F-35 Lightning II (2) testing and production thread

Originally posted by Harlequin
with the IDF quoting $200 million each something smells fishy.

Very fishy indeed, not unlike the 338 million F-22 at one point.

And I'm interested at everyone throwing prices around, especially the Israelis. I wonder how this claimed 200 million was calculated, did they take into account the 3 Billion a year the US gives them as "defense aid" money? Or is that 200 million how much each one of those IDF F-35's is going to cost the US taxpayer?

As for playing around with the Electronic Warfare suite, uh... that's a no brainer. It is the most sensitive capability of the aircraft, right up there with broad spectrum VLO technology. So let's not try to misquote and intentionally misinterpret what the source is saying Harelquin.

Nobody is going to be allowed to play around with the software that controls the F-35’s electronic warfare package.

And here is the reason why.

"No," says Maj. Gen. Charles Davis, program executive officers of the Joint Strike Fighter program. The super-classified software allows electronic surveillance, detection, identification, self-defense and attack. A software-run techniques generator also will be able to send algorithm data streams carrying false information into enemy sensors and antennas.

That's not a capability to laugh at.

The US is also the overwhelming cost & resource bearer for the F-35 program. Other countries are getting all the F-35 has to offer, including Electronic Warfare for a fraction of the burden. Pardon me if the US therefore reserves some right to oversee the development of one of the most sensitive and emerging technological capabilities ever put into a multi role fighter. If that displeases anyone they are more then free to start a 5th generation program from scratch and see where that gets them.

Still, this does not mean foreign costumers can't do their own comprehensive Electronic Warfare evaluation and present it to Lockheed/USAF for integration into the jet. They just will not be allowed to have full access and use whatever contractors, sources & systems they wish without US oversight. A decade of R&D isn't going to be given to foreign national defense corporations on a sliver platter that easy. Common sense people.

"They are going to buy aircraft that have basically the same capability as all the others," Davis says. “They are trying to do a requirements analyses for future missions. Those mission [refinements] would be submitted through Lockheed Martin [and other contractors]. That [customization] is doable through software. It is not doable by Israelis sticking boxes in the airplane. [Elbit and Elta being involved] is not an option," he says.

reply to post by WestPoint23


good post , although i do think that the `no customising` extends beyond the E&W suite - reading what was said on AWST it says to me the US wants to say `yay` or `ney` to what weapons are put onboard

BF-2 made its first flight yesterday, around 1:00PM local time I believe.

Here are some pictures and the Lockheed press release.

All pictures are curtsey of maskelyne from Fence Check.

FORT WORTH, Texas, February 25th, 2009 -- Lockheed Martin’s [NYSE: LMT] second short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B Lightning II accomplished its first flight on Wednesday, Feb. 25. The aircraft, known as BF-2, joins a conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35A and another STOVL F-35B that already have logged a combined total of 84 flights.

During its flight on Wednesday, BF-2 went through a series of maneuvers to assess its subsystems and basic handling qualities, and to check on-board instrumentation. Subsequent missions will take the aircraft higher and faster, in a structured series of flights. All F-35 test aircraft to date have been powered by the Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan, the most powerful engine ever to fly in a jet fighter.

Link

[edit on 27-2-2009 by WestPoint23]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Israel is maintaining a firm stance on its demand that its future fleet of air force Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters should be equipped with "as many as possible" Israeli-made systems.

The US government has so far turned down Tel Aviv's requests to put locally produced systems on the stealthy JSF, but the Israeli air force is insistent that its next-generation aircraft should have nationally sourced electronic warfare equipment.

israel - we want our own equipment

US - nope

israel - we want our own equipment

us - nope

israel - no you don`t understand we want our own equipment

us - you won`t be buying this aircraft then

israel throws dummy from pram.

www.defense-aerospace.com...

