F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Bernard
Junior Member
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
This is cool! So I have a question
. So the article states "Norway is one of eight full international partners on the F-35 program". Are all the partners coming together and putting in their expertise in a certain technology or weapon area's to make the F-35 more unique? Like Norway investing in a JSM anti-surface and anti-ship munition for the F-35?
Thanks!
This is cool! So I have a question
. So the article states "Norway is one of eight full international partners on the F-35 program". Are all the partners coming together and putting in their expertise in a certain technology or weapon area's to make the F-35 more unique? Like Norway investing in a JSM anti-surface and anti-ship munition for the F-35? Thanks!
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
That depends on the level of participation. Most however try to as It makes them a bit of cash.
That depends on the level of participation. Most however try to as It makes them a bit of cash.
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
This is something more the US Marines will give up (as well as the Royal Navy) in order to have the VTOL capabilities then.
Which means that the JSM may not fit into the weapons bay for the "Bravo" and that would mean they can only carry them on the external pylons for the Marines and the Royal Navy...sacrificing stealth. At some point I believe there will be a standoff ASM for the Bravo too. The Royal Navy will certainly want that capability AND the stealth of the aircraft.
Now, as far as the Norwegian purchase of F-35s is concerned, it should not impact that purchase directly because they are buying the "Alpha" aircraft in any case.
Thanks maus. Then I stand corrected because it was my understanding that they were common. If they are not identical and cannot hold the same weapons, then IMHO, they are not really common.
This is something more the US Marines will give up (as well as the Royal Navy) in order to have the VTOL capabilities then.
Which means that the JSM may not fit into the weapons bay for the "Bravo" and that would mean they can only carry them on the external pylons for the Marines and the Royal Navy...sacrificing stealth. At some point I believe there will be a standoff ASM for the Bravo too. The Royal Navy will certainly want that capability AND the stealth of the aircraft.
Now, as far as the Norwegian purchase of F-35s is concerned, it should not impact that purchase directly because they are buying the "Alpha" aircraft in any case.
Jura The idiot
General
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
Is This True?
link to the video
Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 30, 2014
A former Joint Strike Fighter program executive officer was fired in 2010 after explaining that he based the government's decision to award prime contractor Lockheed Martin 85 percent of the potential award fee -- when the F-35 program was suffering from major cost growth and schedule delays -- on his desire to protect the job of his Lockheed counterpart, according to a former senior Pentagon official.
Ashton Carter, deputy defense secretary from 2011 to 2013, on May 16 provided a Harvard University audience a behind-the-scenes account of his efforts in 2009, during his first year as Pentagon acquisition executive, to understand why projected costs for the F-35 aircraft had doubled and why the program was facing schedule delays.
At the time, an independent cost estimating team was advising Pentagon leaders that the true cost to develop and procure the planned F-35 fleet would be billions of dollars more than the JSF program office estimated, foreshadowing a $60 billion increase to the F-35's official price tag.
Carter said he called in the program manager, whom he does not name during his remarks. At that time, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. David Heinz had recently become the F-35 program manager, in April 2009. His predecessor, from 2006 to 2009, was Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Davis, now a three-star general and the military deputy to the Air Force acquisition executive.
"I want to see the bill, everything that goes into the cost of this airplane," Carter said, in a video of his remarks posted on YouTube on May 22. "The program office didn't know, could not tell me where the money was going."
At that time, the F-35's development was being executed under a cost-plus contract, a vehicle that allows a contractor to pass costs on to the government in addition to seeking an award fee. "I asked the program manager: 'Let me see your award fee history.' I look at the award fee history over 10 years, it is 85 percent a year," Carter said.
The former deputy defense secretary said he told the program manager the F-35 program was "a disaster," adding, "You're giving an 85 percent award fee every year, what's going on?"
"And," Carter continued, "he looked me in the eye . . . and said: 'I like the program manager on the Lockheed Martin side that I work with and he tells me that if he gets less than 85 percent award fee, he's going to get fired.'"
