F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[SpudmanWP]

Not necessarily.

I was basing this off last year rumblings of buying another 12, yet no long lead items were ordered this year (except -G specific upgrades). This means that the soonest new SHs could be delivered is 2016.

Don't forget that RAAF relationship with the USN is very very close - better than any other non-oz player.

How does ordering SH help the USN since there are no more plans for new SHs in the USN beyond 2014?

 

[colay]

The short life span left in our old F-16 fleet are widely known and Norway may face the future with none or very few air worthy F-16 in a few years.

Are Norway's Vipers really in as bad a shape as you describe?
Norway extends F-16 life / News / The Foreigner — Norwegian News in English.

Norway extends F-16 life

Published on Monday, 19th December, 2011...

Norwegian military is continuing its F-16 life extension programme and replacing wings on all of it's planes.

Although the cost if the new parts is to remain a secret, the planes are to receive the modification in order to enable them to stay in use. These new wings will increase the lifespan of the planes by 10 years.

The 57 F-16s are expected to be grounded in 2023 with the arrival of the new F-35 aircraft. These will not be delivered until 2018.

 

[Haavarla]

That is not entirely correct.

RNoAF did do a F-16 extended life, including changing its wings.
It was years ago, and contained the 2/3 of our fleet, most likely the oldest one.

Now the rest of our F-16 will get the same package, i think its around 12 airframes.
But now reading your link it seems they will extend this deal with even more airframes, about half of our Fleet.

Our F-16 are not in bad shap per see(Cudos to our ground crews), they been in Libya and Stan. But when the time(total flight hours) is up, its up.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I was basing this off last year rumblings of buying another 12, yet no long lead items were ordered this year (except -G specific upgrades). This means that the soonest new SHs could be delivered is 2016.

line breaking option

How does ordering SH help the USN since there are no more plans for new SHs in the USN beyond 2014?

USN shifting option

 

[jack412]

That is not entirely correct.

RNoAF did do a F-16 extended life, including changing its wings.
It was years ago, and contained the 2/3 of our fleet, most likely the oldest one.

Now the rest of our F-16 will get the same package, i think its around 12 airframes.
But now reading your link it seems they will extend this deal with even more airframes, about half of our Fleet.

Our F-16 are not in bad shap per see(Cudos to our ground crews), they been in Libya and Stan. But when the time(total flight hours) is up, its up.

that's inconsistent with the quotes from the article
"The 57 F-16s are expected to be grounded in 2023 with the arrival of the new F-35 aircraft. These will not be delivered until 2018.

“We have already changed the wings on 20-25 of the planes and need to replace the wings on the rest. We do this in order to take better care of the fuselage”, Lieutenant Colonel Jørn Hoelsæther explained to Aftenposten.

This is not the first time that the F-16’s have received an upgrade. The engines were replaced in the 1990’s. Most of the instruments have also been modernised."

 

[colay]

That is not entirely correct.

RNoAF did do a F-16 extended life, including changing its wings.
It was years ago, and contained the 2/3 of our fleet, most likely the oldest one.

Now the rest of our F-16 will get the same package, i think its around 12 airframes.
But now reading your link it seems they will extend this deal with even more airframes, about half of our Fleet.

Our F-16 are not in bad shap per see(Cudos to our ground crews), they been in Libya and Stan. But when the time(total flight hours) is up, its up.

What I takeaway from the article is that Norway has done it's due diligence in planning the transition to the F-35, ensuring that the Viper fleet is viable until the new jets arrive. I really don't see any capability gap arising to justify a Boeing SH proposal unless the politicians drag out the decision to purchase the balance of the JSFs.

 

[Beatmaster]

I have made several posts regarding the JSF, while quoting various sites.
And i hate to say this i was wrong in my general view of the JSF and its program.
So for that mistake i offer you guys my sorry.

However i was partly right in regards to the cost increase for the Netherlands but mainly due the fact that there are so many sources out there with limited info i totally missed the ball and again i am sorry for that.

But i ask your understanding for the fact that as a Dutch guy i must rely on what the Dutch media releases and what our government releases and frankly speaking the numbers produced by Canada, Australia and all those other potential buyers do not apply directly to the Netherlands and vice versa as each nation bought his own unique package which obviously may or may not carry a different prize tag.

