F-35 to be delayed again, more cost hikes.

[jaffo4011]

i do sometimes wonder quite why we are bothering designing new airframes like the f35 when we dont have a discernible threat which has the technology to deal with our current aircraft types never mind the next gen....we might as well just build new airframes and install the latest tech as required as per the f15,f18's and the likes of the typhoon,gripen etc.

the older design airframes,appear to cope well with new kit and surely a fortune could be saved with few drawbacks if we followed this route?

 

[Vivendi]

i do sometimes wonder quite why we are bothering designing new airframes like the f35 when we dont have a discernible threat which has the technology to deal with our current aircraft types never mind the next gen....we might as well just build new airframes and install the latest tech as required as per the f15,f18's and the likes of the typhoon,gripen etc.

the older design airframes,appear to cope well with new kit and surely a fortune could be saved with few drawbacks if we followed this route?

I disagree..

the best "current" jets like the F-15, SH, Rafale F3 or F-16 block 60 will struggle to survive even in the outskirts of an area protected by double-digit Russian SAMs. The SAM threat is not likely to become less, if anything it will only grow.

Also a2a there is development around the globe. The PAK FA will most likely evolve into a highly dangerous threat, at least if you are sitting in a "4. gen" jet fighter. The SU-30 is already a credible threat to most Western fighters, and the PAK FA will a generation above that.

 

[OPSSG]

the best "current" jets like the F-15, SH, Rafale F3 or F-16 block 60 will struggle to survive even in the outskirts of an area protected by double-digit Russian SAMs. The SAM threat is not likely to become less, if anything it will only grow..

AAW warships too are protected by their missile defences. So even in the maritime domain air strikes are not easy to conduct. :

 

[JWCook]

AD

I guess you are right; and perhaps the "true costs" of operating the F-35 will be somewhere between what LM says and what Bill and others say.

I think your only partially right - the cost will be between what LM are quoting and the final cost, which may be significantly higher than what "Bill and others" are saying, now why do I say this?

Its already happened twice in the past, the higher price\ longer delays that Bill and others have previously stated have already been busted twice, so what make this third time any different?.

But there's no need to be concerned, because the Australian Government have not set a upper limit on costs for the JSF, in fact they are at pains to suggest its all been taken into account, so its well within budget, and its not late as it has an inbuilt buffer - because we have the interim F18E/F, (which by their very presence makes that claim laughable).

Notable is the deafening silence from anyone in the Government or RAAF, Remember Seasprite was a great success till we sent the airframes back, so quoting the silence of the Government or RAAF as confirmation of the ongoing JSF success story is somewhat misleading, and is quite understandable as saying anything negative is a career ending move.


While the cost to buy and maintain is apparently of no concern to Australia they have recently quoted 2018 as the IOC for Australian JSF... now that is quite a buffer as the original Air 6000 was for an in service date of 2012/2014, and it will take an additional four years for an Australian IOC from when the first are delivered.

Hence the $4 billion F18E/F interim aircraft - because the JSF is meeting all the Government, RAAF, NACC schedule targets.

The UK reluctance to buy its original quota of JSF is conveniently dismissed as irrelevant to Australia, I'm expecting much more of the same from other export customer and the US, the JSF is in the same position as the F-22 was, its simply unaffordable in its present form.

I was once told that my concerns were irrelevant, because none of the export nations had bailed, or reduced orders.. now that is no longer the case are they still irrelevant?.

If i remember correctly customers should already have signed up for their quota by now, to get all the benefits of the huge JSF buy, everyone is delaying except Australia (14) and Israel (20) - why?.



Regards

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I was once told that my concerns were irrelevant, because none of the export nations had bailed, or reduced orders.. now that is no longer the case are they still irrelevant?.

If i remember correctly customers should already have signed up for their quota by now, to get all the benefits of the huge JSF buy, everyone is delaying except Australia (14) and Israel (20) - why?.

Ahh because their economies are collapsing? Ever heard of this thing called the Global Financial Crisis? F-35 may be a big program but it’s not that big to effect the world’s financial system so it isn’t to blame for the cold feet in Europe.

