Topic: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Baden Guy]

Article in USAF news:

First F-35A four-ship flies over Eglin


by Maj. Karen Roganov
Eglin Air Force Base Public Affairs

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123335351

[milnews.ca]

LM setting up Ottawa office....

The Lockheed Martin Corporation /quotes/zigman/150087/quotes/nls/lmt LMT -0.31% today opened a new corporate office in Ottawa to better serve its Canadian customers and partners.

The enhanced corporate presence will help to deepen customer relationships as Lockheed Martin Canada develops domestic and international opportunities that will result in job creation and an increase in the value delivered to the corporation's Canadian customers and their communities. A chief executive will soon be named to lead the office and will focus efforts on business development and government relations to further strengthen Lockheed Martin's diverse activities in Canada.
The structure and organization of Lockheed Martin's corporate presence will be coordinated with the well-established Lockheed Martin Canada structure to further strengthen the corporation's position as Canada's industrial partner.

Specifically, the new staff's focus will help to ensure the complete Lockheed Martin Canada organization continues its record of successful performance on all programs in support of the Government of Canada and the Canadian Forces ....

LockMart Info-machine, 7 Feb 13

Anyone care to triangulate that yellow bit with this?

[Haletown]

What a real Johnny Canuck  fighter pilot says about the F-35 . . .

"“What does that do?” he said, pointing to an F-35 model on the table.

“It does 50 per cent further in range than the CF-18s that I flew, that my squadron flew going to the Arctic. It allows you to go the Arctic by yourself, not refuel, it allows you to go patrol over the Arctic and stay over station longer. You go further, you stay on station longer than any airplane, by a dramatic amount, 50 per cent further than I ever could go in a CF-18, that’s dramatic, that’s measurable, everyone gets it, because the expanse of the Arctic is on a scale that only a Canadian can understand,” said Mr. Flynn.

“What do you see? In the CF-18 what you have is a little radar that looks ahead, and you have the equivalent of a fuzz buster, a radar warning receiver,” Mr. Flynn said, answering questions about criticism over F-35 capabilities.

“What you see with the sensors in this airplane, I see, in my F-35 in Texas, to the horizon, everything as far as the eye can see is what I see and sense, and by the way, no one can see me doing that,” he said in reference to F-35 stealth capability.

“I get to patrol the Arctic, I go further, I stay longer, I see dramatically further at all sorts of spectrums, more than other airplane could, and no one knows I’m there. To me this is entirely a story about Arctic sovereignty,” Mr. Flynn said."

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/2013/02/07/lockheed-martin’s-top-sales-guys-pitch-f-35s-in-ottawa-flynn-says-jet-fighters/33625

Guess the usual supsects won't believe him despite his track record of having been there and really done that.

[Bruce Monkhouse]

HEY, I'M IMPRESSED!!!

I mean if the freakin' table top model can do all that just imagine what the plane will do..............

[HB_Pencil]

HEY, I'M IMPRESSED!!!

I mean if the freakin' table top model can do all that just imagine what the plane will do..............

They have been undertaking advanced flight testing since the fall, so they actually have a fair bit of grounds to make such claims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfWHHuLILs0

[milnews.ca]

HEY, I'M IMPRESSED!!!

I mean if the freakin' table top model can do all that just imagine what the plane will do..............

And I'm SURE we'd hear about any problems about the model from a guy whose paycheque is signed by the same folks that 1)  made the model ....

They have been undertaking advanced flight testing since the fall, so they actually have a fair bit of grounds to make such claims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfWHHuLILs0

.... or 2) posted videos to YouTube saying how well things are going, right?

Do I believe all the critics of the F-35?  No - too much potential to cherry-pick only the bits supporting the case being made.

Do I believe all the company says?  See above.

[Kirkhill]

I can't help but wonder what one of my grandfathers would have made of all of this.

He was a craftsman on the team that built the prototype Prestwick Pioneer for Scottish Aviation just after the war (WW2 for the pedantically inclined).



They designed and built a good solid aircraft that was taken into service and earned its reputation during the Malayan Emergency.

One saying of his I remember all too well as an inquisitive 5 year old asking unanswerable questions about work he was doing.

"Fools and Bairns shouldn't see half done work!"

The poor buggers at Lockheed are having to work in full view of 6 billion television viewers.......including their competitors.