So to correct my mistakes i got here the official (2e kamer brief aka official letter to the second chamber which is the highest government level) as it has been released on their official page.
Because its a pdf file in Dutch i must ask you to forgive me that i am not going to translate all of it. But i will try to make a breakdown specific for the Dutch F35 Order itself.

Kamerbrief met Amerikaanse informatie over F-35 programma

Source:
Kamerbrief met Amerikaanse informatie over F-35 programma | Kamerstuk | Rijksoverheid.nl

The actual numbers and calculations made by the US government and the Dutch government (Not estimate)
The prize tag for a F-35A was for the Netherlands in 2002 64.4 million dollar per bird and this is the " bare" cost so just the aircraft itself nothing else.

However the prize tag for a F-35A in 2012 is 78.7 million dollar per bird this is ones again the " Kale" or " bare" prize so nothing else just the bird.

And these numbers are without the 20% increase (Which has been reported by both the government and the national media) of the prize which the pentagon has announced.
A 1 single JSF bought by the Netherlands right now here on the spot will cost 100 million euro which is roughly 131 million US dollars give a take a few cents. And again thats without any extras.

So my question is what would a F35A cost with the whole package at this very point for the dutch specific?

Here the official news report of the Volkskrant news paper + the television program buitenhoff (Which is the sort of watch dog to discuss political and economic issues)

Originally the Netherlands want to buy 85 JSF (F35A) aircrafts with the whole package and for this they saved 4.5 billion euro
Due all the cost increase the same amount of aircraft would cost the Netherlands 8 billion euro to get it fully operational (training and such) this is not the purchase prize as this was originally 4.5 billion but the costs after the initial buy itself to get the aircraft ready for use by the Dutch Airforce (So this includes everything needed to get the bird integrated into the dutch Airforce before it can be used)

So to speak that 3.5 billion more then planned, and to the dutch thats a HUGE amount of money.
And this is the whole issue as has been reported by the dutch government, which causes havoc. Specially with all the drastic cuts they have to make.
And then you have the increased research costs which are not even being taken into calculation in this report.

* Note that this info applies to the dutch specific.

Bottom line is that the 85 F35A mark is not going to be made at this point as there is simply not enough money available to buy it, they are now talking about 50 up to 68 F35A (Which should bring back the JSF total Dutch costs back into budget)
And on top of that there are some serious voices within the government who want out of the JSF program.
Because everyone knew it was going to cost a pretty penny but since the join date of the program June 17, 2002 that the 800 million SDD research funds would come back in economic contracts for the dutch industry with a total worth of around 950 million. Only 310 million has come back. While the 800 Million is already payed for.
And the main thing the government opposition says: This was by the US guaranteed.
Also virtually nothing that the US has guaranteed did take place. However the costs keep and keep rising.
And finally due the fact that the JSF program is taking longer then planned the Dutch did reserve a additional 300 million euro to keep their current F-16 operational till the JSF takes over.
Which was not needed as the JSF would be guaranteed available before that extra money would be needed, but due the delay all those numbers together is draining the treasury faster then a night Las Vegas. and because its still early in the program and the Dutch needed to invest so much extra money already there is no telling what it will cost the next 2/3/4/5 years before the JSF finally start rolling off the production line in mass numbers.
And the main reason why the Dutch went into this project is because of all the guarantees made by the US.
So thats the break down as far as i can get from the dutch media.

But then again this is the Dutch specific situation.

Cheers

 

[jack412]

It's all good, I'm glad you're trying to work it all out and the $130m for the test LRIP URF [plane with engine and avionics] sounds right. australia is paying a similar amount for our 2 test LRIP
The 20% is a euro tax isn't it?

EDIT
I did a download and translated your link, it is based on the SAR 11, which is also what I was using for my $71-3m price

what the mistake is is that drs. J.S.J. Hillen is using the average usa URF $78.7m cost over their 1,700 planes. this isn't the price that the dutch will pay.
the dutch will pay the URF of the year they buy in and so build their own URF average
does this make sense to you Beat?
If you like to download the SAR, we can all go into it with you or we can use spuds chart that he made
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5333&d=1334592106

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have made several posts regarding the JSF, while quoting various sites.
And i hate to say this i was wrong in my general view of the JSF and its program.
So for that mistake i offer you guys my sorry.

no harm no foul. its a topic that generates vigorous debate. the end state is about people making their points within a clear context and reference to specifics.

i get more frustrated with the debates that revolve around the issue that 4th gen platforms can be uprated and upgraded to be competitive against LO, especially the platform centric debates - as they dumb down the capability and force enabling issues to a level that is borderline disingenuous.

thankfully, those kinds of debates have short traction in here as most people genuinely get it.

