F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Mod marks it own homework now so it’s easy for them to present the findings anyway they like.
Theres a reason they stopped the national audit office scrutiny and reports on there spending plans and it wasn’t because they were doing a brilliant job!

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Pseudo »

Ron5 wrote:Also from the recently published (Sept 6, 2018) MoD's Annual Finance and Economics Bulletin:

Lightning II is under-budget: forecast cost has decreased by £210m since 2016.
That's nearly enough for a sixth Type 31! :P

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:Theres a reason they stopped the national audit office scrutiny and reports on there spending plans
I agree. The current format, how the debits and credits can be made to match, at aggregate level without the project level detail makes for quite a boring read
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by bobp »

Ron5 wrote:and does not include cost of UK unique elements, estimated at $2 million per aircraft.
Wonder what costs that much per airframe...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

bobp wrote:Wonder what costs that much per airframe...
Doesn't sound much at all to me; the 2017 Parliamentary publication has this
" Lockheed Martin has provided more details to the Committee in a
supplementary evidence submission.
85 This document outlines three elements to the cost
of the F-35 programme: 1) unit recurring flyaway (URF) costs; 2) aircraft modification
costs; and 3) sustainment costs. The costs for the first category are outlined in paragraph
89 above. As for the second aspect, Lockheed Martin’s supplementary evidence suggested
that the UK is spending at least 3% of the original URF costs on aircraft modification
(they could not provide figures on engine and weapons system modification
)."

June (of this year) brought to the fore a "weighty" item not included in any of the above ... or is it a "weapon" system?
"Answering questions in the House of Commons, Guto Bebb, Minister for Defence Procurement, said that a decision on whether or not to swap the current Northrop Grumman AN/AAQ-37 DAS with a new system to be developed by Raytheon will be made “once [the government] understand the time and cost implications”.

To cap it off (as for budgeting omissions) we still do not know what exactly was behind this quote in The Times July 2017 "Behind the F-35 story" article... was it just a general introduction, or hinting to the unbalanced comms abilties (excellent between the F-35s, but not so with other force elements?) and therefore to further investment needs?

"Pressure on the budget for Joint Forces Command (JFC) is symptomatic of a failure by defence chiefs to prioritise information-sharing over the procurement of equipment such as fast jets and warships, former commanders and defence industry sources said. “Hardware has triumphed and networking and connectivity has failed,” a senior defence source said."

Jumping back to the quote from Guto Bebb it might simply fall into this big Black Hole “As with all upgrades, this will be undertaken as part of the future capability development programme,” he said on 19 June. “Costs have not yet been negotiated or agreed.”"

but in the F-35 context, the Parliamentary Investigation into the procurement states more specifically:

"[p.]25
[of] Unclear for take-off? F-35 Procurement
94.
The lack of transparency over the costs of the F-35 is unacceptable and risks
undermining public confidence in the programme. The Department should provide us
with the ‘rough orders of magnitude’ it claims to possess for the total costs of the F-35
programme beyond 2026/7"

and it is hard to disagree with that.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by bobp »

Thanks ACC that better explains it for me cheers.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Cost per airframe ect is irrelevant I don’t know why the MoD is being so evasive with the f35 programs cost. The procurement cost of the 48 aircraft to defence is £9.1b at last estimate.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

The MoD & Treasury has said there are so many factors in the future F-35 costings that are unknown and outside of their direct control, they are unable to give firm projections. The most obvious being the exchange rate.

Seems reasonable to me.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by SW1 »

They signed up to procure 48 a/c they know fine rightly what it will cost. As do Norway japan Italy South Korea who revel costing for moe than just the procurement of the a/c. There excuse is lame at best.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by R686 »

Ron5 wrote:The MoD & Treasury has said there are so many factors in the future F-35 costings that are unknown and outside of their direct control, they are unable to give firm projections. The most obvious being the exchange rate.