Previously it would have been enough to build a plane that flew.  Lockheed now has to deliver a plane that mechanics can service without breaking a sweat and armourers can bomb up in record times.   A very different game.

[HB_Pencil]

One saying of his I remember all too well as an inquisitive 5 year old asking unanswerable questions about work he was doing.

"Fools and Bairns shouldn't see half done work!"

The poor buggers at Lockheed are having to work in full view of 6 billion television viewers.......including their competitors.

Previously it would have been enough to build a plane that flew.  Lockheed now has to deliver a plane that mechanics can service without breaking a sweat and armourers can bomb up in record times.   A very different game.

Basically that's the rub. I've never seen a program under so much scrutiny... probably the closest parallel might have been the American space program in the early 1960s. Every detail gets nitpicked, discussed, criticized, and then rewashed in the news. Yet other programs get a complete pass on far worse problems.

I'm certainly not saying this program has been a paragon of acquisitions excellence... hardly. However alot of what has been emerging in the press lately has been completely detached from the reality. The aircraft, like every other one before it, will likely not meet some of its parameters, but basically deliver on the capabilities as promised. Realizing that should be the basis on how we guide our decisions... not listening to the hyperbole of the Opposition and other actors.

[ArmyRick]

There was opposition to the Bradley when it was being developed and yet it has done quite well (its not perfect but in a time when the Marder was the only other western IFV, it earned its stripes).

I am sure their were critics for every other major product undertaken.

Look at the Stryker family of vehicles that came into US Army service slightly more than a decade ago. Some people screamed bloody outrage at using 8 X 8 vehicles on a modern battlefield. However it has done well and earned its stripes too. 

An imperfect plan on time is better than a perfect one too late. Can not satisfy all critics.

Time will tell if F35 is a success or a complete flop.

[Colin P]

I can't help but wonder what one of my grandfathers would have made of all of this.

He was a craftsman on the team that built the prototype Prestwick Pioneer for Scottish Aviation just after the war (WW2 for the pedantically inclined).



They designed and built a good solid aircraft that was taken into service and earned its reputation during the Malayan Emergency.

One saying of his I remember all too well as an inquisitive 5 year old asking unanswerable questions about work he was doing.

"Fools and Bairns shouldn't see half done work!"

The poor buggers at Lockheed are having to work in full view of 6 billion television viewers.......including their competitors.

Previously it would have been enough to build a plane that flew.  Lockheed now has to deliver a plane that mechanics can service without breaking a sweat and armourers can bomb up in record times.   A very different game.

You need to take a holiday in Malaysia, good food and some interesting museums

[Kirkhill]

Thanks for that photo Colin, and the advice.

Pretty cool to see one of Grampa's aircraft in such good condition.

If I can be permitted to extend this tangent a little further - Here's a demonstration video of the Pioneer at Prestwick.  About half way through they show the Pioneer landing requirements in comparison to the runways at Prestwick.

http://ssa.nls.uk/film.cfm?fid=5024

On a more direct reference to the F-35 programme, if you take a read of the Wikipedia entry you will see that it references a minor hiccup in the development of the aircraft.

The original design brief signed off by the Scottish Aviation and the RAF called for a 240 HP engine.
The Prototype failed to make one of its KPPs.
The RAF cancelled the contract.
Scottish Aviation then went on to rework the design and prototypes on its own shilling.
They swapped out the 240 HP engine for a 520 HP engine and demonstrated it to the RAF.
The RAF proceeded to buy the aircraft - something like a total of 59 were built.

Now, can you imagine the furor if the F35 were suddenly discovered to require a thrust increase of 116%?  How would that be managed in the glare of the cameras?  First of all it would require the design of an engine that doesn't exist or redesigning the fuselage and everything attached to it to accomodate a second engine and still end up at 92% of the power requirement.

The F35 is worlds away from the Prestwick Pioneer in all respects, just as a Prius is worlds away from a Model T. But many folks are evaluating its progress in comparison to aircraft like the Pioneer.  I suppose they would be just as happy driving a Model T as a Prius.

Wheels? Wheels.  Engine? Engine.  Steering Wheel? Steering Wheel.  Good to Go.
Wings? Wings.  Engine? Engine. Joystick? Joystick.  Good to Go.

