Q1: How many F-35’s will be ordered by partner countries – USA, UK, Australia, Netherlands etc?

US : 80 jets a year x 20 years = 1600 max for all branches.
UK : 40
Australia : 50 + 48 Super Hornets.
Netherlands : 0. Parliament already voted to cancel the F-35 participation.

Q2: Will any export partner countries abandon their plans for F-35 and order a different type?

Japan : Will stop at 42, and upgrade the F-15J as the primary A2A fighter against Chinese stealth jets instead. F-35 will replace F-4 in strike roles only.

Israel : Since Israel is not paying for the F-35, how many they could acquire depends on the F-35 pricing and the annual US defense aid.

Any thoughts about order prospects for F-35B and F-35C also welcome.

With a plan for just 260 jets, the US Navy is the first service to dump the F-35C and go Silent Hornet + F/A-XX if the conditions are right. The USMC and the USAF seem pretty determined to buy the F-35s.

Japan/Germany/Korea simply dont have surplus money & technical people to develop indigenous weopons in quantity/quality that they can afford.

Germany being in Europe means they have no need to invest heavily in new weapons.

Japan and Korea are not as fortunate, so both are arming with rising defense spending.

and there GDP only exist as long as debt & trade with China. without China all three will be in recession for ever.

Until now, trading with China for these countries meant exporting parts to their low-cost assembly plants in China, then ship out finished goods to the US, Europe, and Southeast Asia. This can easily move out of China, and Japanese corporations have already began to relocate their Chinese factories to Vietnam and Thailand. Korean corporations are no. 1 foreign investors in Vietnam. So the risks of the export side can be managed and China was becoming an unattractive place to manufacture things nowadays anyway.

What is really at risk is China’s booming domestic market, which could be lost. But the growth in India and Southeast Asia will make up for any loss in China in the long run.

If China stop buying iron ore/coke/coal (All replaceable commodities) The standard of living in Australlia will go way down.

China won’t.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/australia-could-buy-more-super-hornets/story-e6frfku9-1226536135979#ixzz2Etee1eoX

RAAF Super Hornets are for long term:Smith
December 13, 2012 6:13PM

The RAAF’s 24 Super Hornets will play a key role in Australia’s defences for the foreseeable future.

THE RAAF’s 24 Super Hornet aircraft, plus possibly another 24, are set to play a central role in Australia’s air defences for the foreseeable future.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith said it had now become clear to all that the Super Hornets were much more than simply a transition capability.

Initially acquired as a bridging force to cover the gap between the retirement of elderly F-111 strike bombers in 2010 and the delayed arrival of the Joint Strike Fighters (JSF), Super Hornets now operate alongside the JSF in a mixed fleet.

Mr Smith said the options including buying 24 more Super Hornets on top of 24 already in service.

Australia was now seeking the latest information on cost and availability of more Super Hornets by way of the US Foreign Military Sales program.
Mr Smith said that did not commit Australia.

“It is being sent so that the Australian government can consider all options in 2013 with the latest and best cost-availability information,” he said.

You had better tell the ROK that they made a big mistake, because Beijing is 900 km from South Korea.

No it is not, look at the map of Yellow Sea closer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Limit_Line

I havent kept track of any F-35 related things for qute some time now, so pls forgive a stupid question… But what went wrong for LM in the SOKOR tender? How, and why?

Exactly the same reasons as Canadians. The Korean F-X contest is structured very similar to the Canadian F-35 program; 60 jets from 2016~2020 at a budget of $7.9 billion($131 million per jet) vs 65 jets from 2016~2022 at a budget of $9 billion($135 million per jet).

Just as how the Canadian budget and schedule became an impossible goal to achieve, Koreans too was reaching a similar conclusion; that Lockheed Martin could not deliver the quantity of combat ready jets at the date they promised while the F-X contest was being formulated back in 2009. Unlike Canada, Korea cannot wait, because Korea is engaged in an arms race with China and Japan and could go to war with North Korea at any minute.

If it was the F-22 in the contest, then all faults would be forgiven and the Korean government would have accepted whatever the US demanded in order to procure them. Not enough budget? More money via a special budget on the way!(That happened with the ROK ballistic missile program, for which $4.5 billion budget was passed overnight to develop and manufacture 800 km ballistic missiles by the parliament a week after the ballistic missile range deal with the US went through.)

But the F-35 is no F-22, and it would be treated like any other jet, no special treatment. And Lockheed Martin put together a very uncompetitive bid similar to what Japan got(The one where Boeing bid $4 billion and offered to build 75% of jet in Japan while Lockheed bid $8 billion and offered to build 20% of jet, which eventually grew to $10 billion), counting on the US diplomatic pressure to close the deal like it did in Japan. Unfortunately, this doesn’t work in Korea and Lockheed is 0 for 3 in recent Korean biddings, the $1.5 billion F-16 upgrade program(BAE got it), the A2G missile program(The JASSM’s demise may not be Lockheed’s fault as the lack of a US export license that forced the Koreans to turn to Germany’s Taurus missile), and now the F-X.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/other-aircraft-vying-for-a-contract-from-the-canadian-government/article6123840/?cmpid=rss1

