Britain considers £9bn JSF project pullout

[Grand Danois]

Hehe, it is apparently to be expected every time pen has to be put on paper by the UK on the JSF programme - identical to the ITAR row a couple of years ago.

CATOBAR ops are frigging expensive. Procurement, installation, maintenance, crewing, etc., will easily eat up any potential savings over the full life cycle.

The whole maritimised Typhoon is nonsensical at this stage, even if a redesign/conversion of the Typhoon was success, on time, on cost, I doubt a case could be made for a lower LCC as a complete system.

As for the Italians... as far as I can see, not really of any consequence to the JSF programme. Btw, besides the surge in unfounded criticism, what real bad news has there been? A 25-75 JSF FMS notification was announced today!

 

[zeven]

It might not infect the JSF program.

but the signals the Italians giving, is what worries me.

however, will be intressting to see which road, UK choose, and the spinoffs, in case of F-35s future operators.

 

[ASFC]

I don't think Italy is withdrawing-becasue their Carriers really would be stuffed when it comes to finding aircraft!

To be fair, these sort of jitters are normal for such a large program where testing is in its early stages-but it doesn't help the journos are (on the whole) rubbish at decent Defence reporting.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Grand Danois]

It won't be cheap either judging by the CTOL order from Israel. $15.2b for 75 aircraft + everything including the kitchen sink associated with it.

That translates to $202.67m per aircraft or £115m each. Ouch...

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/Israel_08-83.pdf

Yes... 25 CTOL and an option for 50 CTOL or STOVL. And if all options are exercised; there seems to be a lot.

If the order is signed early 2009 it means it will be part of the LRIP run and not FRP run, add in a 3.75% FMS fee and it gets pretty high.

The cost given to DK and Norway is 4.0 bn usd for 48 CTOL (WSC) and 5.6 bn usd with 20yr LCC. That's 83 mn usd (WSC) and 116 mn usd (20yr LCC). Note that if the partners place a collective order, there may be a possibility of a 5-10% discount off the WSC price, i.e. cost is c. 77 mn usd.

So not that much ouch.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't see the UK pulling out of the F-35 program.

They may choose to give up early production spots and delay/reduce its purchase. Thats ok, there are countries keen to take them. Or even take them and lease them on to other countries (Spain and Italy would be interested in a low risk lease plan).

The F-35 program is huge and it has too many backers. While expensive and a little delayed its hardly a troublesome project. Even if every other country pulled out of it, the US could still finish it on its own.

The UK has invested heavily into the program. 2+ billion in development, two super carriers at a unknown $ figure (many more billions).

This is one project the UK is going to have to see through to the end.

 

[stigmata]

two super carriers at a unknown $ figure (many more billions).

No, a US supercarrier used to cost 0.5 billion, not counting a/c. allthough that price has undoubtably went up.
The much smaller English carrier will be built so that catapults can be easily retrofitted regardless of what plane it initially embark.

 

[Feanor]

500 million is the price of a US airraft carrier? No way. The Indians are paying more for a modernization of Gorshkov.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Australia is paying almost $1 billion AUD (1aud = $.9 usd) for its LHD, built in spain and fitted out in Australia. Italy cavour is over $1 billion euros.

A UK build large (65,000+t) carrier would easy slip past $2 billion USD a peice. $3 billion is more likely. Air wing is on top of that. Say $100 million for each aircraft so around $10 billion. Plus escorts, crew, training, systems etc.

 

[Lopex]

The time article states that the F-35B can only carry 3 500lbs bombs.
Should it read that the F-35B can carry 3 500lbs bombs in its internal weapons bay when keeping a low stealth profile and could carry lots more on the wings when doing CAS missions??

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[kato]

It must have been at least 4 decades since US carriers cost less than $1b.

Hehe, i was thinking "when was that? before the 1972 oil shock?".

... and true to that - the Enterprise cost $451.3 million, back in 1960.

The Kitty Hawks probably were a bit cheaper even, considering in essence they were upgraded Forrestals. Anyone know how much a Nimitz went for in 1975?

 

[irtusk]

The time article states that the F-35B can only carry 3 500lbs bombs.
Should it read that the F-35B can carry 3 500lbs bombs in its internal weapons bay when keeping a low stealth profile and could carry lots more on the wings when doing CAS missions??

no it's just an indication of how little credibility the paper has

the F-35B actually can't carry any of those particular 500lb bombs internally because they're too long or something, but you can carry them on the FOUR external pylons

however the US has 1000 lb bombs that fit not to mention you can fit 8 SDBs internally

Bill Sweetman hypothesized that since the KPP for the F-35B was to bring back 2 1000lb bombs in a vertical landing, and there was some concern about meeting that goal, someone told the reporter it could only bring back 1500lbs and the reporter ran from there

of course in situations where you really need that many bombs, bring-back isn't much of an issue

 

[harryriedl]

Yes... 25 CTOL and an option for 50 CTOL or STOVL. And if all options are exercised; there seems to be a lot.