JSF needs to be discussed with an open mind rather than some of the voodoo black magic mumbo jumbo that some offer up to predict its decline and/or utility

 

[Sea Toby]

Keep in mind this is a long term program, they will be building the JSF for the next thirty years since the aircraft is or will be so easily upgradeable compared to legacy fighters. I would rather have a nation cut their purchase by 20% or so presently and at a later date possibly purchase more. The JSF is practically the first fighter designed to be easily upgraded in the future. Some believe it will be the last manned fighter ever since technology is moving so fast. I would rather wait through a few years of development delays knowing this to get everything right than waste funds to early. And I believe all of the nations agree.

While the price seems very expensive, the F-22 is even more expensive. Furthermore, the other aircraft available aren't that much cheaper. It seems all high technology defense related equipment has a sky high inflation rate involved. At least with the JSF a nation will be getting a fifth generation aircraft, maybe the last manned fighter they will ever buy.

 

[Tasman]

Some believe it will be the last manned fighter ever since technology is moving so fast.

I'll reserve judgement on that... Wasn't the English Electric P1 Lightning supposed to be the last manned fighter according to the British Def Minister in 1957?

I can see a scenario where a mix of manned and unmanned aircraft will work together. but I suspect there will always be a place for a human in the loop somewhere in the front line.


Tas

 

[ADMk2]

Weapons pit drop testing has begun on the F-35B and C models. So far they've dropped GBU-12 laser guided bomb, GBU-32 1000lbs JDAM and AIM-120 AMRAAM with 9 different combinations of weapons loads tested in all so far.

NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation

 

[ADMk2]

I'll reserve judgement on that... Wasn't the English Electric P1 Lightning supposed to be the last manned fighter according to the British Def Minister in 1957?

I can see a scenario where a mix of manned and unmanned aircraft will work together. but I suspect there will always be a place for a human in the loop somewhere in the front line.


Tas

Ditto. Especially as the USN has just released a request for info to industry for a manned F/A-XX fighter to replace the Super Hornet / Growler from 2030 onwards...

US Navy issues F/A-XX RFI

 

[Sea Toby]

I'll reserve judgement on that... Wasn't the English Electric P1 Lightning supposed to be the last manned fighter according to the British Def Minister in 1957?

I can see a scenario where a mix of manned and unmanned aircraft will work together. but I suspect there will always be a place for a human in the loop somewhere in the front line.


Tas

They may be manned, but they may be spacecraft fifty years in the future. Technology is moving very fast. Who would have thought as a child in the 1960s Dick Tracey's video watch would be available within fifty years. iPod Nano.

Even the iPhone/smart phones are smaller than the Star Trek communicator of the 1960s television series.

 

[LGB]

The F-35 will certainly not be the last manned fighter. The US has F/A-XX (was NGAD) which is supposed to share some systems with F-X (F-22 follow on). China and Russia will have new fighters in service eventually (though how well they compare to say the F-35 garners a lot of debate). There could very well be other players here as well.

While France may have developed it's last fighter by itself one assumes eventually there will be another European fighter. South Korea and/or Japan could develop a new fighter possibly with a partner.

All of this of course will be influenced by how well the F-35 performs, whether F/A-XX is exportable, etc. Rightly or wrongly there is a perception among some nations that the F-35 is optimized as a strike fighter and while it will perform exceedingly well air to air that for some an air to air optimized fighter might be a requirement.

Without going into this argument it would seem self evident that if F/A-XX is optimized for air to air and designed this decade it will perform better than the F-35, even if only LM designed a derivative of the F-35 for that contract which they've indicated they would like to do.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Ditto. Especially as the USN has just released a request for info to industry for a manned F/A-XX fighter to replace the Super Hornet / Growler from 2030 onwards...

