F-35 Lightning II developments

[MB]

just in the newspaper The Telegraaf

Dutch JSF test aircraft on the ground
THE HAGUE -

The two Dutch test aircraft for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF/F-35) are not currently in the air for our country. The two fighters are stored until a decision on the replacement of the F-16s.

That the government has decided, as was announced on Thursday. The politically sensitive decision on the purchase of the JSF is according to the government taken in conjunction with the vision of the future of the armed forces, which Minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert defense works.

http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/2144 ... ond__.html

[tally]

Hmmm. I think the F-001 already has a birds nest in the tail pipe. It has not flown in quite some time.

T.

[Piet Luijken]

Cost of aircraft...mmm... based on contract:

Swiss

22 planes will all be single-seat JAS-39Es, delivered from 2018-2021 at a firm-fixed-price cost of CHF 3.126 billion (currently $3.27 billion). That total is guaranteed by the Swedish government, and includes mission planning systems, initial spares and support, training, and certification.

As a bridging step, Switzerland will replace its F-5 fleet beginning in 2016 with 11 rented Gripens (8 JAS-39Cs, 3 JAS-39Ds) from Sweden, on an initial 5-year lease. They will fly beside Switzerland’s 33 F/A-18C/D Hornets, and their CHF 44 million per year cost is CHF 10 million more than the current cost of maintaining the F-5E/F fleet.

So that is 115.9 million euro per aircraft, without the five year gap lease and without spares and support beyond initial.

Swedes

Representing second order under the original SEK47.2bn ($7.4bn) agreement signed between the company and FMV in February 2013, the SEK10.7m ($1.64M) award covers definition and development work, alongside adaptation of test and trial equipment, simulators and rigs, during the 2015-2023 timeframe. The initial SEK2.5bn ($0.39bn) contract for starting development and modification of Gripen E for Swedish Air Force was secured by the company last month. Additional orders under the agreement include modification of 60 Gripen C to Gripen E aircraft.

So the Swedes pay 96 million euro to have the old Gripen C aircraft refurbished with radar, engine, extra fueltank and outer gear nacelles.

South Korea±

The JSF sale would be for 60 of the F-35A conventional takeoff-and-landing models. The planes, along with associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support, would be worth $10.8 billion. Included in that contract are nine spare engines from Pratt & Whitney.

So the South Koreans pay 140 million euro per aircraft, including nine spare engines, excellent bargaining there!

Norway±

Norway has signed a public procurement project worth NOK60bn ($10bn), the largest in the nation's history, for 52 F-35A Lightning II aircraft.

So that is 130 million per aircraft, but includes the development of the new JSM missile as well.

So based on present contracts, the Gripen E, still on drawing board, is not impressively cheaper than the halfway under development JSF.

[Coati]

First Night Vertical Landing

US Marine test pilot Maj. C.R Clift performed the first vertical landing at night on 2 April 2013 at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. The mission was performed in F-35B BF-4 Flight 177.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_news ... em_id=1019

[Richard from Rotterdam]

Well, we already have two jsfs so 28 will be enough.

If we spend less on the jsf, will thus influence the orders for stork?

If we buy another aircraft, what will happen with stork?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

That's a fair point you make, I do not know what the current situation is with follow-on orders when the Dutch decide to order the JSF. My guess is, that less or no JSF's ordered by Holland means less follow-on work. But from a taxpayer's point of view the work for the Dutch aviation industry should not be decisive.

According to the Dutch General Accounting Office (GAO/Rekenkamer), follow-on orders are no guarantee for Dutch companies anyway, as LM has only signed non-binding framework-contracts with the Dutch industry. Meaning that LM can decide to give the production work to completely different companies in completely different countries. It all depends on who delivers at the best price.

http://vervanging-f16.rekenkamer.nl/nl/node/1658

I am guessing that the royalties on export orders for the F-35 (so all sales outside the US DoD) will still come in even when Holland decides not to order the F-35, because we took part in the development phase. According to the Dutch MoD for instance, on the order for 19 F-35 placed by Israel, Holland makes $200,000 per airframe.