No Fixed Price for Joint Strike Fighter

and here comes the trouble:

But it becomes clear in Fort Worth on Friday that the Americans cannot yet grant parliament’s request at the moment. Burbage says there are still too many uncertainties in the programme: “We ourselves don’t know what the exact price will be.” Burbage says it will not be until 2012 that Lockheed will agree with the Pentagon on a fixed price – and then only for the delivery of the series of JSFs that are ordered in that year

lockheed wants firm contracts for production signed by 2010

YET

cannot give a price for the aircraft - no SANE country will sign a blank cheque since , even the GAO say the cost will be over $100 million each

armedservices.house.gov...

and

www.defense-aerospace.com...:-pentagon-plays-fast-and-loose-with-jsf-costs.html

“The F-22 and F-35 have a similar 12 year development period. If we go back to where the F-22 was five years into development in 1996, about where the F-35 is now, projections were for a buy of 438 aircraft at an average procurement unit cost of $104 million in 2008 dollars. Today, we’re only planning for 183 aircraft and unit costs have increased 97 percent.

“If the cost of an F-35 increases similar to the F-22, costs could increase by a similar amount to $156 million per aircraft in 2008 dollars if the cost grows at the same rate as it did for the F-22. And that is without a reduction of the currently projected 2,443 aircraft total procurement.

This will lead to a blow-out in unit costs, which (based on December 2006 cost data) GAO already estimates at between $104 million (average procurement cost) and $122 million (program acquisition cost), well over twice as much as the $47 million unit cost that Lockheed continues to quote to foreign governments.

The only people that are saying the F-35 is under $100 million are lockheed and those who are swallowing the rubbish they are putting out - and thats for nearly 2,500 aircraft.

GE-RR Halt F136 Tests for Debris Check

Mar 5, 2009

The GE Rolls-Royce F136 Fighter Engine Team is investigating the source of debris in the oil system that has forced tests of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter alternative engine to be halted.

Engineers are working three shifts a day to address the issue, says GE R-R, which currently has only this single test asset available to the program. Not only is it keen to resume tests of the initial engine, 625-004, but GE R-R is also eager to discover any issues that may need to be corrected before subsequent engines are completed. These include upcoming conventional-flight test engines 005 and 006. Engine 006 will be used for initial flight readiness qualification for the first F136-powered F-35 flight in 2010.

Original Source

The F-136 is apparently still having some problems in its development stage. Debris in the oil system is a little bit odd, since it implies that stuff is being ingested or sheared off somehow inside the system. I'm no expert on oil systems in low-bypass turbines, but I have a feeling that the problem is going to cause a speed bump in this stage of the engine's life. Which, IMO, is a shame because I'd like to see P&W get some competition in what is pretty well agreed upon to be an impressive engineering task.

Pr0

Awesome to see the thread still running it course guys and I must say its great to drop by/in and see updated information etc. I must say the longer and more cost over runs this project has as well as the issue faced with signing on with no fixed price. In this situation as much as I like the 35 and its capabilities I would rather see the CF/DND go with the eurofighter or superbugs. Thoughts?

reply to post by Darkpr0


Debris in the oil isn't all that unusual in fighters, unless you're talking a large amount, which it sounds like they are. After a flight, what's called a JOAP sample is performed on fighters. They take a sample of the oil and send it to the lab who tests it for debris and metal shavings in the oil. They're willing to accept a small amount but if it's too high then you have to change the engine.

The only people that are saying the F-35 is under $100 million are lockheed and those who are swallowing the rubbish they are putting out - and thats for nearly 2,500 aircraft.

The only people saying the F-35 is OVER 100 million is the GAO - or those who think nations make decisions on billion dollar defense contracts based on internet information or the GAO.

“The 2009 average procurement unit cost for 20 F-22s is $205 million, while the projected cost for the F-35A is $73 million.

What? Fly-away unit cost for the F-22 is 146 million in 2009. In like terms, the F-35 procured in 2014 is supposed to be around 70 million in 2009 dollars.

“The F-22 and F-35 have a similar 12 year development period. If we go back to where the F-22 was five years into development in 1996, about where the F-35 is now, projections were for a buy of 438 aircraft at an average procurement unit cost of $104 million in 2008 dollars. Today, we’re only planning for 183 aircraft and unit costs have increased 97 percent.

F-22 costs have increased by 45% from 1996 even WITH the reduced buy. F-35 is in LRIP, F-22 was not in 1996....

“If the cost of an F-35 increases similar to the F-22, costs could increase by a similar amount to $156 million per aircraft in 2008 dollars if the cost grows at the same rate as it did for the F-22. And that is without a reduction of the currently projected 2,443 aircraft total procurement.

No...

If it were exactly the costs would increase in exactly the same fashion as the F-22, the F-35 would cost 103 million 2009 dollars even with a reduced buy of 1250 aircraft...

