F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[Gabriele]

P&W has said all along that Growth Option "1A" is a possibility to adapt the modification to the F-35B engine as well.

[Ron5]

Adaptable engine technology won't be hitting any F-35 anytime soon. It's way off in the distance.

[sunstersun]

a new engine won't come until 2030, but upgrades fo sho mid 2020's

[SKB]

(BAE Systems) Published on 18th April 2018

An F-35 airframe is on its way back to the United States having been ‘flown’ for 24,000 hours in our unique structural testing rig to prove its safety, strength and durability.

(BAE Systems) Published on 24th April 2018

Our test pilot, Peter “Wizzer” Wilson, recently completed the final sortie of the initial design and development test flight programme on F-35.

[NickC]

DOD GAO April 2018 WEAPON SYSTEMS ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

In FY2018 dollars estimates development cost $65.5 billion / ~ £47.8 billion, Procurement cost $115.5 million / ~£84 million each , weighted average of the three different a/c , A,B & C, B costs ~ 20% more than A so cost of F-35B ~ £100 million.

To date MOD has paid an average of £100 million each for F-35B buy to date at their fantasy rate of $1.55 to £ (todays rate equates to £113 million).

PS Boeing / Kuwait F-18E/F Super Hornet sale last month $1.17 billion for 22 single seat F-18E and 6 two seat F-18F, $42 million / £30 million each, may be reason US Navy have not bought many F-35C up to now, F-35C said to be more expensive than the F-35B.

[Gabriele]

PS Boeing / Kuwait F-18E/F Super Hornet sale last month $1.17 billion for 22 single seat F-18E and 6 two seat F-18F, $42 million / £30 million each, may be reason US Navy have not bought many F-35C up to now, F-35C said to be more expensive than the F-35B.

That is only Boeing's share of the price. Engines and government furbished equipment not included. It'll cost a lot more than that. The exact wording of the notice says:

The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is being awarded an undefinitized contract action with a not-to-exceed value of $1,165,068,022 for long-lead non-recurring engineering required to develop a baseline configuration for the production and delivery of 22 F/A-18E and 6 F/A-18F Super Hornets in support of the government of Kuwait. In addition, this contract provides for long-lead radar warning receivers and aircraft armament equipment.

Watch for further contracts.

When they asked how much it would cost to purchase 40, with all related equipment to actually fly and operate them, in late 2016, the estimate cost was over 10 billion USD. http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/go ... ft-support

Let's not fall for the usual "Black Hawk for 8 million USD" drivel that sometimes surfaces. It does not exist in the real world; it's only down to people who can't (or does not want to) properly track contracts other than the F-35 ones.

[benny14]

may be reason US Navy have not bought many F-35C up to now, F-35C said to be more expensive than the F-35B.

The C is the most problematic of the variants. It has had alot of issues to sort out. Expect the C orders to ramp up massively from next year.

[ArmChairCivvy]

It has had alot of issues to sort out.

Take my hat off for the USN that they have directed their energy at ironing out those problems, rather than go for "pretend" ISDs/ IOCs
... like some others have done, to secure the continued funding for further purchases

[NickC]

Watch for further contracts.

When they asked how much it would cost to purchase 40, with all related equipment to actually fly and operate them, in late 2016, the estimate cost was over 10 billion USD. http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/go ... ft-support

Let's not fall for the usual "Black Hawk for 8 million USD" drivel that sometimes surfaces. It does not exist in the real world; it's only down to people who can't (or does not want to) properly track contracts other than the F-35 ones.

Thanks

Checking google, found the US Navy Justification Book Volume 1 of 4, Aircraft procurement for FY2018, issued May 2017

FY2019 costs quoted as F-18E/F $85.5M; F-35B $133.0M (cost holding approx. same in out years); F-35C $144.7M (cost decreasing in out years).

Was unable to find the latest US Navy Justification Book Volume 1 of 4 Aircraft procurement for FY2019 budget.

[Gabriele]

FY2019 costs quoted as F-18E/F $85.5M; F-35B $133.0M (cost holding approx. same in out years); F-35C $144.7M (cost decreasing in out years).

Yeah, and that's after they have purchased 600 Super Hornets; and whenever you compare the two you have to keep in mind that there are other things that have to go on top of the Super Hornet costs (for example, targeting pods, which the F-35 includes).

[NickC]

US working to integrate the B-61 gravity bomb with the F-35, in 2015, the aircraft flew with a B61-12 to test how it would vibrate in the aircraft's internal weapons bay. No date quoted for IOC.

The 12th version of the B61 gravity bomb is said to be more than three times more accurate than its predecessors, its explosive yield is estimated at 50 kilotons. May 1st Lt. Gen. Jack Weinstein told Military.com, The service has "already conducted 26 engineering, development and guided flight tests" .

As of November 2009 Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherland and Turkey are hosting US nuclear weapons as part of NATO's nuclear sharing policy, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey (Congressional pressure to stop buy) ordered F-35, pressure on Belgium and Germany to buy F-35 to meet commitment on NATO nuclear sharing policy with F-35/B61s.