Other aircraft vying for a contract from the Canadian Government
DANIEL LEBLANC

Ottawa is back on the market for new fighter planes, with at least five jets vying for the military’s attention. The F-35 remains in the mix, but the government will also look at other manufacturers in its search for a replacement for Canada’s fleet of CF-18s. The manufacturers are all salivating at the multibillion-dollar contract, with each aircraft having unique selling points – and drawbacks. In addition to the varying cost of the planes, here is what they each offer:

F-35: Still in development, the Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II promises to be the most technologically advanced of all competitors. While others fighters have state-of-the-art technologies to evade radars, the F-35 is the only one that comes with a stealth exterior shell, making it the hardest of them all to detect. But the price tag remains in flux, including maintenance, as the plane is still not in military operation. There are also many technological hurdles to clear before anyone can confidently predict that the $1-trillion program will be a success. The jet is seen as being well suited for Canada’s overseas missions, but it has only one engine, which raises questions about its suitability for missions over the Canadian North.

Super Hornet: The Boeing F-18 Super Hornet is seen as the leading contender if the government abandons its plans to buy the F-35 and opts for another aircraft. In use by the U.S. Navy and the Australian military, the twin-engine fighter jet does not include full stealth capabilities, but can be operated jointly in missions with the U.S. military. The aircraft is the one that most resembles Canada’s current fleet of CF-18s, which would make for an easier transition to the new platform. The Super Hornet has been in operation for a decade, which means it is less advanced than the F-35, but the experience also offers guarantees about its performance and its acquisition and maintenance cost.

Typhoon: The Eurofighter Typhoon, produced by a consortium of three aerospace giants in Europe, is in use in Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia, among other militaries. Known as being effective in dogfights, the twin-engine fighter has the fastest maximum speed of all five jets and more range than its two U.S.-built rivals. Still, internal records show that in 2010, the Canadian government had deemed that it was also more expensive than the F-35 and the F-18 to acquire.

Rafale: The Dassault Rafale was at the heart of the recent allied bombing campaign in Libya, where it showcased its value in the type of overseas operation that is increasingly favoured by the Canadian government. The fighter jet was created after the French military got out of the Eurofighter consortium. The company has promised to assemble the jets in Canada if it wins the contract, which could create pressure on other firms to boost their domestic spinoffs if the contract goes to tenders.

Gripen: The Saab Gripen is a lightweight, single-engine plane, and the only aircraft that is not produced by a NATO country. It is older than some of its competitors, but also cheaper to purchase and operate, with proven efficiency in northern environments.

Chill Out.
If the Canadians are going to send official RFI´s to Boeing, Eurofighter, Dassault and (eventualy) SAAB,

According to press reports, the Canadian government asked for price quotes and sales term from Boeing and EADS already.

The USG is indeed partially to blame for the situation.

Yes, Boeing should have one and then F-32A and F-32C would be entering IOC by now, because F-32B was a totally separate airframe from the airforce/navy common airframe and the problems would be isolated to that version.

Sintra – You are correct that the JSF is not dead in Canada. However, it looks as if the original process by which the Harper government attempted to buy the aircraft is very much dead.

The plan to order 65 F-35s through a no-bid contract is dead. It will now be an open bid contest where Lockheed Martin can choose to enter. But it is next to impossible for the F-35 to win against the Super/Silent Hornet now, as the outcome of Korean contest has shown, where the F-35 is all but eliminated and it is now a two horse race between the Typhoon and the Silent Eagle.

Which doesn’t make it a close competitor to the F-16 laddy! Do keep up! KAI T-50 isn’t much of a threat to the F-16 on the export market but the Gripen is.

You are confused. We are here talking about which trainer would be able to duplicate the performance profile of an F-16D the best so that the F-16Ds themselves can serve in front line instead of being taken off combat duty to train new pilots, not which jet could replace the F-16D in the combat role.

If there were two-seat F-22s and F-35s available for training, then the USAF would not have used F-16Ds to train new pilots on how to operate instrument while under high-G maneuvers on afterburner. But since there are no two seat F-22/F-35s, new pilots must receive more training at the flight school than they are used in the F-15/F-16 era.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2012/December/Pages/T-XJetTrainingSystemCompetitionPitsOldAircraftVersusNew.aspx

The F-22 and F-35 are single-seat aircraft. In the past, a pilot would come out of the training program and go into a two-seat F-16 or F-15, and receive additional operational training in a squadron. When an F-35 or F-22 pilot makes his or her first flight, it is solo, Griswold noted.

“That kind of raises the bar on what the training needs are now,” he added.

The Air Force has a list of about 12 training gaps that the T-38 can’t fill. Among the top needs are sensor management, air-to-air intercepts, sustained G-force, night vision training and air-to-air refueling.

Night operations, aerial refueling and high G-force maneuvers will have to be taught in the training curriculum as opposed to the fighter squadron, which is the way it is done now because the third-generation fighters are two seaters, Griswold said.

“You can train at low speeds but combat happens at longer distances now at higher and higher speeds. It is important to be able to train at those speeds as well,” he said. Simulators can only provide so much. At some point, the trainee needs to experience the speed and acceleration in the air, he added.

In this regard, the T-50 has a leg up. It is the only potential entrant that can reach supersonic speeds at Mach 1.2.

There is no simulation for high-altitude trans-sonic high-G dogfight on afterburner; the jet actually needs to fly like an F-16D to replace the F-16D now used to train new pilots on air combat.