F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[ArmChairCivvy]

more than $1 billion a year between 2018 and 2024.

In total, JPO estimates that continuous capability development and delivery (C2D2) of the F-35 will cost $16.4 billion over that seven-year time period, with some $11 billion going toward development

The hearing provides more detail, but over the last half year I have been writing about Block 4 amounting to at least $8bn and a new partnership being in the offing, whether the partners want it or not
- the weapons they have developed or on the availability of which the assumed mission capabilities hang could of course be left not integrated...

[Dave]

Apparently last week at Paxtulent testing grounds the f35b fired for the first time its gau gun, this may be an option for other users of the f35b .

Unlikely, here's video from May 2017 of a test firing.

[R686]

if the "B" fell over the US would have looked at AV-8 Harrier III

Tell me more as when the "B" was on probation, I did not spot any mentions of such an option?

Your actual quote below summarising a past what if, I had taken that to mean that the USN would not go on to build the Flight 0 America class ships and the USMC would/could look at other options in regards to fast air CAS had the F35B been cancelled, hence my suggestion that an improved AV-8 Harrier III would have been the most likely choice to fulfil the requirement or explore other options.

After all the current USN gator navy has its roots starting with Essex class carrier then the Iwo Jima then Tarawa and so and so on, actually on paper there really was no real requirement for the USMC to acquire low observable F35B's a Harrier III program would have sufficed for the role of fast tac air from the gator Navy. the real rational for them came from the USN they could see the potential of increase the USN strike capability into the future as they knew 10/11 super carriers where it, hence the improved Aviation enhanced Flight 0 America class


The big question that needed to be asked at the time was if the "B" portion of the program had been cancelled would the RN be happy with a new program for Harrier III to operate off the new big decks or bite the bullet and continue with the F35C and to a degree that was answered with the flip flop nature, me thinks if the UK did keep with the C option alive I think the B would have been killed off, I think it was more to do with back office politics that only saved the B from the cannery.

had the F-35B been cancelled/ continued on probation/ been put to the back of the queue... THEN the USMC ship building prgrm would, today, look very different from the one that is now continuing to progress

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... jets-14958

[ArmChairCivvy]

the real rational for them came from the USN they could see the potential of increase the USN strike capability into the future as they knew 10/11 super carriers where it, hence the improved Aviation enhanced Flight 0 America class

We definitely start from the same "place".
-the design philosophy, in more nuanced terms:
" The one key difference of LHA(R) from LHD 8 is that it will be an aviation-enhanced assault ship tailored for the US Marine Corps future Aviation Combat Element centered on the STOVL F-35B Joint Strike Fighter and the tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey.

LHA 6, the first ship of the LHA(R) program, will be able to operate and support a detachment of 20+ Joint Strike Fighters. "

And lifted from the same review article https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... /f-35b.htm, what did the USMC Commandant say on 13 Jan, 2011, after the SecDef Gates had placed the B version on probation a week earlier:
" With a fully-fielded fleet of F35Bs, the Nation will maintain 22 capital ships-11 carrier and 11 amphibious assault-with 5th generation strike assets aboard."
- the What-If question then comes, had no Bs been, in the end, available for fielding, would the Cost/ Benefit analysis for the latter 11 capital ships have shifted dramatically? Calling for a Plan B?
- on this one, we may differ?

[sunstersun]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/warplanes- ... echnology/

absolutely stunning footage of the orange flag exercise.

[sunstersun]

http://www.janes.com/article/78443/pent ... ernisation

yeesh 4F is going to cost a lot lot.

[R686]

http://www.janes.com/article/78443/pent ... ernisation

yeesh 4F is going to cost a lot lot.

Not being able to read the entire article I imaging that figure is the current and future aircraft modernization, it would be interesting to see the figure for partner nations as well.

[sunstersun]

http://www.janes.com/article/78443/pent ... ernisation

yeesh 4F is going to cost a lot lot.

Not being able to read the entire article I imaging that figure is the current and future aircraft modernization, it would be interesting to see the figure for partner nations as well.

10.5 billion for RnD 6 billion for updates. 3.7billion paid by partner nations. 1 billion a year until 2024 paid by the USA.

[sunstersun]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ffice.html

sorry should have just linked this article.

[Lord Jim]

Lockheed should be made to bite the bullet for a large chunk of these extra costs. the F-35 is a money pit that is betting deeper and deeper. Ideally Lockheed should only be allowed to make a very small profit from this programme due to the cost overruns and delays and any price increases down the line monitored closely. They are milking the system like there is no tomorrow. I know the programme was ambitious, but they were contracted to deliver a product to a set specification. Failure should not be rewarded.

[Gabriele]

1) The US officers say that the remaining correction of Block 3F deficiencies will not be paid twice.

2) Block IV is about adding a lot of new things. It was always going to cost. It has nothing to do with the original specification. That is Block 3F.

[Lord Jim]

SO the equivalent is issuing the spec and contracting for the Batch one Typhoons, but realising we actually need the Batch three to have an effective platform, or something along those lines. I suppose these are some of the pitfalls when you try to run production and development at the same time. May be they should have stuck to a limited number of developmental aircraft until the configuration required was validated and fit for operations deployment instead of rushing to get it into service to justify the growing bill.

[Gabriele]

It was always planned to upgrade the F-35 with regularity and add more capability over time. C2D2 will include a Technology Refresh (TR3) which will adopt a new processor and keep the electronics up to date.

Meanwhile, Typhoon Tranche 1 which is not and was never meant to be refreshed is essentially becoming a dead end and scores of them will be dismantled to feed the others with spare parts, even though they are still young.