If the order is signed early 2009 it means it will be part of the LRIP run and not FRP run, add in a 3.75% FMS fee and it gets pretty high.

The cost given to DK and Norway is 4.0 bn usd for 48 CTOL (WSC) and 5.6 bn usd with 20yr LCC. That's 83 mn usd (WSC) and 116 mn usd (20yr LCC). Note that if the partners place a collective order, there may be a possibility of a 5-10% discount off the WSC price, i.e. cost is c. 77 mn usd.

So not that much ouch.

the Israeli order sounds like all/mostly LRIP unlike the UK when its spread out over a longer period of time

 

[jaffo4011]

this article extract may shed a little light on the mod/bae's thinking on the matter,and may answer some questions on the catapult solutions...

The second application, FJCA was a more promising project. The biggest issues in this case are strengthening the landing gear and fuselage to allow arrested recovery of the aircraft and the marinisation of certain potential areas of corrosion. In the case of the former BAE Systems devised some novel solutions. For take-off the Typhoon's excellent short field performance combined with a ski jump ramp should allow for relatively short deck take-offs, removing the need for catapults. For recovery a number of studies were carried out, for example one looked at the use of fans to blow air across the deck while the aircraft lands. This would decrease the required landing velocity and therefore reduce the forces on the aircraft fuselage upon arrest. Other investigations examined linking the Typhoon's FCS to the pitch and roll of the carrier. This would allow automated flared landings to be carried out again reducing stresses on the aircraft.

 

[stonesfan]

I would have thought no matter how good the take off and landing performance is from the Typhoon, that a fully loaded aircraft would need a conventional catapult to get airborne from a carrier?

I stand to be corrected though.......

 

[Grand Danois]

I just couldn't resist...

Lockheed Martin defends troubled JSF
Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Lockheed Martin has been forced to defend its troubled Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) after allegations of massive cost overruns and uncertainty about an in-service date emerged over the last few months and prospective buyers shied away from it.

Tom Burbage, executive general manager of F-35 JSF Program Integration told reporters that the aircraft will meet all of its designated capabilities and will be economical in cost. Its stealth technology and STOVL capability will be in place by the time the aircraft comes into service.

"The F-35 is designed to satisfy a very challenging operational requirement -- to go deep into enemy territory against the most lethal surface-to-air missile threats. It's a daunting expectation but we are on the way to fulfilling it," Burbage said,

The intent of the program was to leverage recent major national investments in technology, introduce true service interoperability and achieve economies of commonality and scale as legacy combat aircraft fleets were replaced, according to Burbage.

JSF has been labeled as the world’s most expensive defence procurement project, ever. In the US the cost has ballooned by billions of dollars. Auditors in the US found that the company’s financial data on the project was "useless" and added billions to the final cost of the programme. While the MoD has been able to escape massive cost overruns so far, delays have put the plane on schedule to be delivered in 2018, two years after the second of the two new aircraft carriers comes into service.

Brazil has backed out of a deal to buy the JSF while the Netherlands is reviewing the purchase after they deemed the financial figures to be inaccurate.

Britain is scheduled to buy 150 of the planes for £2.2bn.

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=7081

* * *​

Obvious errors:

• Brazil issued an RFI for F-35, but was offered F-16 instead. Thus Brazil cannot have backed out.
  
• 150 F-35B for 2.2 bn quid? No way!

Also, when reporting, historical events shouldn't be reported as current events. In this case: "Auditors in the US found that the company’s financial data on the project was "useless" and added billions to the final cost of the programme." They're referring to the 2006 GAO audit, thus obviously Lockheed Martin has not been out defending their programme management recently.

EDIT: OK, there was a GAO report in 2008.

 

[Aussie Digger]

no it's just an indication of how little credibility the paper has

the F-35B actually can't carry any of those particular 500lb bombs internally because they're too long or something, but you can carry them on the FOUR external pylons

however the US has 1000 lb bombs that fit not to mention you can fit 8 SDBs internally

Bill Sweetman hypothesized that since the KPP for the F-35B was to bring back 2 1000lb bombs in a vertical landing, and there was some concern about meeting that goal, someone told the reporter it could only bring back 1500lbs and the reporter ran from there

of course in situations where you really need that many bombs, bring-back isn't much of an issue

The F-35B can't carry 2000lbs, internally.

It will be able to carry 500lbs and 1000lbs bombs (JDAM, Paveway, L/JDAM variants included) internally as well as SDB's, AMRAAM etc. Other weapons such as JSOW, NSM etc are unknown at this early stage.

With significant standoff range available from JDAM and SDB variants, plus moving target capability inherent in Paveway weapons and increasingly in the GPS guided weapons, they will maintain a flexible and powerful precision weapons capability, even without JSOW etc able to be carried internally.

 

[irtusk]

The F-35B can't carry 2000lbs, internally

are you saying it can't carry a 2000lb bomb (which i didn't say)

or are you saying it can't carry 2000lbs worth of bombs (2x1000)?

 

[swerve]

It can't carry a 2000lb bomb internally. It can carry a total of more than 2000lb internally.