And concerning Stork: my guess will be that they will still be able to provide maintenance work on the eventually chosen type of fighter.
But then again, cleverly Stork has already outsourced part of their work to Turkey. The electric wiring or cable harness I think they call it, are made by Fokker Elmo in Ankara. So an up and running factory in another potential F-35 customer country , might mean they will still have their work lined out, but then it will be ending up in the books as a Turkish job.

[Flyboy]

Weird: we have a development contract (tier 2) which does not implicate any obligation for purchasing the F-35.
Now we do not continue development because we do not know if we want to buy the F-35.... That was the idea from the beginning???

[Gast]

Reason of the storage of the two test aircraft is that the Dutch MOD has to formulate (again) a vision for the future of the armed forces. It will have consequences like closure of Leeuwarden Airbase or at least it will be on the agenda of the Dutch MOD. Even with alternatives of any other type of fighterjet, Leeuwarden Airbase will totally not needed anymore. The Dutch taxpayer just wants to have good medical support and good infrastructure!

[Richard from Rotterdam]

That's the official reasoning for the mothballing of both the F-35s. I rather think it has more to do with the US not allowing Holland to take part because we haven't signed an official order yet... :-/

Leeuwarden AB might actually fulfill a role yet, even with limited numbers of F-35s ordered. It has to do with distribution of noise-pollution caused by the F-35, over our tiny country, and not so much with any tactical argumentation.

[Richard from Rotterdam]

from the BBC: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2013041 ... r-future/1

not much news, but some interesting quotes from the US Navy Vice Admiral David Dunaway, the commander of Naval Air Systems Command, in Patuxent River

The F-35 Lightning II, better known as the Joint Strike Fighter, is the world’s most expensive military weapons programme.

The stealthy fifth-generation fighter, built by Lockheed Martin, is designed to penetrate foreign air defences and bolster US military superiority – and that of its allies - in the years to come. Along with its ability to evade radar, the supersonic Joint Strike Fighter boasts the world’s “most powerful” fighter turbofan, a helmet-mounted display that is designed to give the pilot a 360-degree virtual view combining sensor and flight data, and advanced electronic arrays that will allow it to pick out air and ground targets.

But the crown jewel of the US military’s technology investment portfolio is now becoming a glaring eyesore for Pentagon planners who are forced to defend its ballooning costs and delays while the military is facing across the board cuts.

To compound the problem has been a slew of technical problems from getting the vaunted helmet-mounted display to work to peeling in the aircraft’s stealth coating. Other classified problems have also been identified.

But military officials working on the programme have a simple message: when it comes to so-called military megaprojects , these sorts of problems are bound to happen. “It’s never nearly as bad, nor nearly as it good as it first appears,” Vice Admiral David Dunaway, the commander of Naval Air Systems Command, in Patuxent River, Maryland, told an audience at a Navy trade show this week in the Washington DC area.

While touting progress, Dunaway was careful to temper expectations about the aircraft, calling the F-35 a “fairly mature air vehicle”. The biggest problem the programme now faces is attempts to change the requirements for the aircraft, something that typically happens with Pentagon weapons where development can stretch out over years and even decades.

Such changes, which inevitably add complexity, are often made without considering the potential costs. “Change will kill the programme,” Dunaway said emphatically.

‘Trillion dollar fighter’

The F-35 is being developed in three variants that will eventually be used by the US Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, as well as eight other countries that have committed to buying the aircraft and are helping to pay for its development. The theory was that having a basic common frame across three services would help keep costs down.

The US Air Force will fly the F-35A, which takes off and lands like a conventional aircraft, while the Navy will get the F-35C, which can operate from aircraft carriers. The most complex of the three variants is the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft that is supposed to be able to operate without the need for a traditional runway.

