Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

Trackmaster

Member
Agreed. Have always hoped that contact between the French providers of the Barracuda IA submarine would be by a DVD disk delivered between the two sites by long term CPO's.
You can build your system so that sensitive material is contained and protected by an air gap.
You can still email people, but your sensitive material is isolated
Yep, there will be hand transport of material and there will be discrete systems within organisations with no wireless connections. But that's the way it should be.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
You can build your system so that sensitive material is contained and protected by an air gap.
You can still email people, but your sensitive material is isolated
Yep, there will be hand transport of material and there will be discrete systems within organisations with no wireless connections. But that's the way it should be.
Exactly the type of system I was thinking, it should be mandatory if they want to deal with defence classified infomation.
 

pussertas

Active Member
$21 Billion Worth of F-35 Concurrency Orphans?

If all older model F-35s are included, costs could rise to $40 billion
(Source: The Project On Government Oversight; posted Oct 12, 2017)

By Dan Grazier
The new F-35 Program Executive Officer, Vice Admiral Mat Winter, said his office is exploring the option of leaving 108 aircraft in their current state because the funds to upgrade them to the fully combat-capable configuration would threaten the Air Force’s plans to ramp up production in the coming years.

These are most likely the same 108 aircraft the Air Force reportedly needed to upgrade earlier in 2017. Without being retrofitted, these aircraft would become “Concurrency Orphans,” airplanes left behind in the acquisition cycle after the services purchased them in haste before finishing the development process.

Left unsaid so far is what will become of the 81 F-35s purchased by the Marine Corps and Navy during that same period. If they are left in their current state, nearly 200 F-35s might permanently remain unready for combat because the Pentagon would rather buy new aircraft than upgrade the ones the American people have already paid for. What makes this particularly galling is the aircraft that would be left behind by such a scheme were the most expensive F-35s purchased so far.

When the tab for all the aircraft purchased in an immature state is added up, the total comes to nearly $40 billion. That is a lot of money to spend on training jets and aircraft that will simply be stripped for spare parts.

The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin have been assuring the American people for years that the price tag for the F-35 is on its way down. Much of that effort was part of the campaign to convince Congress to approve the Economic Order Quantity, or multiple-year block buy of F-35 components. They claimed that would lead to even more cost savings. But it is difficult to be enthusiastic about the prospect of saving $2 billion when the program could potentially have wasted up to ten or perhaps twenty times that amount.


The F-35 Joint Program Office considers leaving at least 108 aircraft —and perhaps an additional 81 or more—in a non-combat configuration because the cost to upgrade them is too high, making those concurrency orphans.


Upgrades are unusually complex for the F-35 because of the design process being used for the program. The program is developing the F-35 in several phases, called blocks. Each block has more capabilities than the earlier version. According to the Lockheed Martin website, Block 1A/1B combined basic training capabilities with some security enhancements. Block 2A remained a training version, with the ability to share data between aircraft. Blocks 2B and 3I are the first versions with any combat capabilities. The only significant difference between 2B and 3I is the aircraft’s computer processor. The first version expected to have full combat capabilities is Block 3F. This version has yet to be completed and is only expected to begin realistic combat testing next year.



The Marine Corps controversially declared Initial Operational Capability with Block 2B aircraft in 2015. But this version is hardly ready for combat. The Pentagon’s testing office has repeatedly said that any pilots flying Block 2B F-35s who find themselves in a combat situation would “need to avoid threat engagement and would require augmentation by other friendly forces.” In other words, the 108 Air Force F-35s in question, or any of the Block 2B aircraft, would need to run away from a fight and have other aircraft come to their rescue.

VERY Expensive Trainers

Getting to the bottom of exactly how much money has been wasted buying potentially combat-incapable fighters is a bit of a challenge. There are various ways to calculate the cost of weapon systems. To make it even more difficult, the numbers have been deliberately obscured by the Pentagon and the defense industry over the years. Using Lockheed Martin’s own numbers for aircraft deliveries, it is possible to make a few calculations to begin to get an idea about how much money may have been spent on these potential concurrency orphans.

The defense industry likes to use the Unit Recurring Flyaway cost. This is just the material cost of the airframe plus the fee to have it put together. This figure sometimes does not include the cost of the engine and it does not include the support and training equipment, spare parts, software upgrades, or contractor fees necessary to actually make the aircraft work.

Under the best-case scenario, the only aircraft that would remain concurrency orphans are the 108 Air Force Block 2B and 3I F-35As. (Emphasis added—Ed.) Without knowing exactly when the 108 aircraft in question were built, it is impossible to know precisely how much was spent to procure them. But, using publicly available information, it is possible to calculate a reasonably approximate figure since the Air Force acquired its first 108 F-35As in Low Rate Initial Production lots 1-9.