Flight Global - "The US military plans to order 1,400 to 1,600 Raytheon GBU-49 Enhanced Paveway bombs in the fourth quarter to distribute to certain foreign customers of the Lockheed Martin F-35" A 500lb bomb, laser/GPS guidance for F-35 Block 3F to give some ability to hit moving targets, USAF came under fire as originally planned to fit the GBU-12 which had only very limited ability to hit moving targets. No hint of "certain foreign customers"

[NickC]

Yeah, and that's after they have purchased 600 Super Hornets; and whenever you compare the two you have to keep in mind that there are other things that have to go on top of the Super Hornet costs (for example, targeting pods, which the F-35 includes).

Wikipedia states 280+ F-35 delivered and yet USAF unable to provide the required 23 aircraft Block 3F production representative configuration until August to begin the fighter’s full initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E).

[arfah]

5th June, x4 A/C to RAF Marham and 617 Sqn.

ZM 145,146,147&148.

-<>-<>-<>-

[Gabriele]

Wikipedia states 280+ F-35 delivered and yet USAF unable to provide the required 23 aircraft Block 3F production representative configuration until August to begin the fighter’s full initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E).

A bit like saying "the RAF received 53 Typhoon tranche 1 but can't bring out the required number of Tranche 2". Would it be nice to have them all retrofitted already? Sure. Is it possible? No.
The budget for 2019 advances the retrofit programmes for all services.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Putting this one in
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/2 ... t_uk_345m/
as a discussion piece; not saying the figures are accurate. But the policy of "not saying" from more official quarters leaves a lot of room for (wild?) speculation
- like, from the £9+bn over the life costs, 7-8 will be spent on the just first 48 (plus the base facilities)
- how many more will the residual amount buy? Before or after the above quoted (additional) third of a Bn? Or integration for achieving "jointness". RUSI has made a similar point since 2015 (in more technical terms) than what the https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... /32606.htm report on F-35 procurement contains, in evidence taken:

"29.Ms Haynes and Mr Mostrous noted that the US had invested in a Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) and a multi-function advanced data link (MADL) to enable secure transmission of data between the F-35s and legacy aircraft and vessels. By contrast, they claimed that, while similar technology has been trialled in an F-35-Typhoon demonstration, “as things stand today the funding is not there to bring that capability forward”.["]
- RUSI quoted what fitting such a capability onto the very limited number of assets operated in Afghanistan (and integrating into the US-operated backbone, without any investment into that part) had cost... after a coffee, or two, I might feel inclined to look up the ref (or not, as there seems to be a "members only" policy put in place for those publications)
- same kind of money as what the Register quotes above (but would need to be scaled up for the more numerous units that it would go onto)

[ArmChairCivvy]

RUSI quoted what fitting such a capability onto the very limited number of assets operated in Afghanistan (and integrating into the US-operated backbone

... just one coffee later:

"Data transfer by traditional Link
16 to other assets risks seriously degrading the F-35’s stealth in contested electromagnetic-
spectrum environments.
Enhanced data-management and sharing architecture capabilities compared with early software
versions of the F-35 itself are likely to be unlocked by the early 2020s due to the pressing
requirements for interoperability across multiple assets in the future concepts of operations
of multiple partner organisations in the programme. However, the rest of the UK armed forces
stand to benefit greatly if they can be configured to receive, process and make use of the data
the F-35 will be able to provide, in order to realise the full force-multiplier capabilities of the
aircraft. This will likely be an expensive process given the number of platforms that will require
upgrading and the £350-million cost of upgrading the communications and Tactical Information
viii
Obtaining Maximum Value from the F-35
Exchange Capability on the small front-line Tornado GR4 and Harrier GR9 fleets in 2008–09.
1
The
US Battlefield Airborne Communications Node system which provided a theatre-wide datalink
relay and translation capability in Afghanistan cost around $1 billion. This raises a question
about the balance of investment. Given the almost unlimited scope of connecting the F-35 to
every system in the battlespace, Joint Forces Command would need to prioritise connectivity
and bandwidth upgrades for the platforms that stand to provide the greatest increase combat
power and flexibility. Despite the cost, benefits to the wider force could be substantial –
overcoming the shortcomings in cross-platform high-bandwidth network capabilities in all three
services. The current equipment programme does not appear to provide for a coherent strategy
to approach this requirement. "

https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/20 ... 35_web.pdf

[Jdam]

5th June, x4 A/C to RAF Marham and 617 Sqn.

ZM 145,146,147&148.

-<>-<>-<>-

Good to know

Will al the planes that start crossing the Atlantic be to 3F standards?

[Gabriele]

Will al the planes that start crossing the Atlantic be to 3F standards?

It is pretty likely. The IOC is declared with Block 3F, and probably they instal it prior to leaving the US. BK-149 was the first delivered with Block 3F directly from the factory, back in february, but those other ones are LRIP 9 jets which have no big trouble getting the updated software drop.