What matters for any customer of the F-35 is delivery, capability, contract and through life price. In these areas the F-35 is STILL well within the guidelines set by the Australian government as far back as first pass in 2006. The US DoD’s review and analysis process of the F-35 has hardly earned any confidence in the past five years and the latest, leaked and slanted perspective version of it should be taken with as much credence.

When you have hardened F-35skeptics pronouncing the project is dead every quarter yet it keeps moving forward within increasing momentum I know which side is best to be on. And it isn’t the accountants committing all sorts of sins against reality with their aggressive averaging of costs.

 

[JWCook]

Well that does matter, but nobody knows what its costs, except its not meeting the schedule. where does it say what the guidelines are, they keep conveniently changing with the program changes..

http://www.adbr.com.au/download/Features%20Articles/V25N11-12_Air6000.pdf

 

[Aussie Digger]

Oh no, the sky is falling crowd have joined us...

Israel just signed a contract paying $96m a pop for it's (expected to be) F-35A JSF's. Australia has not yet signed a contract for acquisition of those initial F-35's. That is due in July 2011.

That $96m is still significantly cheaper than an F-15K/SG, a Typhoon or a Rafale, though dearer than a later model F-16 or F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and probably dearer than late model Gripen.

Contrary to Mr Goon's "advice" the F-35 is still competitive in the marketplace at that price and offers significant capability compared to earlier generation aircraft.

I don't have any great concerns for the aircraft. I'm sorry if you do, JWC. The Australian Defence Minister is going to speak to Mr Robert Gates this very weekend coming however. I'm sure if the Australia Government has any great concerns, they will be put to him then.

Btw, Australia's plan is to receive it's initial aircraft in 2014. Develop a training and maintenance capability and start receiving production aircraft in 2016 building up to IOC in 2018 at which time F-35A production aircraft will begin replacing F/A-18A/B Hornets, whilst the Super Hornets give us a full fighter squadron capability that is completely unaffected by this throughout the changeover.

They also fulfill the task (or will once they're fully up and running) of relieving the burden on the Hornet fleet of providing our full exercise and deployment options. I'd suggest the majority of Red Flag and Bersama Padu type International exercises are going to see RAAF Super Hornets rather than Hornets in years to come, with our Hornets "massaged" through to their LoT's.

I hope that eases your concerns somewhat. I'm not really all that bothered if they don't, but I hope you can find some peace...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well that does matter, but nobody knows what its costs, except its not meeting the schedule. where does it say what the guidelines are, they keep conveniently changing with the program changes.

So you're quoting a chart I wrote back at me? The F-35 acquisition plan as quoted was established around 2002-04. It was BS then and its BS now. This was because the Howard Government thought they could get away with going from F-111/Hornet straight to F-35 with nothing in between. The RAAF was against it and in the end the Howard Govt. was forced to eat humble pie and order the Super Hornet, which of course the media and self proclaimed experts got totally wrong in analysis of why.

The F-35 is a new development that has had huge funding cuts inflicted upon it by the Bush Government. To expect it to keep to the original development schedule is plain crazy. To then think when it slips a few years it is a failure is equally crazy.

 

[JWCook]

Oh no, the sky is falling crowd have joined us...

Israel just signed a contract paying $96m a pop for it's (expected to be) F-35A JSF's.

Errr whos actually paying?? LOL. that US$96 figure is minus non-recurring development costs which is still an additional figure.

Recheck your figures - your assertion that its also cheaper is false.

Typhoon is between Aus $71m (cheapest price on record with the UK government and I added a +7% export margin) and Aus $95M (most pessimistic fly away cost which includes ancillary equipment).

It doesn't matter if I'm bothered or not, its the end result I'm interested in.



AG wrote

F-35 skeptics pronouncing the project is dead every quarter yet it keeps moving forward within increasing momentum

Can you give an example that does't include some artificial date range to show this " increasing momentum" I fear your confusing a recent rush of flights tests with real progress, this flight tests flurry is still playing catch up with previously revised schedules.

regards

 

[JWCook]

So you're quoting a chart I wrote back at me? The F-35 acquisition plan as quoted was established around 2002-04. It was BS then and its BS now.

