2017 F-35 news and discussion thread

At the very least Japan operating its own Aegis Ashore has nothing to do with INF.

INF treaty is a whole chapter on its own accord. Besides, China is not part of it.
For all intent and purpose the INF treaty is now dead.

GMAFB, This is more blustering & complaining by China because they see it as a threat to their goal of taking over every square inch of the South China Sea. It’s akin to Russia’s belly aching about Aegis Ashore being installed in Europe and now in Japan as they “claim” that it can be used offensively.

Pot/kettle..

“We urge Japan to do more that may help enhance mutual trust and promote regional peace and stability,” Hua said.

I see that China’s foreign policy has devolved to the “do as I say and not as I do” stage. :stupid:

China warns Japan against modifying helicopter carriers

Beijing diplomatic spokeswoman Hua Chunying said Tuesday at a regular press briefing that Tokyo should realize peace “through action,” referring to a report Japan is modifying the Izumo helicopter carrier for fighter jets, according to Xinhua.

“We urge Japan to do more that may help enhance mutual trust and promote regional peace and stability,” Hua said.

Interesting how the F-35 has reached the status of a strategic weapon already. The “Bee” hasn’t sting yet but already hitches painfully.

Source:
UPI.com
Janes.com

I think you missed the part where the MoD “did” provide cost estimations to the Gov, but “some” members wanted per-airframe details covering everything for the lifetime of the plane. They did not want a TotalCost/#ofPlanes either but a detailed, per-plane cost. That is a ludicrous request since the MoD does not know how many planes, in what model, in what Lot, and at what Block the plane would be bought at, not to mention currency exchange rates & fuel costs which can fluctuate quite often on top of Block upgrades that have not even been planed yet.

When you buy a car, do you compare sticker price, or total cost of ownership and then calculate future accidents, replacement tires, increased Mileage from possible new job, chips in windows, and a hundred other costs that might occur?

No. Most sane people look at what the car will cost them to buy, perhaps gas mileage. Because those can be calculated accurately

if i’m a pro buyer working for a governement or a company, buying hu ndreds of cars, yes i do.

strange as a concept that official bodies from different countries who criticise the F-35 are all in error and repeating a single faulty report…

Do tell, what parts of the DOT&E reports quoted was Parliament unsatified with MoD or L-M’s response or corrections?

What other country’s official bodies have been unhappy with the progress and issues listed in the DOT&E as of late?

Lot of bark happening via news and the usuals, little bite from the same.

When so many dogs bark… There might be a real issue.

What dogs? Did you read the actual report or just headlines off the internet?

Parliament has acknowledged the costs associated with the contracted F-35’s as largely accurate. They are also asking for future costing that by the very nature will be inaccurate due to dozens of factors (like the eventual number ordered) that MoD cannot predict now.

When you buy a car, do you compare sticker price, or total cost of ownership and then calculate future accidents, replacement tires, increased Mileage from possible new job, chips in windows, and a hundred other costs that might occur?

No. Most sane people look at what the car will cost them to buy, perhaps gas mileage. Because those can be calculated accurately

strange as a concept that official bodies from different countries who criticise the F-35 are all in error and repeating a single faulty report…

Or it’s the same report, over and over again, just from different sources.

When so many dogs bark… There might be a real issue.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2017-12-20/f-35-gets-bad-report-card-uk-legislators

Typical clueless whining from a government “watchdog”, this time its the HCDC.

Much of the article has nothing to do with F-35, but everything to do with MoD’s unpreparedness.

The move to network centric warfare (NCW) is not a surprise as it has been in the works for 20 years. A key enabler for NCW is the ability to handle vast amounts of data used for situational awareness, intelligence, mission planning, targeting and coordination of forces and sustainment.

That new QEII carriers were not built with at least 30 GB of communication bandwith is not the fault of F-35, but poor planning by MoD. (And NAVSEA screwed up too because USS Ford doesn’t have high bandwidth communications either).

That the ancient networks used to transport ALIS data are vulnerable to cyber attacks is not the fault of F-35, but poor planning by MoD.

That MoD cannot predict F-35 O&S and upgrade costs beyond 2025 using a tool, such as the Pentagon’s Visibility and Management of Operations and Support Cost (VAMOSC), is not the fault of f-35, but poor planning by MoD.