Whichever way one looks at the problem, it is clear that the JSF’s costs will inevitably rise substantially over current levels. This will lead to a blow-out in unit costs, which (based on December 2006 cost data) GAO already estimates at between $104 million (average procurement cost) and $122 million (program acquisition cost), well over twice as much as the $47 million unit cost that Lockheed continues to quote to foreign governments.

What?

The Norwegians think it's $52M 2008 dollars.
The Israelis think it's +$100M.
The Dutch think it's €56M.
The Danes think it's $82M with spares and training.
Davis thinks it's $70M for an F-35A in 2014.
Davis thinks it's $70M for a F-35C without engine in 2014.
Davis thinks it's $80M for a F-35A in 2014.
The USAF budget says it's $91M flyaway in 2013.
The GAO thinks it's $104M.


And 47 million was WHERE? Christ maybe if we took a time machine back to 2002. YES the F-35 has a great deal of uncertainty, however, I think it is some years away before we get a proper answer. I'm more inclined to go with the higher prices not including GAO..... IMO it end up around 85 - 95 million..... but that's just my opinion.

As for Israel, they need to go home. The Israelis wants to get an industrial/commercial backdoor into the most important fighter project around.

This without participating in the SDD or PFSD phases. They've effectively had no say in the definition and have had no entitlement to it. They have no entitlement through the procedural processes, nor does the F-35 lend itself to being modded by the Israelis on the technical level (integrated 5th gen core vs federated 4th gen). And of course also trying to shift US mil aid dollars from being spent in Israel instead of the US of A.

So the Israelis are getting a no on every level hence the whinging.

[edit on 7/3/2009 by C0bzz]

I've been researching is it possible that F-35 carry 6 missiles internally by stagger collocation


[edit on 9-3-2009 by emile]

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by Harlequin
with the IDF quoting $200 million each something smells fishy.

Very fishy indeed, not unlike the 338 million F-22 at one point.

And I'm interested at everyone throwing prices around, especially the Israelis. I wonder how this claimed 200 million was calculated, did they take into account the 3 Billion a year the US gives them as "defense aid" money? Or is that 200 million how much each one of those IDF F-35's is going to cost the US taxpayer?

I believe the 338 million was probably total programme unit cost which includes R&D if they stopped making F-22s at around 180 aircraft mark. Which can be a valid figure to use depending on what your talking about, but no doubt mostly used in the wrong place.

I guess the Israelis 200 million per F-35 would probably be the total programme unit cost from there point of view, unit fly away cost, spares, support equipment, training, the US recouping some of R&D and production setup.

The "defense aid" has to be spent in the US, but the can be spent on things like miltary jet fuel (as they have done) so it doesn't effect the project cost if they have enough other US things to spend it on. No comfort to the US taxpayer.

Originally posted by C0bzz

“The 2009 average procurement unit cost for 20 F-22s is $205 million, while the projected cost for the F-35A is $73 million.

What? Fly-away unit cost for the F-22 is $146 million in 2009. In like terms, the F-35 procured in 2014 is supposed to be around 70 million in 2009 dollars.

The F-22 unit cost for 2009 is $180 million (including advance parts ordered in 2008) according to USAF www.saffm.hq.af.mil...

From the same source F-35 is $224 million in 2009, but of course this is still very early LRIP so should come done a lot I'd hope.

The F-22 unit cost for 2009 is $180 million (including advance parts ordered in 2008) according to USAF www.saffm.hq.af.mil...

From the same source F-35 is $224 million in 2009, but of course this is still very early LRIP so should come done a lot I'd hope.

It did? I see 146.388 million unit flyaway, or, 152.710 weapon system unit cost - which I presume the people I was quoted was referring to. Only got close to 180 million dividing total programme cost for 2009 (3.55 billion) by the number of aircraft (20) = 177 million.

In any case, the article I was quoting was WAAAY off. Where did they get 205 million from? Why are they comparing 73 million (future year, 2009 dollars) flyaway F-35 with some bloated fantasy F-22 TOTAL cost? Makes NO sense...

LOL...

It's a branch of Electronic Warfare Bill, called Active Confusion, the buyers will soon be so confused they will think they are getting a good deal no matter the price...with or without the engine. LM costing.........Unbelievable

In a 350 billion programme you'd think they'd at least know SOMETHING about the price...