That version of the aircraft, known as the F-35B, has what’s called a “thrust vectoring nozzle,” which deflects engine exhaust to achieve the vertical lift that allows the aircraft to hover. The STOVL version—the first to go into service - will be used by the US Marine Corps and the Royal Navy.

Although the first planes have long since been delivered for testing, the aircraft of the future continues to hit turbulence. The engine of an F-35A developed a crack that temporarily grounded the entire fleet earlier this year; the tail hook for the F-35C, which allows it to land on an aircraft carrier, had to be redesigned by aircraft maker Lockheed Martin, and there have been concerns that intense heat from engine of the aircraft could endanger the crew and equipment onboard aircraft carrier (officials speaking at the show said they are looking at protective coatings).

While the officials spoke about the progress on all three variants, they also acknowledged there will likely be more difficulties ahead. The radar-evading aircraft, which was originally billed as an “affordable,” had grown in cost and complexity, while the date for fielding the aircraft has slipped a number of times. Estimates suggest that the craft will not be operational until 2018, eight years behind initial estimates. The total programme cost is now estimated at about $400 billion, while the cost of sustaining the aircraft over their expected 30 year life is expected to run over $1 trillion, a figure that has led to headlined dubbing it – whether fairly or not – the “trillion dollar fighter.”

But the planes problems are not over yet. They are likely to continue as the military moves the aircraft from development and testing and into operations, officials said. “I guarantee you we will discover other things,” said Rear Admiral Mark W Darrah, the head of Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division. “Once at sea, we re going to make new discoveries, just like every other platform.”

It’s not just technical problems that may challenge the new aircraft. Critics of the Joint Strike Fighter point out that countries like China are developing and acquiring weapons that will push aircraft carriers so far out to sea that the F-35, which has a range of 1,000km (600 miles), will not be able to strike inside enemies’ borders. And then there is a new class of advanced pilotless drones being developed, such as the X-47B, which may be able to do some of the same missions, but without risking pilot’s lives.

But for now at least the programme continues and officials say things are back on schedule. Rear Admiral Randolph Mahr, the deputy head of the Joint Strike Fighter programme, says that an initial batch of operational STOVL aircraft will be delivered to the Marine Corps by the summer of 2015, as currently planned. “The Marine Corps is holding us to that date,” he said.

Any delays to that delivery – or others – are not likely to go down well. The US Defense Department is facing funding cuts as part of a budget deal known as sequestration. While cutting an expensive aircraft programme may look like an attractive option, many analysts warn this will result in a “death spiral,” where reducing the number of aircraft pushes the unit price up, making it even more costly.

Despite its problems, the F-35 so far appears to have avoided the axe amid the current budget turmoil. The president this week requested $8.4 billion to continue the Joint Strike fighter during the next fiscal year, leaving the aircraft safe … at least for now.

[Richard from Rotterdam]

Summary in English: Dutch manufacturer Fokker gets new JSF orders worth 60 million euros for work concerning the next 73 airframes. So about €800,000 per airframe. The CEO calls it "encouraging news".


http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4504/Economie ... -JSF.dhtml

Fokker krijgt vervolgopdracht voor JSF
Bewerkt door: redactie − 24/04/13, 08:39 − bron: ANP


Fokker Technologies heeft van de Amerikaanse defensieconcerns Lockheed Martin en Northrop Grumman vervolgopdrachten gekregen voor het F-35 programma (JSF). Daarmee is 60 miljoen euro gemoeid, aldus het Nederlandse bedrijf woensdag.

Fokker gaat onderdelen leveren voor de drie varianten van de straaljager. Volgens het bedrijf is het personeel in Hoogeveen met de opdrachten tot aan 2016 verzekerd van werk. Directeur Hans Buthker vindt het 'bemoedigend' dat Fokker na 50 afgeleverde F-35's en meer dan 80 toestellen in productie is gevraagd producten te leveren voor de volgende 73 toestellen.