They tend to be the best type of quotes....

Funny I didn't see any reference to Bullshit in that? if it was that obvious then why didn't you mention it, or at least title the plan "totally unrealistic plan"


How would you characterise the program right now? still on target for 3000 units, still on target for capability on time and budget.. or is the $5B USD rumour totally false.?

cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

They tend to be the best type of quotes....

Funny I didn't see any reference to Bullshit in that? if it was that obvious then why didn't you mention it, or at least title the plan "totally unrealistic plan"

Ahh so much for context. How’s life in scumbag sceptic land then? Nothing like manipulation, ignorance and so on to make someone a happy camper.

From memory that table, article and others written around the same time (Summer 2006/07) were actually explaining the reasons why the Super Hornet was needed and the effect it would have. A professional way of explaining how the overly risk tolerant plans of the Howard Government to recapitalise the fighter force had failed.

If you bother to read that table you will see it showing how the push back in F-35 schedule post the 2006 funding slash was effecting the RAAF’s needs. But I guess since I didn’t explain it all in simple terms with appropriate use of the world “bullshit” you didn’t get that…

How would you characterise the program right now? still on target for 3000 units, still on target for capability on time and budget.. or is the $5B USD rumour totally false.?

See there you go being an idiot. Rather than ask me how I would characterise the program (which I did above) you’ve loaded the question. Money has been transferred from production to development to fix the schedule and in particular for the more complex versions which don’t effect the RAAF. But its hardly significant stuff. While partner nations are pulling back on numbers because of economic collapse others are stepping up and wanting more. Demand is still very healthy.

Part of the problem with much of the F-35 analysis is people are mistaking overall project troubles as being significant for Australia. We don’t care if the F-35B will be the last not the first in service and cost billions more to make work. That is irrelevant for Australia.

 

[the road runner]

Part of the problem with much of the F-35 analysis is people are mistaking overall project troubles as being significant for Australia. We don’t care if the F-35B will be the last not the first in service and cost billions more to make work. That is irrelevant for Australia.

Great point Abraham,and its one that will stick in my mind from now on when i see an article from APA/NEWS or from posters on Defence Talk

Regards

 

[OPSSG]

Abraham, how would you characterize the JSF programme now?

The reason I'm asking is because I'm concerned how the changes will affect Singapore. Is it a matter of simply waiting for the issues to be resolved or are other further hedging moves at a national level necessary? I'm just a little confused by the smoke generated right now.

Many thanks.

 

[jack412]

JWCook; just a couple of points
the partners have no further development cost liability and buy at flyaway

the SH were to replace the f111 and have nothing to do with the the hornets timeline replacement

the latest price on production f-35a is $60m 2010$'s and we have said $75m 2008$'s,
at current exchange rate we have a $15+m buffer
it seems at this stage the f-35 is coming in 25% under budget

 

[Aussie Digger]

Errr whos actually paying?? LOL. that US$96 figure is minus non-recurring development costs which is still an additional figure.

Israel is paying from their military aid funding granted by the United States. No matter it's source, it is Israel's money to purchase what it wants from the US.

In their ability to use it, it is little different from the Countries in Asia that are buying Sukhoi's on credit from Russia, the difference of course being that Israel doesn't incur debt from this...

Recheck your figures - your assertion that its also cheaper is false.

Typhoon is between Aus $71m (cheapest price on record with the UK government and I added a +7% export margin) and Aus $95M (most pessimistic fly away cost which includes ancillary equipment).

Tell that to Saudi Arabia and their $9.5b acquisition of 72x Typhoons...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Abraham, how would you characterize the JSF programme now?

The reason I'm asking is because I'm concerned how the changes will affect Singapore. Is it a matter of simply waiting for the issues to be resolved or are other further hedging moves at a national level necessary? I'm just a little confused by the smoke generated right now.

Many thanks.

F-35 has suffered development delays. They were overly ambitious in their timeline and the US Congress has teared the a** out of development funding so it's going to take an extra amount of money and time to finish the aircraft.