[edit on 9/3/2009 by C0bzz]

I used the figure from page 28 where it said 20 would cost 3614.2 million in FY2009 of which 560 million was spent the previous year.

It's fun taking a calculator to it and trying to figure out how they do there figures. From page 55 I worked out the following.
For the Weapon System Cost it seems that you don't include the advance procurement cost for the aircraft you buying this year which was spent the previous year, you instead use the advance procurement cost your buying for next year, which in case of FY2009 there isn't any advance procurement listed for next year FY2010.

As for the flyaway unit cost that doesn't seem to add up anyhow, some unlisted amount removed.

I used the pdf page numbers.

UK changes JSF configuration for ASRAAM

Janes

I think the configuration change makes more sense than the original plan anyway. As having 4 ASRAAM internal would be to maintain complete stealth so you would be in the pure air to air role, so I would of thought a better load in that role would be 2 ASRAAM and 2 longer range AMRAAM which aren't rail launched.

Then when operating in non stealth you could have some of your air to ground internally instead of those 2 ASRAAM as having ASRAAM on the wings should be less of a drag penalty than air 2 ground weapons.

Netherlands might quit F-35

www.defense-aerospace.com...

big read there - the netherlands are a coalition government and the support is falling away fast for teh F-35 - since lockheed won`t give a fixed price the other parites in the coilition are looking at pulling there support - and a minority government wouldn`t get the budget for buying them

Dear Mr XXXXXXX,
Thank you for your enquiry to the Ministers dated the 19 February 2009 raising your concerns about not being able to modify or add other systems to the F35, which has been passed to me to respond as the Integrated Project Team responsible for the intended procurement of Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for the UK.
In 2001 the UK selected the JSF to meet the UK’s future requirements. Studies into alternative options, at that time, were US F/A 18E aircraft, French Rafale, a “navalised” Eurofighter and an advanced Harrier. None of these provided the capabilities of JSF. It should be noted that Joint Strike fighter is a 5th generation, supersonic, low observable air system with a complex mission system.
In the System Development and Demonstration phase of the JSF programme the UK remains the only level one partner with seven other international partners involved at lower levels. Level one status means that the UK has had and continues to influence the base design of the Joint Strike Fighter including a requirement for the UK weapons (Paveway IV and ASRAAM) to be integrated.
The UK has also set out our through life requirements to ensure we will be able to operate, maintain, repair and upgrade the aircraft without redress to the USA within the Production Sustainment and Follow on Development (PSFD) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which Lord Drayson, the then Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, signed on 12 November 2006.
On the specific instance you refer to relate to potential unique requirements for a nation that is not a JSF participant under the terms of the Production Sustainment and Follow on Development MOU. The nine participant’s nations in this MOU, including the UK, are content with the current performance characteristics of JSF and each will be able to introduce national capability requirements into the programme in accordance with provisions of the MOU.

so there you go - as a partner nation the UK (and the others) have the ability to add what they want - but israel do not.

The Pentagon yesterday awarded $320M to Lockheed Martin for long lead materials for the Block III F-35. It's expected to be completed in 2011.

Has anyone even got a straight answer on how much the 35 is going to cost per airframe minus support materials? If not I doubt anyone is the international buyers knows either.

reply to post by Canada_EH


mmmm depends on year of purchase, and other variables, like if you include the engine or not. Generally quoted at 75 - 90 million then year dollars; though I am unsure if that is unit fly away cost or unit tow away cost.

The Norwegians think it's $52M 2008 dollars.
The Israelis think it's +$100M.
The Dutch think it's €56M.
The Danes think it's $82M with spares and training.
Davis thinks it's $70M for an F-35A in 2014.
Davis thinks it's $70M for a F-35C without engine in 2014.
Davis thinks it's $80M for a F-35A in 2014.
The USAF budget says it's $91M flyaway in 2013.
The GAO thinks it's $104M.

It's a branch of Electronic Warfare Bill, called Active Confusion, the buyers will soon be so confused they will think they are getting a good deal no matter the price...with or without the engine. LM costing.........Unbelievable

[edit on 27/3/2009 by C0bzz]

reply to post by Canada_EH


The IAF aircraft will run $200M if they get them in the first batch like they're demanding. If they take them where they're SCHEDULED to get them, that drops to about $70M.