US Navy issues F/A-XX RFI

Thanks for posting that link, it does give me a little reassurance that someone is a least thinking about the possibility that Pak Fa and J-20, may come on pretty strong. I think jack had mentioned FX the other day, and the RFI fa-xx does mention a stronger A2A component, so yes jack that does honestly make me feel a little better, I think there was also a post on flight global about the recent report to congress, linking the cost of upgrades dictated by flight testing and concurrency costs, I realize I may sound pessimistic at times, but I have been aware of and followed US aircraft development for nearly a half a century! My first primer was the Dash 1 for the C-130, born in the distant past about same time as I. Kind regards to all and indeed my best wishes for the future, may the turn of the next century find us all still free men and hopefully a little wiser.

LGB I certainly agree that the F-35 will not be the last manned fighter, but correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Navy is flying the FX-47B at Patuxant River NAS. They are proceeding fairly rapidly and expanding the envelope in anticipation of future carrier ops? I believe carrier ops testing are to start in 2013, with inflight refueling to begin in 2014, this from Defense Systems online magazine sight bulletin dated 12/23/11.

 

[Beatmaster]

Having unmanned birds up does have a incredible strategic advantage as its only hardware that can be destroyed.
I mean better the bird gets swatted out of the sky then one of your pilots right?

However i personally think that there will be always a part to play by a pilot.
Offtopic:
The dependency on computers to control unmanned vehicles will or may cause very serious problems.
For example the US has always been technological very high ranked, but in terms of Cyber warfare there are individual nations and groups who are on the same page or even ahead.
Due my work i understand that there is a huge difference between civilian cyber crime/terrorisme and government sponsored cyber crime and counter actions in terms of available assets and skill, but one must not underestimate the good old hackers and computer geeks as time after time individual groups proof beyond the any doubt to be able to cripple every single target they intent to hit.
This might sound weard but to have a credible army you have to spend big big big dollars, however to cripple a company seriously you need a few computers and some brains and fast fingers which can be done by 14 year old kids.
And this applies for Cyber warfare as well, the US would be able to set up a cyber fortress with the best of the best computer geeks and hardware, but in terms of actual security time will prove that even a small group of hackers, and cyber geeks will be able to break the security and cause problems.
Now during peace time these problems are just costing money and are only of intrusive nature, but during war time ANY nation would be capable of matching the US in capability as the cyber world does not have the limits that the real world has, it only takes a small dedicated group and on a cyber level they would be able to give the US or any nation in that regard a run for their money.
It only takes one smart person to write a cyber attack pattern or code, that that code may not or may be the Cyber nuke that could severely damage US computer assets in such way that it would be comparable with a real world nuclear detonation on a US city.
Si to speak in the real world being shot by a gun means dead, in the cyber world a piece of code is always a huge surprise what it can do. but that does not mean that its less deadly or dangerous, infact due our dependency on computers it might be even more lethal.

So now lets twist this a bit, lets assume that the whole airforce is based upon unmanned aircraft then hypothetical in times of war, a nation regardless of size would be capable of doing some sort of damage and all the technological assets that the US has to bring into the fight in terms of computer and cyber stuff will and can be matched by a dedicated foe.

So bottom line in army terms the US is the badass on the block, however in computer terms Goliath can be brought to its knees by little david, and there would be nothing much that the US or any nation for that matter would be able to do.

That said i personally would love unmanned army toys, but i would stick to pilots when it comes to airforce main assets.


Mod edit: This is the F-35 thread, there is a cyber combat thread on the forum...

 

[Beatmaster]

It's all good, I'm glad you're trying to work it all out and the $130m for the test LRIP URF [plane with engine and avionics] sounds right. australia is paying a similar amount for our 2 test LRIP
The 20% is a euro tax isn't it?

EDIT
I did a download and translated your link, it is based on the SAR 11, which is also what I was using for my $71-3m price

what the mistake is is that drs. J.S.J. Hillen is using the average usa URF $78.7m cost over their 1,700 planes. this isn't the price that the dutch will pay.
the dutch will pay the URF of the year they buy in and so build their own URF average
does this make sense to you Beat?
If you like to download the SAR, we can all go into it with you or we can use spuds chart that he made
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5333&d=1334592106

Eurotax might be a part of it, but the 20% was the US bad news of increased research and actual production cost increase due inflation and higher resource prize costs if i do remember correctly, so how much it will contribute to the actual production line cost of a bird when you buy it i do not know.
But what here on the news has been said is that if only a couple percentage of that 20% would be calculated towards the actual end prize then this is going to be another serious increase.
Which for one bird might be a relative small number but if you planning to buy 50 or more then its going to costs the buyer a pretty penny.

what the mistake is is that drs. J.S.J. Hillen is using the average usa URF $78.7m cost over their 1,700 planes. this isn't the price that the dutch will pay.
the dutch will pay the URF of the year they buy in and so build their own URF average
does this make sense to you Beat?