Naar verwachting worden er in totaal meer dan 3000 F-35's gebouwd.

[Coati]

AF-27 10-5015/EG first flight on 22nd April 2013

[Richard from Rotterdam]

From Flightglobal.com: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... uy-385225/

Norway seeks green light for operational F-35 buy
Print
By: CRAIG HOYLE LONDON 15 hours ago Source:

The Norwegian government has confirmed plans to acquire up to 52 Lockheed Martin F-35A combat aircraft, and submitted a formal request to the nation's parliament for its first six operational examples.

The administration in Oslo has already committed to buying four conventional take-off and landing aircraft, to be delivered in 2014 and 2015 for use during training activities in the USA. On 26 April, defence minister Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen outlined its fresh request to buy 48 more, for delivery between 2017 and 2024.

Under the proposal, six aircraft would be handed over to Norway each year throughout the delivery period, although this will be subject to the receipt of annual approvals from parliament.


US Air Force

Norway says the F-35A is the only type capable of meeting its requirements

"By making this commitment we are able to proceed with our plans to replace the [Lockheed] F-16 fleet around 2020," Strøm-Erichsen says. "We have concluded convincingly that the F-35 is the only aircraft that fulfils our future operational requirements. Our F-16s are among the world's most capable aircraft of their kind, but they are also among the world's oldest."

Flightglobal's MiliCAS database records the Royal Norwegian Air Force's 47 F-16AM fighters and 10 BM-model trainers as having entered use between 1980 and 1989.

The government has valued its initial acquisition request at NKr12.9 billion ($2.2 billion), with this including the first six aircraft, plus initial actions to procure "additional equipment and services, including integration work, training and simulators". Also included is an "uncertainty allowance" contingency worth a further NKr3 billion.


Lockheed Martin

Strøm-Erichsen says Norway has also received a recent assurance about the process for adding Kongsberg's Joint Strike Missile (JSM) to its aircraft as part of a Block 4 software programme. "This means that the road is now open for final and complete integration of the JSM on the F-35," she notes.

[Richard from Rotterdam]

From Aviationweek: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 573155.xml

Pentagon Backs Off F-35 PEO's Flying Hour Prediction
By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com
Source: AWIN First


April 24, 2013

Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall says the cost-per-flying-hour estimate for the F-35A recently provided by the stealthy fighter’s program executive officer to The Netherlands is lower than the official figure that will go next month to Congress.

U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan told Dutch lawmakers that the flying hour cost for the F-35A would be about 10% higher than the F-16, a sharp reduction from earlier assessments.

“It is with a certain set of assumptions,” Kendall told reporters during a roundtable April 24 at the Pentagon, that Bogdan arrived at that figure. “I’m not sure we want to use that set of assumptions.”

The figure forthcoming to Congress next month, however, still will be lower than that provided in last year’s selected acquisition report (SAR) to Capitol Hill, he says. That report cited the F-35A flying hour cost at $31,900, versus $22,500 for the F-16 C/D.

“That’s going to come down this year. I don’t think that is going to come down as much as Chris Bogdan indicated,” Kendall says, adding that he “doesn’t like the metric very much.”

He says that there are at least six different ways to calculate F-35 cost per flying hour, depending on what assumptions go into the figure. And it can be misleading. If you fly a fleet less — as the F-35 is expected to be used owing to advances in simulators — the per-hour cost goes up. But the overall ownership price may be as much or less than legacy fleets.

“The question that I think matters is what is the cost of ownership?” Kendall says. “What is it going to cost you to have comparable levels of readiness for that aircraft? … And that is going to vary by country.” This depends on how much each operator flies the aircraft, how many spares are procured and what level of skilled maintainers are used for specific tasks, among other things.

But operators are struggling to come up with a total ownership cost figure. The Navy has estimated total ownership cost for 50 years at more than $1 trillion, though F-35 overseers have been hard at work to refine assumptions in an attempt to bring that number down.

