link

WASHINGTON — For five years running, two presidents have tried to eliminate funding for a backup engine on a fighter jet, a program Defense Secretary Robert Gates calls unnecessary.

Congress, however, has rebuffed the White House and continues to fund the $465-million-a-year alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, amid intense lobbying by General Electric, the corporate giant working with Rolls-Royce to develop that engine.

General Electric's aggressive outreach ranges from running ads on the subway cars that congressional staffers take to work to deploying dozens of well-connected lobbyists to Capitol Hill and the Pentagon.

In recent weeks, as President Obama has readied a fiscal year 2012 budget that is likely to provide no funding for the second jet, managers from GE plants around the country have swarmed congressional offices to argue their case before dozens of new senators and House freshmen, many of whom were elected on a wave of voter anger with Washington's big-spending ways.

Obama releases his budget today. The survival of the engine, first targeted for elimination by President George W. Bush in his 2007 budget, demonstrates the challenge of slashing government spending — even as the federal debt skyrockets.
More on link

 

[Haletown]

This is making it sound more and  more like the A400.

or the 787 or the A380 or the A350 or the  . . .  .

The new paradigm in modern aircraft development  . . it is often the software that takes the longest to develop  cause software for Mission and Life Critical systems is tough to build and hard to test.

On the other hand, it is the software that enables the aircraft to have such great mission flexibility and longevity.

It will get there . . eventually.  At what price will be an open question until final build numbers are locked in.

Looks likeObama's budget today left the program alone for now.  Not that his budget will get past the House . .  it is DOA there.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Haletown:  Indeed.  The real price kicker is how many the US will eventually buy:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/02/top-3-notes-from-csbas-press-c.html

A major US buy determinant will be whether UCAVs (e.g. X-47B, Phantom Ray) can be developed rapidly enough seriously to reduce their need for the F-35 in the initial strike bomb truck role at, and through, effective layered air defences:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/98558.0.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[FoverF]

or the 787 or the A380 or the A350 or the  . . .  .

The new paradigm in modern aircraft development 

The new paradigm is institutional stupidity.

I remember reading an interview from a few years ago with the head of the B787 program.

He was bragging that the 787 would feature the most complex manufacturing process of any product ever built. Bragging. Built in a dozen odd countries, every piece of the airplane travelling tens of thousands of kilometers through at least 3 facilities in 3 different time zones during the course of work. Explaining how this was the most efficient possible way to build an airplane.

He explained how some design teams would be in Sydney, Australia; while others would be in New York, and that one team would pick up where the other had left off, with the teams never actually working at the same time. Because there's nothing like showing up at work first thing in the morning, and trying to figure out what some idiot has done with your project overnight. Especially when that idiot has since gone home.

Most expensive airliner of all time. Most complicated production process of anything ever made by humans. Not because of mistakes. But because that was the plan. Of course, these factors have since been identified as the two biggest problems with the program, and these decisions have cost Boeing unimaginable sums of money, but who could have seen that coming?

Somehow, god only knows how, they've managed to keep costs to just under quarter of a BILLION dollars... Per airplane.

That is the current culture in the aerospace industry.

The F-35 just happens to be the biggest current project in that industry.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Administration sticking to its airframes:

Pentagon F-35 chief sees no change in total buy
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/15/lockheed-fighter-idUSN1522311520110215

* Air Force still plans to buy 1,763 fighters; Navy 680

* Venlet says postponing production will add some cost

* Confident restructuring plan is realistic, achievable (Adds details from speech, quote, byline)

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON, Feb 15 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Tuesday said it remains committed to buying a total of 2,443 Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jets despite a major restructuring that postponed production of 124 airplanes until after 2016.

"We have not changed our inventory objective," U.S. Navy Vice Admiral David Venlet told industry executives at his first public appearance since taking over as program manager of the Pentagon's largest acquisition program last May.

Venlet said the Air Force still planned to buy 1,763 of the stealthy new fighter jets, and the Navy planned to buy 680 for the Navy and Marine Corps, although it was considering whether to change its mix of carrier and short takeoff variants.

Decisions on that issue would be announced by the service chiefs in coming weeks, Venlet told a luncheon hosted by the National Aeronautic Association...

The admiral acknowledged that postponing production of 124 jets as part of this restructuring on top of 100 jets already deferred earlier would drive up short-term unit costs [emphasis added] since the program was still on a very "steep learning curve."

For the next few years, he said it would add in the range of $4 million to the cost of each airplane, tapering off to around $1 million in a few years.