Using the Lockheed Martin/Air Force figures (which are MUCH lower than the real costs) for the first 108 F-35As purchased, the American people spent approximately $14.117 billion to purchase fighter planes that will never be fully combat capable unless the Air Force spends the money to upgrade them.

When you factor in the cost of the engine and the support equipment necessary to acquire an aircraft that is actually capable of operating, the dollar amounts are much different than what the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin advertise. This figure can be called the procurement unit cost.

By simply multiplying the number of aircraft purchased per lot by average procurement unit cost for the corresponding year, the American people spent approximately $21.4 billion for those 108 orphaned F-35As. That is slightly more than has been spent on the entire four-year fight against ISIS.



What remains to be seen is what will happen to all of the Block 2B aircraft remaining in the other services. During the period in question, the Marine Corps purchased approximately 53 Block 2B F-35Bs and the Navy purchased 28 Block 2B F-35C variants. The Project on Government Oversight submitted questions to the F-35 Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin regarding whether the Navy and Marine Corps aircraft will be upgraded to the fully combat-capable 3F software configuration along with the other concurrency modifications, such as structural reinforcements.

So far, no reply has been received from either office. When the costs to purchase all variants of the F-35s bought between 2007 and 2014 (the approximate timeframe the first 108 F-35As were purchased), are added together, taxpayers have spent $39.4 billion.

The Natural Result of Concurrency

The risk that the services would be stuck with less than capable aircraft is one that the Pentagon knowingly took when leaders decided to overlap the development and testing of the program with the production. That overlap is what is known as concurrency.

The F-35 program is one of the most concurrent programs in history. The services will have nearly 800 F-35s either on hand or in the manufacturing pipeline before the design is fully proven through testing under the current plans. This is something former Pentagon Acquisition chief Frank Kendall called “acquisition malpractice.”

While the F-35 program is still technically in “low rate initial production,” this is really only true in a strictly legalistic sense. Lockheed Martin is expected to produce more than 90 F-35s in 2018. This, like the 266 previously bought and contracted for (all U.S. F-35s purchased through 2017), seems to go somewhat beyond the “the minimum needed to provide production representative test articles for operational test and evaluation (OT&E) (as determined by DOT&E for [Major Defense Acquisition Programs] or special interest programs), to establish an initial production base for the system and provide efficient ramp up to full-rate production” standard established in the Department of Defense acquisition regulations.

The danger of purchasing hundreds of aircraft before a program produced a stable and fully tested design has been well known for years. Concurrency, as a RAND Corporation analyst explained in testimony before the House Committee on Government Reform on May 10, 2000, is rooted “in the politics of the acquisition process.” As POGO has pointed out before, this practice serves to limit the available political options for restructuring programs experiencing significant test failures or cost overruns. When the Pentagon makes substantial procurement commitments well before development or testing is complete, it severely increases the political costs of cancelling the program due to all the money already invested and all the jobs already created.

Dr. Michael Gilmore, the now-retired Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, warned that the services would likely have to send aircraft back to the maintenance depots for modification. The list of modifications is already quite extensive. The Air Force lists 213 change items in its FY 2018 budget request. The modifications required go far beyond mere software upgrades. They include serious structural upgrades including fixes to the landing gear, ejection seats, and the aircraft’s bulkhead structures.

Some aircraft would have to undergo this process several times before they could be in the full combat configuration.

This is an expensive process. The Government Accountability Office identified $1.8 billion worth of retrofitting costs to the program in 2016, with $1.4 billion going to already known problems and another $386 million worth of anticipated fixes that had yet to be identified. These figures are almost certainly much lower than the true cost to retrofit the aircraft already purchased because, as the testing process continues, it’s natural that more and more problems will be revealed.

The F-35 program is expected to cost $406.5 billion in development and procurement costs alone. The true cost to upgrade the earlier generation aircraft must be much higher than what is being publicly reported if is the Pentagon has deemed it cheaper to purchase more aircraft.
Conclusion

In total, Congress has authorized—and the Pentagon has spent—nearly $40 billion purchasing approximately 189 F-35s that, in their current configuration, will never be able to perform the way they were expected to when taxpayer dollars were used to buy them. This is hardly the right way to do business.

Any future program must abide by the true spirit of the “fly before you buy” business model—unless of course neither Congress nor DoD nor the manufacturers really care about producing an effective and affordable system.