[tomahawk6]

I cant think of another combat aircraft that has or will have this capability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fHZO0T5mDYU

http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2013/02/11/522451/10021210/en/Northrop-Grumman-AAQ-37-Sensor-System-Demonstrates-Hostile-Fire-Detection-Capability.html

BALTIMORE, Feb. 11, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation's (NYSE:NOC) AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS), developed for the F-35 Lightning II, has added hostile ground fire detection to its capabilities by successfully detecting and locating tanks that were firing live rounds during preparations for a military exercise.

 A video accompanying this release is available on YouTube at http://youtu.be/fHZO0T5mDYU.

 While being flown on Northrop Grumman's BAC 1-11 test aircraft, the DAS detected and located tank fire from an operationally significant distance. In addition to artillery, the system is able to simultaneously detect and pinpoint the location of rockets and anti-aircraft artillery fired in a wide area.

 The AN/AAQ-37 DAS provides passive spherical awareness for the F-35, detecting and tracking aircraft and missiles in every direction simultaneously, providing visual imagery for day or night navigation and targeting purposes.

 "The DAS continues to show its ability to gather and analyze data for a wide range of missions not initially contemplated for this sensor system. These flight test results are just the latest example of the situational awareness capability of this revolutionary technology in action," said Mark Rossi, Northrop Grumman's DAS business area director.

 Although hostile fire detection is not an F-35 requirement for the DAS, the system design makes it ideal for this mission. This inherent capability enables DAS to harvest, process and deliver key battlespace information to ground forces and other aircraft autonomously, without the need for cueing or increasing pilot workload. The ability to gather this live fire data expands the mission possibilities of the sensor to include close air support and ground fire targeting.

 Northrop Grumman is a leading global security company providing innovative systems, products and solutions in unmanned systems, cybersecurity, C4ISR, and logistics and modernization to government and commercial customers worldwide. Please visit www.northropgrumman.com for more information.

[Haletown]

Well  this is going to cause some indigestion in the usual crowd.  Wonder if they used the uber advanced PBO cost forecasting methods based on the weight of previous aircraft or if they actually did all the tedious ILS work and crunched real numbers. 



"F-35 costs coming down

Lockheed Martin announced it has managed to reduce the cost of an F-35 in “combat configuration” by 50 per cent, through supply chain and production line streamlining."

http://skiesmag.com/news/articles/18108-f-35-costs-coming-down.html

[Journeyman]

Well  this is going to cause some indigestion in the usual crowd. 

Much like "the usual crowd" of cheerleaders won't scratch their heads and say, "what an amazing coincidence" upon reading

As the Canadian government assesses alternatives to the Lockheed Martin F-35 .....Lockheed Martin announced it has managed to reduce the cost ....by 50 per cent...

If LM can miraculously drop the cost by 50 percent without flinching when the programme may be in jeopardy, does that not beg the question -- even to the "F-35 can do no wrong-crowd" -- of how extortionary the price tag was in the first place?



Disclaimer: I am a fan of the F-35.
I'm not a fan of the mindless posts from either extreme.  It's like reading the old political posts between Thucydides and Redeye -- the posts are so polemic they're not worth reading, and so get ignored regardless of whether they may have contributed anything of value.

[Kirkhill]

Well  this is going to cause some indigestion in the usual crowd.  Wonder if they used the uber advanced PBO cost forecasting methods based on the weight of previous aircraft or if they actually did all the tedious ILS work and crunched real numbers. 



"F-35 costs coming down

Lockheed Martin announced it has managed to reduce the cost of an F-35 in “combat configuration” by 50 per cent, through supply chain and production line streamlining."

http://skiesmag.com/news/articles/18108-f-35-costs-coming-down.html

Amazing what happens when the well dries up.   


Let's see:

The War is Over... the taps have been turned off and all the suppliers are over stocked and over capacity.
Sequestration.... the taps have been.... (oh wait! I said that already)
This is the Last Manned Fighter (see previous propaganda) .... Lockheed Martin likely to be the only customer in town for many of these vendors for quite a long while

Meanwhile...

Lockheed Martin is under pressure to pass along the savings to the market, in particular Canada, by constantly reminding them that there are other options (poor as they may be) and no deal is ever final.

The press thinks the uncertainty reflects poorly on the Government.  In fact the uncertainty assists the Government in the ongoing negotiation with Lockheed Martin - and the outcome will have zero impact on the next election.

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Like I'd ever do business with a company that was either horribly, horribly  incompetent in thier supply system or was simply lying through thier teeth...........


...and I will steal the same disclaimer Journeyman used.