Seems reasonable to me.
I have heard that some big ticket programs they may hedge the exchange rate so there is a little bit of certainty to it it can go either way at the actual time of payment if you don’t get it right

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote:They signed up to procure 48 a/c they know fine rightly what it will cost. As do Norway japan Italy South Korea who revel costing for moe than just the procurement of the a/c. There excuse is lame at best.
The UK hasn't "signed up" for 48 aircraft. Not all have been ordered. And the price for all 48 hasn't been set yet. Even in dollars.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

R686 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:The MoD & Treasury has said there are so many factors in the future F-35 costings that are unknown and outside of their direct control, they are unable to give firm projections. The most obvious being the exchange rate.

Seems reasonable to me.
I have heard that some big ticket programs they may hedge the exchange rate so there is a little bit of certainty to it it can go either way at the actual time of payment if you don’t get it right
There's a lot of manure talked about this. In practice, the MD asks the Treasury what exchange rate they should use for dollar programs. Sometimes it turns out to be an accurate forecast. Sometimes not. If it's wrong, the MoD loses.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:They signed up to procure 48 a/c they know fine rightly what it will cost. As do Norway japan Italy South Korea who revel costing for moe than just the procurement of the a/c. There excuse is lame at best.
The UK hasn't "signed up" for 48 aircraft. Not all have been ordered. And the price for all 48 hasn't been set yet. Even in dollars.
Oh really that will be news to the mod. They have in there much heralded 10 year equipment budget so allocated finance to acquire 48 f35b aircraft so they know well what there expecting the program to cost acquire. So the manure is all there’s.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by bobp »

Ron is correct in what he has said. But its a fairly safe bet that the MOD will order more in the future. They are, I am sure introducing them into service in a measured way, so that in future batches less rework will be needed, as is the case with the early production batches.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by SW1 »

Ok the so this mod response to parliament which says we’ve contractually committed to 48 f35 must be incorrect then?

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 45/845.pdf

The Committee views the MoD’s failure to provide adequate cost estimates, either on an overall programme basis or on a per-aircraft basis, as wholly unsatisfactory. It amounts to an open-ended financial commitment which can be quantified only in retrospect. (Paragraph 92)

The Government has provided a 10-year budget for the UK F-35 programme, a cost estimate which includes support costs for all 48 aircraft out to 2048, and provided per aircraft prices where commercially possible.
In SDSR 15, the Government committed to maintaining its plan to buy 138 F-35 Lightning aircraft over the life of the programme. This policy commitment is vital to demonstrate UK support to the bilateral and multilateral memoranda of understanding3 that are the foundation of the international F-35 partnership. This commitment secured early influence in the design of the air system and significant UK industrial workshare. All nine partners have made similar policy commitments with a programme of record of intended total aircraft procurement,4 with the UK the largest non-US partner. This policy commitment is not an open-ended financial commitment, as only the first 48 F-35s are contractually committed to and budgeted for in the MoD’s 10-year Equipment Plan. The UK Government retains choice in the F-35 programme going forward; the timing of investment and choice of variant of the remaining 90 F-35s has not yet been determined. When the Government makes this decision, the UK F-35 programme will be expanded to include the uplift, and this will be reflected in our routine governance and reporting processes.


7. We understand that the Lot-by-Lot procurement process for the aircraft, allied with the separate processes for procuring parts and spares and logistical support, make it difficult to calculate the total cost whether on a per-aircraft or on a programme as-a-whole basis. However, it is simply not acceptable for the Ministry of Defence to refuse to disclose to Parliament and the public its estimates for the total cost of the programme, and to suggest instead that we must wait until the mid-2030s (when all 138 F-35 have been procured) to be able to work out a full unit cost for each aircraft, once spares and upgrades are included. (Paragraph 93)
The Government has publicly disclosed the cost estimate for the procurement of the first 48 F-35 aircraft and their support costs out to 2048 as circa £13 billion. Of this cost, £9.1 billion has so far been approved to cover support to 2020 and delivery of 48 aircraft, with the last of these being delivered in 2024. This is the totality of the UK F-35 procurement programme as specified in the MoD’s 10-year Equipment Plan. As the timing, variant choice and budget for the remaining 90 aircraft has yet to be determined, they are not currently included in the programme. The Department maintains the position that creating speculative estimates outside the official UK F-35 procurement programme would prove to be inaccurate and misleading, given that we are looking up to 50 years into the future. Such estimates could potentially compromise the position of the Government, the taxpayer and international partners in any future contractual negotiation.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by bobp »