Actually i do not know what agreements the Netherlands have in regards to the research and production/development and eventually the actual buying part, and i would not know if Hillen is right or wrong in this regard. But what i do know is that Hillen does more then just being a key figure as he is directly involved in the JSF program up to the highest level, as he is part of some European delegation that have some serious authority next to the US key figures, as the Netherlands is a level 2 partner.
Dunno what its called as it was reported back then when the Netherlands joined the JSF program.
And it might be that the Netherlands has a special agreement with the US in regards to the JSF birds and everything around it.

Anyway i might assume that because Hillen is directly involved as partner that he has first hand info and access.
So i find it difficult to claim at this stage and point that he is either wrong or right.
As for all we know he might be right and neither you or me would know about it, as the specific and classified stuff is not available for the public.
And the releases by Boeing or other organizations / nations would not reveal that data either.
As the public version of the costs and the actual government version are 2 different worlds as has been proven with other projects in the past.

Thing is tho that the US version of Secret means locked up in a tripple vault being put in a volcano and the ones who have the key and know the location of that vault with the secret files are being shot and their bodies kept hostage on mars. just to make sure it remains secret.

The dutch version of secret is we do not tell the media, and we keep silent about it but we do write it down in the articles who later are being put on the webpage as pdf lol just kidding but its does happen a lot.

So it would not suprise me that the data from that Pdf file proves to be right as many other pdf files in the past turned out to be exactly right.

But then again i am the wrong person to ask about this as i could not tell you.

 

[qwsazxerfdcv]

This is a little off topic but I want to post some quotes that go against the common theme that the F-35 is only intended for air to ground.



"There is no doubt that the F-22 is an important capability for our Nation's defense. To meet future scenarios, however, the Department of Defense has determined that 187 aircraft are sufficient, especially considering the future roles of Unmanned Areial Systems and the significant number of 5th generation stealth F-35s coming on-line in our combat air portfolio.

It is important to note that the F-35 is a half generation newer aircraft than the F-22, and more capable in a number of areas such as electronic warfare and combating enemy air defenses. To sustain U.S. overall air dominance, the Department's plan is to buy roughly 500 F-35's over the next five years and more than 2,400 over the life of the program."

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen 2009



"Russia is probably 6 years away from Initial Operating Capability of a fifth-generation fighter and the Chinese are 10 to 12 years away. By then we will have more than 1,000 fifth-generation fighters in our inventory."

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates 2009



"The combination of F-22s, F-35s, and legacy aircraft will preserve American tactical air supremacy far into the future. Moreover, a key additional—and yet untapped—part of this mix of capabilities is unmanned aerial vehicles,"

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates 2011

 

[Future Fleet]

JAS 39 Gripen NG

For Canada:

Dump the F-35 immediately in favour of the JAS 39 Gripen NG. A great defensive plane for North America with a very low price (and maintenance) compared to the F-35. Stealth not as important for domestic use. The Gripen has a good range, weapons payload (same weapons as the F-18 so no need to purchase new), can supercruise, and has amazing turnaround time.

As for the NATO and UN obligations, the Gripen will do fine there too. We won't be crashing the door down in the first 48 hours of the next war but our planes will be fine to fly after that, kind of like the F-18s are doing now. I believe Canada should alter its aims internationally anyway so this fits my vision acceptably. Peace keeping operations (with proper mandate and equipment to avoid another Rwanda), and disaster relief are what Canada should be focusing on.

Consider this - we have won little respect in the eyes of our enemies and peers if after the past 10 years our closest allies are questioning our northern borders and old enemies are starting to test our defenses again. Focusing on defense, and becoming experts doing one or two things (disaster relief, peace keeping) will give proper focus to procurement and not allow a much of special interests in military, government, and commercial enterprise to give us a military that does many things but none of them well.

With the cost savings, we'll be able to defend the country, meet international obligations, and have the money to by the 5.5 or 6th generation plane while everyone who bought the F-35 is paying out the nose for the next three decades.
Stealth technology isn't worth the extra 25 billion dollars.