[Kirkhill]

I don't think we have to assume either incompetence or venality in this case.

I'm more inclined towards one of  Mr. Campbell's favourite aphorisms:"Events, dear boy, events".

Wartime is a lousy time to go shopping for war stuff.  Peacetime is a much more of a buyer's market.  And the best time to bomb up is right after a war.

The wartime premium has something to do with "profiteering" (as if that is a dirty word) but it has more to do with all available capacity being occupied by demand.  Think back to the MRAP programmes.  There was an imperative to buy protection of whatever form, at whatever price as soon as possible.   So the US Army and Marines were buying armoured trucks from anybody with competence that had an open production line.  Anywhere in the world.

The same situation applies to the aircraft industry.  If sensor production lines are fully engaged delivering sensors for UOR UAVs then the quoted price for a sensor is going to be high.  Conversely if suddenly the market for UAVs dries up and your sensors are no longer in demand then you will be inclined to keep your production lines open as long as possible at a more modest production rate. You will price accordingly.

Lockheed Martin MAY (emphasis on MAY as this is supposition) be looking at putting out 5 year contracts to purchase sufficient sensors to supply  their production lines for the next 20 years.  Warehousing costs money but sensors are relatively small and high value.  Similar thinking could be applied to the supply of engines. Other supplies, like strategic metals and materials, will be bought on the futures market.  Even money can be bought at discounted rates on the futures market if the timing is right.

All of these contribute to calculating the cost of any manufactured items, including fighters.

[ObedientiaZelum]

"F-35 costs coming down

Lockheed Martin announced it has managed to reduce the cost of an F-35 in “combat configuration” by 50 per cent, through supply chain and production line streamlining."

lol

So they're like an internet provider that  can't adjust your bill until you tell them you're going to another provider then the guy you're talking to puts you on hold talks to his "supervisor" and presto you have a month credit.

[NinerSix]

I can't wait to hear the public at large being outrage that the 16 billion price tag associate with the project doesn't turn into a 8 billion dollar one with the 50% cheaper production cost. Will it wake up some people to what the numbers actually mean?

[tomahawk6]

Its a great aircraft and cheaper if you buy with Loonies.

[milnews.ca]

Wanted:  just to be sure, an outside review of the numbers in the Next Generation Fighter Capability (NGFC) Annual Update to Parliament:

.... DESCRIPTION OF REQUIREMENT

For the provision of an independent review of the project assumptions and costs included in the Department of National Defence's Next Generation Fighter Capability (NGFC) Annual Update to Parliament.

DURATION OF THE CONTRACT

The period of the Contract is from date of Contract to January 31, 2014 inclusive and Canada will have the irrevocable option to extend the term of the Contract by up to two (2) additional 1-year periods under the same conditions.

Note: The work to be performed will happen only for a specific amount of time (approximately 60 days) following the costing information from the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office (JSF) ....

According to attached, "Request For Proposal (RFP) documents will be e-mailed directly, from the contracting officer, to the Qualified Supply Arrangement Holders who are being invited to bid on this requirement."

[E.R. Campbell]

CF-18 Life Extension?

This report is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from iPolitics:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/02/14/expert-panel-asks-military-how-extended-life-cf-18-might-stack-up-against-new-options/

Expert panel asks military how extended-life CF-18 might stack up against new options

By Colin Horgan

Feb 14, 2013

In a meeting earlier this month, the Independent Review Panel assembled to provide oversight of analysis carried out for the government’s next fighter jet purchase asked that when evaluating future options the military also consider the impact of extending the life of the CF-18s.

Notes from the January 10 meeting posted online show the panel — made up for four independent reviewers assembled as part of the government’s seven-point plan to reset the fighter jet procurement — overlooked a rating system developed by the military to measure the performance of each jet under consideration to replace Canada’s ageing fleet of CF-18s.

According to the summary online, that rating system would be “applied to measures of performance and measures of effectiveness” for each plane. Once that’s done, “an overall capability rating would be developed for each fighter aircraft to respond to the mission scenarios outlined in the Canada First Defence Strategy.”

But at the same time, the panel asked representatives from the Air Force and the Department of National Defence to consider an extended-life CF-18’s capabilities as well — that it be “included as an option when assessing fighter aircraft against each mission” in order to measure how it might perform under the same criteria.