Yes they are contracted to ordering 48 over the next 10 years, true. But the orders for such have not yet been placed. Why because the price is negotiated for each production batch.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

Yet it remains true that not all of the first 48 aircraft have production contracts because some of them are in future production lots for which no one (not even the US) has signed contracts. This document merely refers to a commitment that the UK has promised to buy at least 48, some of which will be purchased at a future price yet to be determined. The amount of money in the current plan is just a best guess, not a firm costing.

By the way, it's not exactly a secret that the current MoD financial plan is unaffordable. We are all waiting with bated breath for the defence review that will decided the needed cuts.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Gabriele »

Production contracts are all negotiated by the DoD on behalf of everyone, year after year. As such, formal production contracts are not yet in place. Even long lead contracts for the later lots aren't yet in place. The next one to be announced will be LRIP 11 contract, containing 1 british F-35B. Lots 12, 13 and 14 are being negotiated together, but even that will still leave out 7 jets expected in Lot 15 and 6 in Lot 16.
In other words, it will be 2022 before every one of the 48 is truly under full contract, unless contracting arrangements change after the Block Buy (12 - 13 - 14) with the formalization of a first Multi-Year production contract, as used by the DoD for other established programmes.
Such contracts cover tipically 5 years, and that could mean having all of the british 48s under contract by, say, end 2020.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by SW1 »

In the real world Signed up for and contractually committed too amount to the same thing, it’s slightly more than a promise it means that if you walk away from some of those 48 you have to pay compensation. Let’s not forget being contractually committed to 2 carriers was the only thing that saved them in sdsr 2010 the contractual penalties were larger to walk away than to finish.

Its how every contracted piece of equipment in almost every western country is managed and program cost announced and reported. There is at least the appearance of a concerted effort to conceal the true cost of this program and a number of other high profile equipment programs by the MoD to avoid political oversight and negative headlines of a department out of control. Stopping NAO reporting of major equipment programs being the most damning.

We do indeed a defence review which sadly I hold out little hope for anything other than cuts as deep as sdsr2010 due to the inability of the MoD to manage its budget properly and make the hard decisions until it’s peering over a cliff.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Lord Jim »

The way the US DoD and some other countries like Japan place orders for military equipment is far removed for standard contracting procedures, even like those for the RM two shiny carriers. Orders are placed for batches on a yearly basis during which time the specifications for said equipment can change, one of the reasons the USAF ended up with so many different standards of F-16. Industry is govern a commitment as to the programme total the DoD plans to buy but this is t binding by any means. Look how the F-22 programme was reduced. The complication with the UK commitment to by 139 or so F-35s is that in return we got a pretty large percentage of the workshare, though this was also paid for by the financial contribution the UK made. We could get a better picture of the programme cost to the UK is we bought more airframes at a faster rate, but the decision has been taken, for various reasons, to not do this and slowly build up our initial fleet to 48. By the time the last of these is actually delivered the F-35 will be a mature platform with few additional unexpected costs waiting in the wings of we might see larger orders to follow. IT also still allows the powers that be to change the version of F-35 the remainder are if such a decision is needed. WE are going to spend a lot more on the F-35 than was originally forecast, that is certain, but once we committed ourselves to the programme together with the design of our new carriers it became the only game in town.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