As can be seen in 2010, real advances in flight testing have been made, 460+ test flights (nearly 10% of the entire program), EOTS/EODAS now flying on CATBIRD, Block 0.5 software load, allowing APG-81 testing on an F-35 airframe etc, F-35 airframe cleared to M1.32 and 39,000 feet, 7G maneuvers, more test and development aircraft being delivered by the end of this year and early next year and so on.

If you need an aircraft in the 2018-2020 timeframe than an F-35A at least be at Block 3 standard by then with a solid order book that no other aircraft can match, even if massive US cuts eventuate.

Whilst the original 5000 orders may never eventuate, F-35 will still dwarf any other modern combat fighter program, with the exception of the F-16, so it's always going to be a solid program going forward.

The funny thing is, that the same fools that call for F-35 to be canned and legacy aircraft to be invested in are the same ones who argue that an F-35 is already obsolete by the "threat". If the F-35 is already obsolete, what the hell use is investing in "legacy" aircraft?

 

[JWCook]

Israel is paying from their military aid funding granted by the United States. No matter it's source, it is Israel's money to purchase what it wants from the US.

So the US is paying for Israel to buy the aircraft, you will also find that Israel are funding certain equipment not in that $96m each i.e extras to the flyaway price.

BTW if the US is willing to fund me personally - I'll buy a couple of hundred JSF and give them to the RAAF free of charge.

Tell that to Saudi Arabia and their $9.5b acquisition of 72x Typhoons...

If you insist - lets try comparing apples with apples (total acquisition costs) if you compare the Typhoon deal (which even includes production setup in Saudi) to the Israeli JSF you still come out behind and the Saudis are paying from their own pockets

I wont even bother changing to the correct Typhoon figure of £4.43b (US$7.1b )as I'm sure it was just a currency mistake on your part, so going with your inflated Typhoon figures:-

Israel 2.75b/20 jsf airframes = $137m each and the Typhoons $9.5b =$132m each, Using flyaway the difference is even more apparent.

If you were to include the costs of Australia's interim F18e/f solution to the present Air 6000 solution then the 2002 decision to go JSF would be hard to justify on cost grounds... I wonder how that happened if it was common knowledge that the projected plans were BS.

My problem - I fail to understand the blind support for such a flawed procurement decision and its not over yet.

I think I'll leave this thread to the usual players expressing the rosier view, sorry to have intruded, I really should have resisted the urge.

Cheers

 

[jack412]

except that phoon price is a program cost and israel is a LRIP and not full production, plus they dont get the partner price

as i said above the latest price is $60 2010$'s for a production f-35a
Lateline - 16/06/2010: Lockheed Martin defends strike fighter

we have allowed $75m in 2008$'s
Australia working on jets payments

 

[Aussie Digger]

So the US is paying for Israel to buy the aircraft, you will also find that Israel are funding certain equipment not in that $96m each i.e extras to the flyaway price.

BTW if the US is willing to fund me personally - I'll buy a couple of hundred JSF and give them to the RAAF free of charge.

Who wouldn't, but it is interesting that the military aid program to Israel can in fact be used on any weapon system that is currently ITARS cleared for sale to Israel, including F-15's, F-16I or hell, even Super Hornet's if they really wanted I suppose. They chose F-35 however. Apparently they don't share the same opinion on it's "flaws" as you do.

Are you now going to follow the usual APA line and argue that the IDF is "corrupt and incompetent" too?

If you insist - lets try comparing apples with apples (total acquisition costs) if you compare the Typhoon deal (which even includes production setup in Saudi) to the Israeli JSF you still come out behind and the Saudis are paying from their own pockets

I wont even bother changing to the correct Typhoon figure of £4.43b (US$7.1b )as I'm sure it was just a currency mistake on your part, so going with your inflated Typhoon figures:-

Israel 2.75b/20 jsf airframes = $137m each and the Typhoons $9.5b =$132m each, Using flyaway the difference is even more apparent.

Why not use Austria's $2b cost then at $140m per Eurofighter in 2002 dollars...

But sure, why not? Let's use Israel's FY10 year dollars compared to Saudi Arabia's FY07 year dollars to make a point shall we? And let us not bother adjusting the inflation increases or anything like that. Let's just assume that JSF is somehow immune from real world cost increases that have NOTHING to do with how well or otherwise the JSF program is run and blithely compare project costs for contracts signed many years apart...