Drawing a paralel between Typhoon and F-35, Typhoon is going through a "Future Capability Programme" costing (data from the NAO Major Projects 2015, the last proper document providing information that the MOD has published):

39 million assessment + 401 million Demonstration & Manufacture; plus

130 million Meteor integration
153 million Storm Shadow
186 million Brimstone 2

76 million were expended earlier for the "Austere" project integrating the targeting pod and Paveway II


It's not like the UK doesn't know how these things work.

[Lord Jim]

I understand the nature of things it is just the enormous cost of the essential rework, and the ever increasing costs. The £600M for the Typhoon is an absolute bargain and the platform has already seen action. The F-35 is still in development and this Block 4 seems to be more to fix issues like obsolete components. It is one thing to improve a platform during its service life the how the F-35 programme is being managed is unbelievable. The Tranche 1 Typhoon was a functioning aircraft that needed tweaking to get the FGR4 operational. The F-35 need a huge investment to get it fit for purpose and do what the customer wanted from the outset. That is not an incremental improvement programme during the platforms service life by any stretch of the imagination hence my gripe.

[Gabriele]

I suggest you check your dates. F-35 does not do any worse than Typhoon, or Rafale. We'd all like it to be cheapter and faster, and it was insanely overoptimistic to say it would be as quick and cheap and easy as they thought. But it is time to put things into context.

The F-35 need a huge investment to get it fit for purpose and do what the customer wanted from the outset.

That is just false. Many of the things Block IV seeks to add weren't even around, literally, when development was underway.

[Lord Jim]

I suggest you read the recent reports published in the US regarding the transition from the SDD to the C2D2 phase of the F-35 programme. they are all extremely negative, saying that the F-35 is will not be allowed to enter full production without spending tens of billions of dollars that were not part of the programme and that the JPO has consistently been grossly over optimistic about its ability to rectify issues and get the programme anywhere near on track. This is not the case of Block 4 being a well planned progression of the developmental path. It is essential work need to get the F-35 to the standard Lockheed were contracted to achieve for the aircraft to be declared operational, and the cost of Block 4 alone has risen to over $10Bn and even that is seen a being way to conservative, To make matters worse the UK is expected to pay 4.5% of whatever the final cost of Block 4 is for the whole programme, which is unfunded but then again the USAF has not funded Block 4 either and is asking for extra money to do so saying without this extra funding the F-35 fleet cannot be used operationally, but only fro train, testing and evaluation. Reading those documents shows the whole programme is starting to spiral downwards, with little if any positive news. My greatest worry is that the UK is permanently locked into the programme and has to buy the F-35B otherwise the RN ands up operating the worlds largest helicopter carriers.

[Gabriele]

Been reading DefenseAerospace, i bet...

Regarding the funding, Congress is holding back of the money in the appropriation until they are given the final documentation. Which is due, if i recall correctly from the hearing of the top officials the other day, by June.

The downwards spiral nonsense, i'm not even bothering with.

[Caribbean]

I hope that not all of that extra money is for software costs, because, even on a contractor rate of $200/hour, that's around 27000 man years of work

[ArmChairCivvy]

10.5 billion for RnD 6 billion for updates. 3.7billion paid by partner nations.

About September I started writing about the (then) estimate of 8 Bn... so not much short of a half Bn added per month (when the 8 was over double the "official" estimate, to begin with!).

To make matters worse the UK is expected to pay 4.5% of whatever the final cost of Block 4 is for the whole programme, which is unfunded but then again the USAF has not funded Block 4 either and is asking for extra money to do so saying without this extra funding the F-35 fleet cannot be used operationally

- and immediately there was talk about Partnership round 2 being in the offing... well, if the above is accurate, now we know

Anyone care to comment on the validity of the USMC and USAF IOCs? Should they be relabelled iIOCs?

Or, will the lower unit costs target be met by quoting for the a/c not just without engine costs - originally flowing from the idea of having two alternative engines, in order to avoid monopoly pricing - buts "sans SW " too?

[ArmChairCivvy]

around 27000 man years of work

Normal SW testing goes like this: V
- i.e. when you eliminate bugs and re-test, each round becomes progressively faster

With the F-35 concurrency approach and patch on top of a patch... on top of it becomes like this: /\

Now, take a while doing this and you will need to start to update key bits like sensors or other HW... which of course have their own, different SW to be integrated and tested.

Now we have a never ending process, but as it is a monopoly (in a second generation), the customers have little choice other than grin and bear it. Talking about complex UK warships ...OK, on another day!

[abc123]

SO the equivalent is issuing the spec and contracting for the Batch one Typhoons, but realising we actually need the Batch three to have an effective platform, or something along those lines. I suppose these are some of the pitfalls when you try to run production and development at the same time. May be they should have stuck to a limited number of developmental aircraft until the configuration required was validated and fit for operations deployment instead of rushing to get it into service to justify the growing bill.

Well, something like that actually happened.

[benny14]

How many F35 squadrons do we expect to eventually get out of 138 aircraft? What will the ratio of Typhoon to F35 squadrons be, will it be 6/6?

[sunstersun]

6 F-35 Squads probably.

a lot of them have to be trainers.

[R686]

6 F-35 Squads probably.

a lot of them have to be trainers.

I thought it was four Sdn's of nine aircraft plus an OCU

[Lord Jim]

The UK is probably going to stick at two front line and one OCU for its F-35 fleet until the end of the 2020s. These will compliment the five front line Typhoon squadrons planned after the two Tranche one squadron finally go. We won't but additional F-35s until the Typhoons need replacing. Remember at one time the RAF was officially looking at only six front line squadrons including only one F-35 squadron with aircraft for a "Surge" being provided by the OCU.

Also when you refer to Trainers are you referring to aircraft allocated to the OCU as there are no actually F-35 Trainers.