MoD needs to step up its game.

Potential defense shift may see Japan arm helicopter carriers with F-35B stealth jets

In what could be a major change in Japan’s policy on aircraft carriers, the Defense Ministry is mulling a plan to buy F-35B stealth fighter jets for use on its helicopter carriers, government sources said.

The introduction of F-35Bs, which have short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) capability, will be useful in countering China’s growing maritime assertiveness. They are expected to bolster Japan’s ability to defend far-flung islands in the southwest, where only short runways exist, the sources said Sunday.

EDIT:

“Regarding our defense posture, we are constantly conducting various examinations. But no concrete examination is under way on the introduction of F-35B or remodeling of Izumo-class destroyers,” [Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori] Onodera told reporters on Tuesday.

The Izumo has a sister ship called the Kaga.

Sources:
The Japan Times.co.jp
Reuters.com

F-35 Gets Bad Report Card from UK Legislators

After a short inquiry into the UK’s acquisition of Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II stealth fighters, a watchdog body of the British Parliament has issued a detailed and critical report. The House of Commons Defence Committee (HCDC) said it was disappointed by the responses it obtained in written and oral testimony from Lockheed Martin and UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials. The HCDC report was published just days before the 14th F-35B for the UK was delivered to MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina, where the first operational British squadron is working up.

The HCDC’s inquiry was prompted by serious program failings and cost escalations that were alleged by The Times daily national newspaper last July. The newspaper repeated the F-35 shortcomings that have been reported in public U.S. documents such as Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) and Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports. But it also quoted British defense sources, some anonymously, on UK-specific issues, notably an alleged failure to provide adequate and secure communications from the F-35 to its host British QEII-class aircraft carriers, and to the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Royal Air Force’s front-line fighter aircraft.

The HCDC said that overall, its concerns “were not alleviated” by Lockheed Martin and the MoD. The committee said that “the MoD’s failure to provide adequate cost estimates for its procurement of the F-35…is wholly unsatisfactory.” It said that “the broadband capacity on the QEII carriers will need to be beyond the reported limit of 8 megabits, and, in all likelihood, in excess of the 32 megabits currently available on the USS America, if the potential benefits of the F-35 to the UK’s future carrier strike capabilities are to be realized.” It recommended that the MoD ensure that an airborne gateway translation node is funded, so that the F-35 can pass information from its secure but discrete Multifunctional Advanced DataLink (MADL) to the Typhoons, and to the carriers.

However, the committee’s report did concede that “the assurances about the rigorous level of cyber-testing of the F-35’s Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) software are welcome, as is the assurance that the UK will have complete and unfettered use of the software for the sovereign operation of our F-35 fleet.” But, it added, “we ask for greater clarity from Lockheed Martin on the level of protection in place for the technical data gathered by ALIS in relation to the UK’s F-35 fleet, including whether this data falls within the U.S. Government’s ‘unlimited rights license’.”

The UK will receive another three F-35Bs at Beaufort next year, and one more—its 18th in total—in early 2019. Some of these jets will fly to the UK next summer so that No. 617 Squadron can begin flying trials on the QEII in the third quarter, and achieve initial operating capability (IOC) in the land-based role by December 2018. The IOC for carrier-based operations is due by December 2020. The UK keeps three test and evaluation F-35Bs at Edwards AFB, where they will remain.

To date, the UK has bought only 18 F-35Bs. However, in January 2017 the MoD made budgetary provision for another 30 jets for delivery from 2020 to 2025. The provision was for £3 billion including initial support, which works out at nearly $134 million per aircraft at today’s exchange rate. The first 18 aircraft for the UK appear to have cost more than £150 million ($200 million) each. In its testimony to the HCDC, the MoD maintained its assertion that the UK will eventually buy 138 F-35s. Most independent observers regard this as highly unlikely. Next month, the MoD is due to reveal another round of personnel and equipment cuts, just 26 months after a Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) set a budget that was supposed to last five years.

Beyond 2025, the UK could save on both acquisition and operating costs by buying conventional takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) F-35A versions instead. This has long been the desire of the Royal Air Force, because of the greater range and weapons load of the F-35A compared with the F-35B. Lockheed Martin has promised to reduce the unit recurring flyaway cost (URFC) of the F-35A to about $80 million in current dollars.