The only jets the UK has that require a substantial retrofit including significant hardware mods are BK-1, 2, 3 and 4. And thanks to this tweet from 17 Sqn, we know that 1, 2 and 4 are already retrofitted / are receiving the retrofit.





BK-4 was retrofitted in November last year, so the last one is either BK-1 or BK-2.

They are the oldest, so once their retrofit is done, everything else is quite smooth.

[sunstersun]

Good timing from the UK on the retrofits and planes left for training.


The jigsaw puzzle continues to get clearer.

[dmereifield]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... play-like/

Well this would go down well with the Yanks....

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I can't see behind the paywall, but it seems to suggest that reduced F35 numbers would be offset by additional Typhoons, which the article suggests cost about half that of the F35b. IF there really isn't any additional funds for defence, is this one of the more or less palatable cuts?
Lastly, what is the absolute minimum number that would be sufficient for the carriers? 70-80?

[Spinflight]

The Yanks will be fine with it, they never believed we'd buy the full 138 anyway.

Don't get me wrong, Trump will try to twist May's arm but as he repeatedly threatened to cancel it he isn't exactly on strong ground.

Meanwhile redesigning the Typhoon for Japan makes an awful lot of sense on just about every level. They'd be throwing cash at it, particularly the lecktrickery bits, which they are damnably awesome at, and the only other bidders are an F-18 derivative and a really strange proposal from LM. It would be a shoe in.

Compare and contrast the RAF's demands for 90 A models which see's the budget in tatters with new boom tankers needed, by going all phooney we can push it back till the late 20s, keep the 20% workshare, have the existing fleet FAA operated and make up any shortfall with the USMC. Who wouldn't be too unhappy about it all. Especially if we get to retain or enhance capability in other areas which are threatened. They know we are strapped for cash. They'd see it as them gaining two carriers....

48 is enough, with no loss in capability, except that two thirds of the darts will be gump ones. FAA locks into the USMC's spares and training... All in all single fleet for RAF makes sense.

F-35 lines will be open for a long time yet so it wouldn't necessarily be the end.

Course the crabs will be stomping their feet and balling their tiny fists in apoplectic rage... Which will also be a side benefit. Potentially highly amusing. Did anyone really think having them operate from carriers was going to work out?

[Lord Jim]

If this is the future the UK is still going to be in a good place. As mentioned 48 F-35Cs are enough for the carriers, IF they are given that as their priority role. The Government/MoD might have to threaten the RAF with transferring the whole lot to the FAA if they aren't will to co-operate. As for the Typhoon, if this allows us to have between 7 and 8 squadrons, all at Tranche three standard plus a few of the capabilities from the wish list, it will be good for the MoD and the UK.

[seaspear]

It wont of course be the f35c but b (typo) are there any comparative costs of a flyaway f35b compared to Eurofighter in five years time dont believe the eurofighter is half the price now

[ArmChairCivvy]

the only other bidders are an F-18 derivative and a really strange proposal from LM

- has Trump's Advanced SH come back to life?
- LM: was it the front of F22 and the back from f35?

make up any shortfall with the USMC.

That does not sound (at first) serious, but it is. The reason why we built the carriers so big was that USN wanted to address their carrier numbers by having zero in the Med and less than 3 in the Gulf/ Indian Ocean. So out of our 2 and CdG (when it is not in refuelling) they could get a patch... with less sailing time, too

As mentioned 48 F-35Cs are enough for the carriers, IF they are given that as their priority role.

Carrier qualification for pilots (with the F35B) does not need the same regularity as with previous a/c
- when it got to the time of the Harriers being canned there was ONE pilot who was current with the formal quals for both carrier & related nights ops

[Lord Jim]

I was more aiming to having it laid down that the F-35s would be an assets tied to Carrier Operation with 24 being embarked routinely. The French would not voluntarily deploy the CdG with only 12 Rafale on board, whilst we seem to look upon the QEs as bigger CVLs rather than the true carriers they were designed to be, be they VSTOL and not CTOL. All these other roles for them should be secondary, yes they ships can do these additional roles but by default they should be operated as carriers and the F-35s priority mission should be part of that. To this end two of the three frontline squadrons should be FAA to reinforce this point. How they are utilised will simply be that when required they bring their airfield with them in a nice self contained package. IF we want a land based deployment we would still have three wings of the latest standard of Typhoon supplemented by reinforcing the air wing on the carrier is needed. Ideally the F-35s should all go the FAA. The Joint Harrier Force was an expedient solution to get greater utility from the CVLs. The RAF had the better attack platform with the GR7 the RN the far better Fighter with the FA2. Losing the latter but wanting to retain FAA pilots meant that some GR7s we badged as belonging to the FAA. None of the above was by design, especially when it came to CVL operations. The QEs were a clean sheet to get back into carrier aviation properly, but after so many bodges in the planning of how we intend to use them we are reverting to how we DID things not how we could regardless of the spin coming out of Government and the MoD.