The Air Force and National Defence told the panel they would report back with “draft results” of the capability assessment at a future meeting. The panel met again on January 29, but a summary of that meeting has not yet been made available.

Following a scathing report form the auditor general last spring, the government released a seven-point action plan that included an options analysis portion with measures to evaluate other possible fighters besides the F-35 that might be available to Canada to replace its fleet of CF-18 fighters.

© 2013 iPolitics Inc.

The PWGSC report on 10 Jan 13 discussions of the Independent Review Panel's Evaluation of Options is here. The panel members are listed, with bios, here.

In the wake of the shipbuilding plan, Prime Minister Harper seems to have more faith in independent panels than he does in line department civil servants and military officers.

[Kirkhill]

CF-18 Life Extension?

This report is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from iPolitics:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/02/14/expert-panel-asks-military-how-extended-life-cf-18-might-stack-up-against-new-options/

The PWGSC report on 10 Jan 13 discussions of the Independent Review Panel's Evaluation of Options is here. The panel members are listed, with bios, here.

In the wake of the shipbuilding plan, Prime Minister Harper seems to have more faith in independent panels than he does in line department civil servants and military officers.

I'm liking where this might be heading.

Panel is asked by the Government to compare the F-35 to other available aircraft.
Panel convenes and asks vendors to supply info for the comparison
RCAF pipes up and says it already has a comparison completed.  Panel is welcome to verify work.
Panel asks RCAF how CF-188 stacks up against its own comparison standards.
RCAF says it will get back to the panel.

When that work (adding the CF-188) to the comparison sheet is completed the Government and the Public will have a firm basis of comparison - a standard - a benchmark if you will - against which the contenders can be compared.

The RCAF and DND will end up looking fairly rational in their decision making.

At the same time there is an issue to be addressed.

A few months ago I asked the DND for records under the ATIF on the cost of operating the CF-188s, the bases they operate from and the tankers that fuel them.  They came back with a proposal for a $500 search and would only be able to supply some of the records going back some of the time.  At about the same time the KPMG report came out so I declined to send them my $500.  My curiousity isn't that great.

Now, I don't think my question was unreasonable.  I believe that in an organisation that is promoting life-cycle planning (not life-cycle budgeting or life-cycle purchasing but life-cycle planning) it might be possible that an entity replacing an existing fleet with a new fleet might have engaged in some data-mining to determine its current costs and capabilities.  I was anticipating that my request might evince the response of an existing report.  Instead I was to be offered many sheets of data from many sources and that data incomplete.

Perhaps the problem with this whole issue can be traced back to accounting practices.  It has become common knowledge that the cost of providing air cover to Canada is equivalent to providing a national broadcast service to Canada.  Perhaps it would be useful if the budget for that air cover capabilty were tracked as an entity rather than as a series of isolated but interconnected purchases.

If that capability budget had been available from the get go then the ever-expanding F35 budget fiasco (6 to 9 to 16 to 25 to 42 BCAD) need never have happened.  It would have been clear from the outset that the cost was 1 BCAD per year regardless of whether F35s or CF-188s or Rafales were being used.

[E.R. Campbell]

The New York Times publishes an idea (just a brain fart?) that Canada might retaliate for a rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline by canceling the offer to buy the F-35.

Now this is a new one for me, but the F-35 is under some (not much?) pressure from within the USA and it appears that Prime Minister Harper might welcome an alternative that didn't cost more.

[GAP]

Pentagon suspends F-35 flights
By ANDREA SHALAL-ESA, Reuters
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2013/02/22/20600956.html

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon on Friday suspended the flights of all 51 F-35 fighter planes after a routine inspection revealed a crack on a turbine blade in the jet engine of an F-35 test aircraft in California.

It was the second grounding of the warplane in two months and marked another setback for the $396 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the Pentagon’s biggest weapons program. The program has already been restructured three times in recent years and may face further cutbacks if Congress does not avert major budget reductions due to take effect on March 1.

The F-35 program office said it was too early to know if this was a fleet-wide issue, but it was suspending all flights until an investigation was completed. A total of 51 F-35 jets were affected, including 17 that are being used for testing and 34 in use for training in Florida and Arizona.

It said it was working closely with Pratt & Whitney, the United Technologies Corp unit that builds the engine, and Lockheed Martin Corp, the prime contractor for the radar-evading warplane, to ensure the integrity of the engine and return the F-35 fleet to flight as soon as possible.