I would imagine that the problem is more “budget” (lack of it) than political.
There´s a bit of problem (or an oportunity) here, with seven sqn´s of front line Typhoons till the thirties/fourties, unless the UK PLC boosts the number of front line fast jet sqns there´s no space for more than the initial order.

Which for all practical purposes is a political problem since the politicians have a very big say in how the budget is allocated and how much is spent on national defense including how that is split up within different programs.

They were given estimations but wanted more details. A simple totalcost/num-of-planes was not good enough.

88. We asked the Minister for Defence Procurement and her MoD colleagues several times about the cost to the UK taxpayer of the F-35 programme. Pressed on the total cost per aircraft, once support and spares are included, Mrs Baldwin and her colleagues did not answer directly, pointing instead to a recent NAO report which put the total cost of the programme through to 2026, at £9.1 billion, a sum that includes the first 48 aircraft, spares, support, training and the investment in infrastructure at RAF Marham and elsewhere.

89. When asked how the £9.1 billion figure equated to a cost per-aircraft, particularly in light of the MoD’s criticism of The Times’s estimate of £130–155 million per aircraft, MoD Permanent Secretary Stephen Lovegrove attacked that estimate as an “extraordinarily crude and misleading calculation” which, he suggested, was arrived at by taking £7.3 billion from the £9.1 billion (this £7.3 billion figure covers the production, sustainment and follow-on phase of the programme to 2026) and dividing it by 48.88 It should be noted that this is not the calculation process outlined by Alexi Mostrous during his appearance before the Committee (see paras 76–77 of this report).

90. According to Mr Lovegrove, it is not possible accurately to divide the £9.1 billion cost on a unit-by-unit basis due to the inclusion, within that figure, of training and infrastructure costs and additional costs “associated with the design and total concept of the aircraft”.89 Instead, he suggested that one would have to “do a very complicated sum at the end of the life of the programme [the mid-2030s] and divide it by 138. Then you might be able to do it”.

91. The Department was also unable to provide details of the total cost of the F-35 procurement programme, again pointing to the published costs for the programme up to 2026.91 The Minister told us that the MoD “have not gone” beyond those costings. Mr Lovegrove, however, suggested that the MoD had “rough orders of magnitude” for the possible costs beyond 2026/7, but which are not published for two principal reasons:

One is that they are rough orders of magnitude, and who knows exactly what the world will look like in 10 years’ time? In fact, there are no private enterprises that estimate their costs 10 years out with the accuracy that we do, or to the level of fidelity that we do. Secondly, even the last 17 or 19 F-35s within the first 48 are still under negotiation. To reveal publicly how much we think we might be prepared to pay for those would obviously be compromising our negotiating position and compromising taxpayers’ money, so we will not be doing that.

At some point the highest level partner, with a ton of industrial benefit has to step up and order aircraft and ramp up its procurement as it gets its carriers ready. That is largely a political decision as I’m sure the RAF/RN would like aircraft faster.

I would imagine that the problem is more “budget” (lack of it) than political.
There´s a bit of problem (or an oportunity) here, with seven sqn´s of front line Typhoons till the thirties/fourties, unless the UK PLC boosts the number of front line fast jet sqns there´s no space for more than the initial order.

Cheers

The key problem that I see is that they wanted firm numbers for things like:
once spares and upgrades are included.

Not quite, they´ve asked “rough orders of magnitude”, not “firm numbers”

“8.The lack of transparency over the costs of the F-35 is unacceptable and risks undermining public confidence in the programme. The Department should provide us with the ‘rough orders of magnitude’ it claims to possess for the total costs of the F-35 programme beyond 2026/7. (Paragraph 94)”

Remember that these will span 40+ years. Good luck trying to tell the future.

The MOD and the NAO have done it before for a number of major programs, sometimes the chaps got very near of the actual numbers, sometimes they´ve blundered. Pretty much your point, predicting the future its not exactly easy.
Normal request with a normal reaction from the MOD.

If anyone is interested in the arcane art of HM MOD budgeting and capability requests, this place is a pretty decent place to start: https://www.nao.org.uk/search/type/report/sector/defence/

Cheers