Venlet said he had briefed the eight original partners and Israel on the details of the restructuring plan and its impact on cost [emphasis added--bets our gov't will say anything?], but he sensed continued commitment from the partners.

There had been no change in the plan to sell over 3,100 fighters to partner nations, although he said other countries would revisit their purchase commitments this year...

More:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3abecac986-d45f-4a9c-a065-5a348da695a6

...
Also due in the next few weeks is the resolution of a long-standing issue within the Navy: the division of the 680 Navy Department F-35s between B and C models. Roughly speaking, it has always been accepted that about one-third will be Bs and one-third Cs, but the middle third has been in dispute. The Navy would prefer them to be Marine-badged F-35Cs but the Marines have aspired to as many as 420 Bs - but that would imply flying Bs off carriers, an idea that has met resistance from the big-deck Navy...

Note the USN will deploy more Super Hornets than F-35Cs:
http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/us-navy-boosts-super-hornet-and-growler-fleets.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/26/lockheed-fighter-idUSN254694620110126

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Meanwhile on the engine and broader fronts:

House votes to scrap F-35 engine: why Gates can't crow too loudly
The House voted Wednesday to stop funding for an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter – a program Defense Secretary Robert Gates called 'unnecessary.' But his arm-twisting of Congress is far from finished.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0216/House-votes-to-scrap-F-35-engine-why-Gates-can-t-crow-too-loudly

By day’s end Wednesday [Feb. 16], Defense Secretary Robert Gates had scored a considerable victory.

Just hours after he told Congress that it must halt funding for the production of a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter – or he would “look at all available legal options" to do it himself – the House heeded his warning. It voted 233 to 198 to kill the program that Gates had called “an unnecessary and extravagant expense."

But shortly after the vote, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell issued a statement that was measured in its praise: "This afternoon’s vote is but one step, although a very important one, on the path to ensuring that we stop spending limited dollars on unwanted and unneeded defense programs.”

The day, in many respects, encapsulated the challenges Gates faces as he goes before Congress this week to answer questions about the Pentagon’s budget.

On one hand, the secretary who has challenged the military establishment to take a "hard, unsparing look" at spending, must first convince lawmakers to go along with cuts to pricey programs that the department deems wasteful. No small feat, given that legislators tend to protect lucrative defense contracts in their home districts, such as the contract to build a second, backup engine for the F-35.

Yet he must also curry Capitol Hill's favor to keep at bay calls from Democrats and tea partyers for deeper cuts the Pentagon is unwilling to make.

Gates on the offensive

In an effort to make the stakes for the military clear to lawmakers on this path, Gates went on the offensive Wednesday morning in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. His focus was one that has come to dominate the Pentagon in recent weeks: the 2011 budget. He warned that Congress's apparent willingness to punt on passing a budget for this fiscal year and instead merely pass a stopgap "continuing resolution" threatens to cause “serious damage” to the US military.

The reason is that a full-year continuing resolution would fund the department at about $526 billion – $23 billion less than anticipated. What’s more, some of the proposals being debated in Congress could add as much as an additional $15 billion in cuts.

“I want to make clear that we face a crisis on our doorstep if the Department of Defense ends up with a year-long continuing resolution or a significant funding cut,” Gates said.

He added: “The damage done across the force from such reductions would be magnified as they come halfway through the fiscal year.” This would, he said, “damage procurement and research programs causing delays, rising costs, no new program starts, and serious disruptions in the production of some of our most high-demand assets, such as unmanned aerial vehicles.”

Uncertainty ahead

The House's decision to strike $450 million for the JSF's alternate engine marks an early success for Gates. But the measure must also pass the Senate, and the prospects there are uncertain. So, too, is the matter of whether the military will be forced to operate under a continuing resolution...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Here's yet another angle, from Defense Industry Daily:

Secure Semiconductors: Sensible, or Sisyphean?
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Secure-Semiconductors-Sensible-or-Sisiphyean-04928/

...
The May 2008 IEEE spectrum magazine, in “The Hunt for the Kill Switch”:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/may08/6171

“Feeding those dreams is the Pentagon’s realization that it no longer controls who manufactures the components that go into its increasingly complex systems. A single plane like the DOD’s next generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, can contain an “insane number” of chips, says one semiconductor expert familiar with that aircraft’s design. Estimates from other sources put the total at several hundred to more than a thousand. And tracing a part back to its source is not always straightforward. The dwindling of domestic chip and electronics manufacturing in the United States, combined with the phenomenal growth of suppliers in countries like China, has only deepened the U.S. military’s concern.”