When you cut and paste or quote from an article some valued added component by the poster is required, not just a straight cut and paste. I've deleted your post from the F-35 thread because it is identical to this. Don't make a habit of this or you will incur the wrath of the Moderators.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
When inevitable upgrades for the block 3F and later aircraft come around I wonder if the business case for upgrading earlier aircraft will become more attractive. The thing that makes me laugh at this report is it completely disregards the fact the same occurs with virtually every new combat aircraft, in fact I struggle to think of any type that hasn't had a very restricted"A" model.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
When inevitable upgrades for the block 3F and later aircraft come around I wonder if the business case for upgrading earlier aircraft will become more attractive. The thing that makes me laugh at this report is it completely disregards the fact the same occurs with virtually every new combat aircraft, in fact I struggle to think of any type that hasn't had a very restricted"A" model.
This article is a beat up of an article that I read on DefenseNews last month:

https://www.defensenews.com/digital...remain-without-fully-combat-capable-software/

Here's a quote from the article too:

"Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein downplayed the situation, telling reporters at the Air Force Association annual conference that the service has had similar conversations in the past about other fighter jets.

“What you’re going to see is us continue to do a business case analysis of the cost to retrofit the older aircraft as we go forward. This is not a big dialogue,” he said Sept. 19. “We have actually had this dialogue with the F-16, we had this dialogue with the F-15, we had this dialogue with the F-22. We just haven’t had it for a while.”


I would suspect that some of the airframes from the very early LRIP lots don't become fully operational combat aircraft, but it still remains to be seen how many in total, this is nothing new, and the article above is from the usual 'anti F-35' suspects too.

If you go way back in time to the F-111, there were 18 pre-production test aircraft and 10 production test airframes produced.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
No matter how you spin it, 108 test jets that are basically trainers is rather excessive. If 150 mods per aircraft are needed along with a new processor then simply building a new jet may be more cost effective at this point. If concurrency not been the plan I wonder how many test aircraft needed to ordered? With three variants perhaps the number would close to 100 anyway.
 

hairyman

Active Member
I am beginning to understand why Canada opted out of the F35 program. Will the Canadians continue with US planes after the farce of the Super Hornet price, or will they turn to Europe?
 

hairyman

Active Member
I should of raised the issue of the RAAF F35's. I take it that the two already handed over will be of the Block where they are no more than trainers, but what about the eight that are in production now? Are they in the same Block and catgegory where they are of little use as warplanes? And how many of our future F35's will be the same?
 

t68

Well-Known Member
I am beginning to understand why Canada opted out of the F35 program. Will the Canadians continue with US planes after the farce of the Super Hornet price, or will they turn to Europe?
Not sure how you came to understanding that F35 is not the way to go, because of concurrency build?
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
I should of raised the issue of the RAAF F35's. I take it that the two already handed over will be of the Block where they are no more than trainers, but what about the eight that are in production now? Are they in the same Block and catgegory where they are of little use as warplanes? And how many of our future F35's will be the same?
You can take it as that, but sorry, you are wrong.

The RAAF's first two F-35A (from LRIP 6), have already been upgraded from their original Block configuration to current Block 3i, and the RAAF has stated they will be upgraded to Block 3F prior to their eventual delivery to Australia.

As for the next batch of eight (from LRIP 10), which are currently being manufactured, they are planned to be delivered in 2018 with Block 3F, the next eight (from LRIP 11), will be delivered in 2019, and so on and so on, until the last batch of nine in 2023.

The problem with the report above is that there is no final decision on what the US will do, it may well be that very early LRIP airframes stay in a lower configuration for training and testing (this is not something new that is specific to the F-35).

Anyway, as I said, there is no final decision at this time and therefore it is easy for certain segments of the media to do a 'beat up' story.
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
YEP - beat up the story - real good. Found this old 16 Feb 2017 from testimony before US Congress by USAF LtGen Harris first then LtGen Bogdan to clarify situation.

US Air Force must retrofit 108 F-35As 16 Feb 2017 Leigh Giangreco
"...The air force is now facing a fleet of 108 F-35As that must be retrofitted from the Block 2B or 3i configuration, Lt Gen Jerry Harris, USAF deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, states in a 16 February testimony to Congress. The USAF and the F-35 Joint Programme Office are working together on a Block 3F upgrade plan....

...Twenty-six of those 108 aircraft will require a software-only upgrade, according to Harris. In addition to software modifications, 19 aircraft will also require new signal processor cards which the service says will take an average of three days to install and test. The service must install 18 aircraft with a newer helmet mounted display system, in addition to the processor cards and software, which will take 15 days to install.

“The remaining forty-five aircraft will require significant hardware modifications in the form of a Tech Refresh 2 modification,” Harris states. “This modification consists of twenty-six major components and takes approximately 30 days per aircraft to install and checkout.”

The USAF’s operational test aircraft also require Block 3F hardware modifications. But with availability of the full fleet of 23 aircraft projected in 2018, those modifications have fallen behind....