To others reading, this harks back to what I was saying earlier about the critics and their "disingenuity". If you want to compare apples and apples JWC, then you have to go through each purchase, line by line, item by item AND adjust for year to year price increases that have nothing to do with JSF project management.

On top of this, using such a simplistic method of comparison doesn't take into account the package (with either acquisition) nor does it take into account the production status of the aircraft (ie: try comparing LRIP Typhoon sales to LRIP JSF sales and see what the cost comparison looks like...) nor does it take into account any specific modifications to the aircraft which Israel may well have funded (admittedly through US aid) which adds a premium to the aircraft.

If you were to include the costs of Australia's interim F18e/f solution to the present Air 6000 solution then the 2002 decision to go JSF would be hard to justify on cost grounds... I wonder how that happened if it was common knowledge that the projected plans were BS.

Why not add the KC-30B, Hornet Upgrade Project, Wedgetail AEW@C, AGM-158 JASSM's, Project Vigilaire, HF Mod and WGS Satcom capability on top whilst your at it? ALL of these projects were required to provide for Australia's air defence capability, after the retirement of the F-111, but prior to the introduction of JSF as well.

Where does it stop? A Government's decision to acquire a boost to our air combat capability, somehow has to be added to the cost of our long term fighter replacement? Why? I don't quite get that.

If you want to measure overall air combat capability, fine, but the Super Hornet doesn't directly relate to JSF at all. JSF wasn't replacing the F-111 originally until 2020+ so the alleged "lateness" of the JSF has nothing whatsoever to do with the F-111 replacement. It impacts on the Hornet replacement obviously but you are drawing a long bow between it and the Super Hornet. Too long for my taste.

RAAF will of course be using their corporate knowledge of some of the 5th Gen like features on the Super Hornet (I say so not to start an argument, but to recognise that things like the APG-79 radar WERE meant for Boeing's JSF entrant originally) to help them transition to the JSF, but that wasn't a reason for buying the Super Hornets. A very large budget surplus and a "flood" of Flankers into our region was.

My problem - I fail to understand the blind support for such a flawed procurement decision and its not over yet.

I think I'll leave this thread to the usual players expressing the rosier view, sorry to have intruded, I really should have resisted the urge.

Cheers

Can't stand the heat, get out of the fire old boy. That's the nature of discussion. At least on places where such discussion is welcome and pandering to the cult of the Uber-Pig isn't the order of the day...

Regards,

AD

 

[t68]

RAAF will of course be using their corporate knowledge of some of the 5th Gen like features on the Super Hornet (I say so not to start an argument, but to recognise that things like the APG-79 radar WERE meant for Boeing's JSF entrant originally) to help them transition to the JSF, but that wasn't a reason for buying the Super Hornets. A very large budget surplus and a "flood" of Flankers into our region was.

This flood of SU-35 Flanker aircraft in the region what nation has flooded the area?

If memory serves me correctly the RMAF has speculated on buying SU-35 but has not placed any orders as yet, other potential customers are Algeria, Brazil, India. The Venezuelan Air force has ordered 24 aircraft and Libiya is expected to order 12 aircraft soon. Only other operator of the aircraft is Russia herself 50 aircraft.

Indonesia has 8 SU-30MK2s aircraft; Malaysia has 18 SU-30MKM in service but is having trouble getting parts for them from Russia and has turned to the Chinese for parts. The Chinese have reported numbers of 127 SU-30MKK/MK2 operating, 70 SU-27SK/BK and 124 Shenyang J-11A/B based on an SU-27 aircraft, 200 Chengdu J-10 dragon plus 650 odd 3rd gen aircraft of various models and that does not take into account of their fighter strike aircraft/ground attack aircraft.

I cannot see us going toe to toe with Malaysia any time soon, we might not have the best relation with them but we are still a part of the Five Power Defence Agreement which was put in place to keep in check the Indonesians aggressive attitude in the 1960’s and relation with them are getting better and stronger .

The only great hordes of aircraft are far away in china at the MOMENT nothing in the greater pacific area or have i missed something?