In 2005, the prestigious Defense Science Board warned in a report that the continuing shift to overseas chip fabrication could expose the Pentagon’s most mission-critical integrated circuits to sabotage. The board was especially alarmed that no existing tests could detect such compromised chips. 

Recognizing this enormous vulnerability, in late 2007 the Pentagon issued contracts that launched the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) 3-year Trust in Integrated Circuits initiative. It has been succeeded by IRIS, the Integrity and Reliability in Integrated Circuits initiative...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

The IEEE Spectrum article highlights a real worry: "high tech" is now global and no one, not the American President and not the Chinese "Paramount Leader" can decide that (s)he will have only American (or Chinese) chips in his/her weapon and C2 systems. The chips may be designed in America, Britain, China and so on but they will be made, and quality control will be done in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, with little if any American or Chinese supervision.

As nearly as I can tell, from reading, both America and China are fighting desperate but failing rearguard actions to try to maintain some sort of "national" control over their own technologies. But the exponential growth in complexity, dictated by 'operational' requirements means that no one can really control much of anything.

 

[MarkOttawa]

As for F-16s:

F-35 slowdown shifts focus to F-16 service life
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/22/353474/f-35-slowdown-shifts-focus-to-f-16-service-life.html

As concerns grow that the US Air Force is losing its air-power edge over potential rivals, the service's leadership has decided that hundreds of its oldest Lockheed Martin F-16s can remain in service for nearly 10 more years with minimal investment.

"With respect to the early blocks, our assessment is there is engineering analysis to support going from 8,000h of expected service life to over 10,000 with just enhanced depot maintenance procedures and maybe some very low-cost adjustments that we would make only on an airframe-by-airframe basis," secretary of the air force Michael Donley said during the Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Florida on 18 February. The F-16's life could be extended to around 10,800 flight hours, he adds.

Air force aircraft usually consume about 300 flight hours each year in peacetime. Increasing the expected service life of an airframe by 2,800 flight hours potentially extends the expected service by more than nine years.

Keeping more of the USAF's 1,200-strong F-16 inventory out of retirement is necessary because of the recent slowdown of the Lockheed F-35 Lightning II, which is now scheduled to enter service in fiscal year 2016.

The air force wants to minimise how much it spends on legacy fighters at the same time that it ramps up spending on the replacement type.

"The strategic intent is to get F-35 production up as quickly as possible," Donley says.

Tweaking maintenance procedures will only work to extend the service life of Block 30-standard F-16s. The air force also is conducting long-term static tests to determine the service life extension requirements for the Block 40/50 fleet, but a decision to launch such a programme is not required until FY2015...

In addition to evaluating the structure of the legacy F-16s, the Air Combat Command (ACC) also is considering capability upgrades.

"We realise that we will need to take F-16s and make some service life extensions to not only the airframe but maybe the avionics," says ACC chief Gen William Fraser.

Among the options under consideration is to replace the current radar with an active electronically scanned array (AESA), with the Northrop Grumman scalable agile beam radar and Raytheon advanced combat radar as two possibilities...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[OkanaganHeat]

Upon reading the last post what jumped out at me was that the introduction of the F35 is fiscal year 2016. Is that not also when we are expecting to begin introducing the aircraft? It also looks like the majority of the larger delays are for the version that the CF is not purchasing and are therefore red herring arguments as far as the CF is concerned.

 

[MarkOttawa]

This proposal in a Wall St. Journal piece is the sort of thing I expect to be popping up more and more--and might gain quite a bit of Republican Congressional support (and maybe some will propose a somewhat de-tuned Raptor for Japan and maybe Australia):
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22As%20Congress%20begins%20to%20take%20up%20the%20Obama%20administration%27s%20defense%20budget%22&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

The Case for Reviving the F-22 Fighter
China and Russia are developing and fielding sophisticated air defenses and advanced stealth fighters. The Raptor is the only plane that can meet these challenges.

As Congress begins to take up the Obama administration's defense budget, one item not even under discussion needs to be considered. Events of the past 18 months have made clear that it's time to rethink the fate of the F-22 Raptor. The presumptions that led the Senate to cancel funding for this fighter have been turned upside down, as new threats have emerged and old ones have become clearer.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has promised that America's airpower needs will be served by the still-unfinished F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). But that airplane will be smaller, slower and less lethal than the F-22, and its future is becoming more cloudy with every new development delay. Most importantly, the F-35 simply was not designed to do the F-22's job, leaving America's global air dominance in doubt against emerging threats.

