Spitfire9F-35 Joint Strike Fighters: Australia’s biggest Defence acquisition ‘unaffordable’, US congressional committee hears
Just another day in the F35 program.
From the linked article:
The committee heard countries like Australia may risk paying millions of dollars more per aircraft because Italy, Turkey and Canada have or are considering delaying their purchases.
“If those three partners choose to push airplanes out or reduce their buy, it will have an effect on all the other partners and the services buying the aircraft to the tune of about 2-3 per cent increase in price,” Lieutenant General Bogdan said.
It was always the case that LRIP aircraft would come at a premium. Export customers were led to believe that by the time they needed deliveries the F-35 would be in full scale production. Because the F-35 program is so many years behind schedule countries are between a rock and a hard place – struggle on with the aircraft F-35 was due to replace while the cost of F-35 falls or reduce F-35 orders. Frankly I do not see that an increase of price by 2%-3% is significant should some buyers delay or reduce their orders. What matters is to try to avoid the massive LRIP premium if you possibly can. If you are one of those countries that cannot wait your budget is shot through whether you pay $120 million or $120 million + 2%-3% for what was expected to cost $80 million.
Spitfire9The 21st F-35A fighter for the US Air Force, AF-21, arrived at Hill AFB on Sept. 20, 2013 and left six months later, on March 25, 2014, after going through a complex remediation program. (USAF photo)
PARIS — F-35A fighters leaving the Lockheed Martin final assembly line at Fort Worth, Texas, require six months of remedial work before they are ready to be tested, according to the US Air Force.Furthermore, different aircraft require different fixes, which implies the assembly line produces aircraft that are built to varying standards, which leads to longer fixes and increased costs as the benefits of the learning curve and of economies of scale are diluted.
The Pentagon is withholding funds from United Technologies Corp.’s Pratt and Whitney unit because of persistent delays in delivering engines for the F-35, the head of the fighter program said.
“They’ve stayed steady” in the last two years, Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, head of the F-35 program office, told reporters today. “They haven’t gotten any better, but they haven’t gotten any worse.”
Spitfire9“Block 3F [software] is dependent upon the timely release of Block 2B and 3I, and at present, 3F is tracking approximately four to six months late without taking steps to mitigate that delay,” Bogdan said.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140326/DEFREG02/303260041/Further-Delays-Predicted-F-35-Program
would be fantastic if they can deliver with only 4-6 months delays — however I am sceptical. I would not be surprised if there are further delays.
As of January 2014, the programme verified on board functioning of 13% of Block 2B’s capability – below a 27% goal, the GAO says. It references a 2013 report from the Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, warning that development of the standard could be delayed by 13 months. That would cause a problem, because the software will provide warfighting capability not only to the USMC – the first service expected to reach that milestone – but also to the “overall F-35 programme”, it notes.
“The effects of these delays compound, [and] they also put the timely delivery of air force and navy initial operational capabilities at risk,” says the GAO.
Sounds like 1+ years delay to what is an immature program or as Lockheed puts it after funding for long lead LRIP items was awarded:
“This funding further demonstrates… the maturity of the F-35 programme,”
Spitfire9The Air Force is considering leasing F-16s from its U.S. counterpart to fill its fighter gap, sparked by a delay of the “next-generation” fighter program and the indigenous combat aircraft project.
“As F-4s and F-5s are aging without any reinforcement aircraft, we are reviewing leasing F-16 fighters currently operated by the U.S. Air Force,” an Air Force officer said Wednesday.
Spitfire9From the GAO report (p2) “Additionally, the most recent cost estimate for operating and supporting the F-35 fleet is more than $1 trillion, which DOD officials have deemed unaffordable.”
What will happen? If something is unaffordable one would expect that it will not be bought.
Spitfire9Your link dont work
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/152682/gao-reports-persistent-f_35-software,-cost-and-affordability-problems.htmlF-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Problems Completing Software Testing May Hinder Delivery of Expected Warfighting Capabilities
Sorry, I saw that and fixed it.
Spitfire9GAO report on F-35 issued 24th March:
Spitfire9Interesting angle on desireable Rafale production rate in this article: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/152417/dassault-nears-india-deal%2C-sees-more-rafale-opportunities.html
It argues that Dassault has fine-tuned production efficiency to 11 frames a year and would rather customers assemble the aircraft themselves than change the FAL production rate. Dassault would make more profit from fees to enable local production than it would make by assembling the frames in France.
In fact, Dassault stands to make more money by licensing final assembly to export customers than by doing the work itself. It has fine-tuned its own Rafale assembly line for maximum efficiency at a reduced rate of 11 Rafales per year. Increasing this rate would upset the current balance, and increase costs, whereas outsourcing final assembly, which accounts for about 10% of total production costs, actually increases Dassault’s operating margin thanks to the various royalty and technical assistance payments it would receive, not to mention the lower prices it would negotiate from its supply chain. The company has thus been able to turn what is generally regarded as a source of cost into a potential source of profit, although this remains to be tested in real life.
This is one reason why the 18 Rafales that Dassault would supply in “fly-away” condition to India would replace aircraft ordered by France on the assembly line, leaving the production rate unchanged.
Spitfire9Yes, as it turns out they have to completely build parts of the runway after every STOVL op.
You are joking, aren’t you?
Spitfire9South Korea has formally decided to obtain 40 Lockheed Martin F-35As to fill its long running F-X III requirement.
“We look forward to supporting the discussions between the Republic of Korea and U.S. governments in support of a final agreement this year. This decision strengthens and extends our long-standing security partnership while enhancing regional stability across the greater Asia Pacific theatre.”
Lockheed’s statement follows a formal announcement by South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Executive Committee in Seoul earlier today.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/south-korea-formally-decides-on-40-f-35as-397315/
Spitfire9Why not? A show this year would seem quite sensible no?
It would be good to see the F-35B at Farnborough but if the audience ever saw Harrier demonstrations there they would laugh at the sort of agility I saw in the Yuma airshow demonstration. Might be better PR-wise to wait until it can give a better demonstration before doing so in the UK.
Spitfire9First F35B flight demo, Yuma airshow…
Enjoy its awesome agility!
:highly_amused:
Spitfire9Sadly, “price will come down” isn’t contractual…
I did say it sounded great, not that it was great. The report is clearly not accurate: “… the cost of the F-35B conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant…”
Spitfire9Lockheed Martin fell short of providing an estimated budget for the South Korean deal as the FMS conditions require a foreign government to pay the amount specified by the U.S. government. Instead, North pointed to a recent cost projection by the Pentagon’s F-35 program chief.
Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan said during a visit to Australia last week that the cost of the F-35B conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant will fall to US$80-85 million.
“Lockheed Martin agrees with Lt. Gen. Bogdan’s assessment that the cost of the F-35 is on a downward path that will lead to a Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) cost for an F-35A of between $80-85 million,” said Randy Howard, the director of F-35 Korea business development.
“This projected price includes the aircraft, avionics and mission systems, and the engine” as well as logistics support and a flight simulator, he said.
Sounds great.
Spitfire9I expect Crimea will put an end to any talk of drawing down US forces in Europe.
What has happened in Crimea? A region of one country has opted to secede. While the plebiscite was not conducted in a “professional” way (allowing a number of weeks for the pros and cons to be debated before a vote) it confirmed that an overwhelming majority wished to secede. The flawed exercise of self determination by the people and parliament of Crimea is no big deal. I expect that the fuss being made over this will die down fairly quickly.
I do not think that what has happened indicates a need to maintain the level of US forces in Europe to counter Russian expansionism.
Sign In