batches on a yearly basis during which time the specifications for said equipment can change, one of the reasons the USAF ended up with so many different standards of F-16
A recipe for longevity? Though may increase support costs, at the same time
- having said that, the real joker in the UK pack is the choice of variant for the remaining (90, or whatever the number turns out to be)
- the percentage of parts that are readily exchangable between the variants was targeted somewhere near the 70s (in %), but the outcome looks quite different: http://www.jsf.mil/images/f35/f35_techn ... nality.jpg
- also, the ALIS part itself of the programme has shown great variance in cost (the reason why investment in it even by the US is lagging behind) and, lately, the IP rights to it have shown up as a matter of dispute... not to mention the dependability of some (one?) of the planned deep maintenance facilities

So, it is not just the UK specifics (an additional cost) but some of the surprises, like
- UK & Norway together(?) having to invest more in deep maintenance facilities
- Norway (they, being a lead customer, seem to repeat in all problem "quick fixes") investing together to be able to have a segregated "mission module" with access to it, within the overall ALIS "file"
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by SW1 »

ACC

Unless team tempest decide the answer is f35 those 90 are not happening. If I were a betting man some time after 2030 the UK may bring its f35b buy up to 63 a/c that would likely be as replacements for early examples if they prove uneconomical to bring up to latest standard given known f35b fatigue issues. 63 will be all the uk buys.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I broadly agree with that (48 was the number I was betting on years before this forum started) as additional a/c are needed to keep the fleet going (at an operationally meaningful strength) to the '50s.

Team Tempest, officially: "The new project is aimed as a replacement for the Typhoon"
+
"The aim is then for a next generation platform to have operational capability by 2035."

Translation: It is a technology initiative as in FCAS TI
and
could, with the stated purpose/ intent in mind " FCAS TI programme [and are] all set for these activities to feed into the Typhoon successor programme.” well result in a tick list as for what that successor will need to meet, and with UK solutions standing ready to partner with whoever can come up with a platform to integrate them into

Bearing in mind that
" France’s Armed Services Ministry had [early this year] said : “Today, the priority is that the Franco-German link be solid before starting to open it up to other partners.”
and that on Germany's part the aim of the prgrm is the same as with ours: Typhoon replacement

And if it all goes "tits up" either as a project or as for agreeing common enough requirements, then there is still Japan (and Sweden?) to partner with - and failing that?? Simply buy F-35A's which certainly will have made leaps in technology by then
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
batches on a yearly basis during which time the specifications for said equipment can change, one of the reasons the USAF ended up with so many different standards of F-16
A recipe for longevity? Though may increase support costs, at the same time
- having said that, the real joker in the UK pack is the choice of variant for the remaining (90, or whatever the number turns out to be)
- the percentage of parts that are readily exchangable between the variants was targeted somewhere near the 70s (in %), but the outcome looks quite different: http://www.jsf.mil/images/f35/f35_techn ... nality.jpg
- also, the ALIS part itself of the programme has shown great variance in cost (the reason why investment in it even by the US is lagging behind) and, lately, the IP rights to it have shown up as a matter of dispute... not to mention the dependability of some (one?) of the planned deep maintenance facilities

So, it is not just the UK specifics (an additional cost) but some of the surprises, like
- UK & Norway together(?) having to invest more in deep maintenance facilities
- Norway (they, being a lead customer, seem to repeat in all problem "quick fixes") investing together to be able to have a segregated "mission module" with access to it, within the overall ALIS "file"
Just to be super picky, that chart doesn't show the commonality between just two of the variants. I suspect the A and the B have more in common. The C is quite a different beast.

Having said that, everyone assumes the RAF would like the A model. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually would prefer the C: longer range, stealthier, and fitted with a probe. A tad more expensive but what would be the cost of fitting the A with a probe or the tankers with a boom?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: F-35B Lightning II (RN & RAF)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:on Germany's part the aim of the prgrm is the same as with ours: Typhoon replacement
Are you sure about that?

Post Reply