......Bogdan reiterated that the services are examining a longterm modification plan and are trying to design some hardware changes that could be retrofitted in the field, rather than in the depots." https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-air-force-must-retrofit-108-f-35as-434241/
 

hairyman

Active Member
The article that I read said the US was not going to upgrade the block 2 aircraft. but build new ones instead. I assumed that the RAAF was in the same boat. Just goes to show you, you cant trust the media.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
The article that I read said the US was not going to upgrade the block 2 aircraft. but build new ones instead. I assumed that the RAAF was in the same boat. Just goes to show you, you cant trust the media.
I'd love to see the article that says that the US definitely wasn't going to upgrade early F-35 (I haven't seen it), yes there are articles like the one above that are trying to suggest that those 108 airframes won't be upgraded, but still there is no official announcement one way or the other. It's all media headlines at the moment.

But if we have a good read of the Flight Global article that Spaz linked up regarding those 108 airframes, it basically says that 45 airframes "require significant hardware modifications", doesn't say they can't be done either, but it also indicates that the other 63 airframes only require more simple upgrades to get to Block 3F.

But lets say for some reason the US decides not to upgrade those 45 very early production airframes that require more significant modifications, what will that represent as a percentage of the eventual total global fleet of approx. 3000 aircraft? It actually represents about 1.5%

The F-111 fleet consisted of a total of 562 airframes produced (including 76 FB-111A), there were approx. 30 test aircraft, around 5% of the total fleet.

The Super Hornet is a good example of different versions, Block I & II, there were 135 Block I airframes produced with the avionics carried over from the Classic C&D, and not fitted with the AESA radar of the current Block II version, that is a significant percentage of the overall total fleet produced to date.

And talking of Super Hornets, the RAAF fleet completed a major upgrade about 12 months ago:

RAAF Super Hornet fleet completes first major upgrade program | Australian Aviation

That required both hardware and software upgrades too, but no big deal.


I can imagine that in the early 2020's when Block 4 comes around there will be even more media beat ups about that too!
 

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Detail relevant to all F-35s even though UK Parliament CVF Delivering Carrier Strike Inquiry transcript (just the facks maam nuttin but the facks) to counter those beat ups. :D

Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General Delivering Carrier Strike (HC 1057-I)
Examination of witnesses 11 October 2017
"Witnesses: Stephen Lovegrove, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Lieutenant General Mark Poffley, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Military Capability), Ministry of Defence, and Rear-Admiral Graeme Mackay, Director Carrier Strike, MOD....

"Stephen Lovegrove: ...Some misconceptions, particularly about the F-35, have been in the press recently—for instance, that it has less memory than the iPhone, and things like that. These are wildly inaccurate—I mean, 10 gigabytes. On an F-35, depending on the model, there are somewhere between 500 and 1000 separate processors on one single aircraft. Most of them have got memory associated with them, and two of those bits of memory I know are 96 gigabytes. Among 500 to 1000 processors there is an enormous amount of capability, redundancy and so on that is built in already. What it’s going to be like in 2026, I don’t know, but for the moment we are comfortable...." http://data.parliament.uk/writtenev...ttee/delivering-carrier-strike/oral/71235.pdf (245Kb)
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I am beginning to understand why Canada opted out of the F35 program. Will the Canadians continue with US planes after the farce of the Super Hornet price, or will they turn to Europe?

Canada is still a partner contributing money to the F-35 program. IMO, the RCAF will either get F-35s or be forced out of the fast jet business. Euro jets and SHs aren’t the solution.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
When inevitable upgrades for the block 3F and later aircraft come around I wonder if the business case for upgrading earlier aircraft will become more attractive. The thing that makes me laugh at this report is it completely disregards the fact the same occurs with virtually every new combat aircraft, in fact I struggle to think of any type that hasn't had a very restricted"A" model.
Yup. It’s a big problem for the F-35, but it isn’t a problem for all of those Typhoon Tranche 1 aircraft that cannot be upgraded without severe difficulty and exhorbitant cost and will be retired early...

Just one glaring example of the hypocrisy that exists in relation to F-35.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The article that I read said the US was not going to upgrade the block 2 aircraft. but build new ones instead. I assumed that the RAAF was in the same boat. Just goes to show you, you cant trust the media.
The US hasn’t even yet decided whether it will or won’t upgrade those aircraft. In any case they are irrelevant to aircraft being built today and whether you would or would not purchase these aircraft.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yup. It’s a big problem for the F-35, but it isn’t a problem for all of those Typhoon Tranche 1 aircraft that cannot be upgraded without severe difficulty and exhorbitant cost and will be retired early...

Just one glaring example of the hypocrisy that exists in relation to F-35.
That's the problem with interested amateurs who have not looked past the current "news" reports and at the history of many of the types currently in service, let alone the types they superseded. Its very easy to be horrified at the dollar amounts being discussed and the years of delays but if they looked back they would find very similar cost and time over runs on the very platforms they favour today.
 
Top