The reasons Mr. Gates gave for recommending that the F-22 be killed included the $250 million cost of each plane, the need to reorient the military to fight today's wars, the lack of any peer challengers, and the presumption that the quantity of F-35s would be equivalent to the quality of the F-22s. In July 2009, Congress agreed with Mr. Gates and voted to strip the program of funding. The result will be a force of 186 Raptors (one having crashed late last year), though of this rump fleet, only 130 or so will be combat- capable. Readiness, maintenance and scheduling demands will reduce the operational force to merely 30 or so F-22s globally available to throw into a fight at any given moment [emphasis added].

The numbers alone mean that the F-22 force is far from what is needed for any realistic major operational scenarios...

• F-35 delays and cost overruns. The JSF program has run into numerous delays and cost increases, with the unit price of each plane nearing $100 million [meanwhile in Canada "...Jay Paxton, a spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay, said the projected costs for the F35 are firm."].
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/02/23/17382896.html
In early January, Mr. Gates put the F-35B program on hold for two years, as its vertical take-off-and-landing capabilities ran into significant development problems.

Many industry observers question whether the F-35 will reach initial operating capability before the end of this decade [emphasis added, . And given the rising costs of the plane, the likelihood of further procurement cuts is very real, putting the F-35 potentially on the same death-spiral as the F-22.

Given our current fiscal environment, the only chance for Congress to restart the F-22 line is to find a budget-neutral solution. Hard questions must and should be asked if the overall F-35 buy is to be curtailed in favor of producing more F-22s.

Any numbers are speculative, but cutting 400 F-35As from the Air Force's projected total of 1,700 would leave a fleet of at least 1,300—more than enough to deal with most likely threats. This would free funds to build at least 150 more F-22s, bringing their numbers close to what the Air Force has long argued is needed to ensure a viable Raptor force...

Mr. Auslin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
http://www.aei.org/scholar/127

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Really, with very likely further delays in mind?
http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/canada/mackay_says_scrapping_f-35_will_cost_1_billion/e9b4c5f7

...
MacKay said the deal is the best one for taxpayers.

"We're buying the F-35 at the peak point in production when the cost of these aircraft is projected to be at its lowest," he said...

Dear me.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Baby steps:

First Production F-35 Flies (with video)
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:d3f2616c-4ef6-4e7e-b0c1-b79713c5f48b

The first production F-35, CTOL aircraft AF-6, made an hour-long first flight today (Feb. 25) from Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant, flown by test pilot Bill Gigliotti.

AF-6 and AF-7, the second F-35A in the two-aircraft LRIP 1 low-rate initial production batch, will be ferried to Edwards AFB, where they will be used to assess the maturity and suitability of the initial flight envelope and mission-system functionality to begin training.

AF-6 would have flown earlier, but the post-production decision to use both it and AF-7 in the behind-schedule flight-test program meant the aircraft had first to be instrumented. Still, I am sure someone will can us how late this particular milestone is...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Interesting--might Japan be the new key to international production numbers (note Aussie on IOCs)?

F-35 programme could gain new partners in 2011
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/01/353754/avalon-f-35-programme-could-gain-new-partners-in-2011.html

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme is likely to grow beyond 10 countries, with requests for proposals expected this year, while the US Marine Corps will look at the F-35B's handling aboard ships.

US Navy Vice Adm David Venlet, programme executive officer of the JSF programme office, says he is "reluctant to speculate" as to the identity of the potential newcomers, but expects "RFP activity in the near months".

"I'll leave it to those nations to make their announcements and revelations," says Venlet, who has been with the F-35 programme for nine months. "We have nine partners and expect this to grow."

Venlet was speaking at a media conference in Melbourne before Australia's Avalon 2011 air show. The nation is already a partner in the programme, with the Royal Australian Air Force planning to purchase up to 100 F-35s to replace its Boeing F/A-18 Hornets. These were acquired in the late 1980s and are not expected to serve beyond 2020.

Possible new candidates in the Asia-Pacific region could include Japan, which is interested in acquiring a fifth-generation capability following its failure to acquire the Lockheed F-22 Raptor from the USA...

As for initial operating capability (IOC), Venlet says that this is up to the individual service chiefs.

"Our IOC will be at the end of 2018," says Air Vice Marshal Kym Osley, who represents the RAAF in the programme. "Approximately 18 months before this we anticipate the USAF IOC in 2016. End-2018 is the date we've always planned for [emphasis added]." The gap is required mainly due to testing and certification activities specific to Australia.

Mark
Ottawa