Company officials have conceded the cost per flying hour for the F-35 could be higher than legacy fleets the single-engine fighter will replace. But they argue that total ownership price will be lower than all of those fleets — such as the F-18, F-16 and A-10 — combined; this was a selling point for the aircraft in its early days.

Cost per flying hour is just one factor of total ownership cost. Sustainment is the area that Kendall says is the most ripe for opportunities to reduce cost. Development is well under way, with more than 40% of flight testing complete. Though risk is still present, especially in software work, Kendall says he is “cautiously optimistic” about the development portion of the F-35. And production is, for now, fairly well understood based on “actuals,” or numbers gleaned from early production lots, he says.

Kendall’s staff is conducting yet another look at sustainment for the F-35, the latest in a series of reviews on the subject. This is after the Pentagon received feedback from contractors during an industry day. He says that performance-based logistics is being considered for the fleet, which is slated to replace Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force fighters.

Figures for the cost per flying hour of the F-35A, B and C are expected in Congress in about one month when the Pentagon sends its latest SAR to the Hill.

[tally]

10-5017/EG first flight april 27 as lightning 11.

Tally.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Piet Luijken]

News from Australia:

Stephen Smith MP
Minister for Defence
Prime Minister and Minister for Defence – Joint Media Release – 2013 Defence White
Paper: Air Combat Capability
3 May 2013
Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Minister for Defence Stephen Smith today announced the steps the
Government has taken to strengthen Australia’s air combat capability.
The 2013 Defence White Paper highlights the strategic importance of a potent and flexible air combat
capability to control Australia’s air approaches and support operations in the land, sea and air environments.
Emerging advanced air combat and air defence capabilities within the region, together with the proliferation of
modern electronic warfare systems, will make the air combat tasks of controlling the air, conducting strike and
supporting land and naval forces increasingly challenging.
Australia’s air combat capability is a vital part of our national security framework and the Government will not
allow a gap in our air combat capability to occur.
As a prudent measure to assure Australia’s air combat capability through the transition period to the Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF), the Government has decided to retain the current 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets (one
operational squadron) in their current air combat and strike capability configuration.
The Government has also decided to acquire 12 new-build EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft instead of
converting 12 of Australia’s existing F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft into the Growler configuration. 12 Growler
aircraft will enhance significantly the ADF’s electronic warfare capability and, together with the JSF and the
Super Hornet, will form a formidable air combat force capable of controlling both the air and electronic
environments.
A decision on replacing the Super Hornets with additional JSF aircraft will be made closer to the withdrawal of
the Super Hornets, which is not expected until around 2030.
The 2009 Defence White Paper outlined the Government’s commitment to acquire JSF and announced approval
for the purchase of the first 14 JSF aircraft at a cost of around $3.2 billion. Of these, Australia is contractually
committed to two, which will be delivered in the course of 2014 to 2015 in the United States for testing and
training purposes.
Due to challenges and delays within the JSF Program, the United States restructured the JSF Program last
year, deferring the acquisition of 179 aircraft and providing US$15 billion less in funding over the next five
years. Australia aligned itself to this schedule in the 2012-13 Budget. While the US remains committed to the
JSF, procurement has been slowed to complete more testing and make developmental changes before the
purchase of aircraft in significant quantities.
The Government remains committed to acquiring the fifth-generation JSF aircraft, with three operational
squadrons planned to enter service beginning around 2020 to replace the F/A-18A/B Hornet aircraft.
Australia’s Super Hornet aircraft, the delivery of the Growler electronic attack aircraft and the supporting KC-
30A air-to-air refuelling aircraft will ensure the continued potency of Australia’s air combat system in
projecting decisive air power in the defence of Australia and its interests.
CANBERRA
3 May 2013
PRESS OFFICE (02) 6277 7744
MINISTER SMITH’S OFFICE (02) 6277 7800