"So, this guy was fired," Carter said of Heinz. Then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Heinz's dismissal during a Feb. 1, 2010, press conference.
Carter subsequently ordered a sweeping technical review of the JSF program and transitioned it to a fixed-price contract in an effort to force Lockheed to shoulder a portion of the costs associated with developmental risks.
"We began a process that was very difficult: to re-educate the Air Force-Navy team that managed this important aircraft so that they knew what the hell they were paying for," Carter said in the Harvard speech. "They had no idea."
In 2013, the Pentagon restructured the award-fee scheme for the Joint Strike Fighter program, setting aside $337 million that Lockheed Martin could earn by achieving specified goals during the balance of the aircraft's development phase.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the current F-35 program executive officer, told the Senate Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee on April 24, 2013, that a portion of the remaining award fees Lockheed could earn would be tied to the timely delivery of planned aircraft complete with scheduled software and capability improvements. The bulk of the remaining fee is tethered to achieving the current aircraft development plan on time and budget, he said (DefenseAlert, April 24, 2013).
Is This True?
link to the video
Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 30, 2014
A former Joint Strike Fighter program executive officer was fired in 2010 after explaining that he based the government's decision to award prime contractor Lockheed Martin 85 percent of the potential award fee -- when the F-35 program was suffering from major cost growth and schedule delays -- on his desire to protect the job of his Lockheed counterpart, according to a former senior Pentagon official.
Ashton Carter, deputy defense secretary from 2011 to 2013, on May 16 provided a Harvard University audience a behind-the-scenes account of his efforts in 2009, during his first year as Pentagon acquisition executive, to understand why projected costs for the F-35 aircraft had doubled and why the program was facing schedule delays.
At the time, an independent cost estimating team was advising Pentagon leaders that the true cost to develop and procure the planned F-35 fleet would be billions of dollars more than the JSF program office estimated, foreshadowing a $60 billion increase to the F-35's official price tag.
Carter said he called in the program manager, whom he does not name during his remarks. At that time, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. David Heinz had recently become the F-35 program manager, in April 2009. His predecessor, from 2006 to 2009, was Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Davis, now a three-star general and the military deputy to the Air Force acquisition executive.
"I want to see the bill, everything that goes into the cost of this airplane," Carter said, in a video of his remarks posted on YouTube on May 22. "The program office didn't know, could not tell me where the money was going."
At that time, the F-35's development was being executed under a cost-plus contract, a vehicle that allows a contractor to pass costs on to the government in addition to seeking an award fee. "I asked the program manager: 'Let me see your award fee history.' I look at the award fee history over 10 years, it is 85 percent a year," Carter said.
The former deputy defense secretary said he told the program manager the F-35 program was "a disaster," adding, "You're giving an 85 percent award fee every year, what's going on?"
"And," Carter continued, "he looked me in the eye . . . and said: 'I like the program manager on the Lockheed Martin side that I work with and he tells me that if he gets less than 85 percent award fee, he's going to get fired.'"
"So, this guy was fired," Carter said of Heinz. Then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Heinz's dismissal during a Feb. 1, 2010, press conference.
Carter subsequently ordered a sweeping technical review of the JSF program and transitioned it to a fixed-price contract in an effort to force Lockheed to shoulder a portion of the costs associated with developmental risks.
"We began a process that was very difficult: to re-educate the Air Force-Navy team that managed this important aircraft so that they knew what the hell they were paying for," Carter said in the Harvard speech. "They had no idea."
In 2013, the Pentagon restructured the award-fee scheme for the Joint Strike Fighter program, setting aside $337 million that Lockheed Martin could earn by achieving specified goals during the balance of the aircraft's development phase.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the current F-35 program executive officer, told the Senate Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee on April 24, 2013, that a portion of the remaining award fees Lockheed could earn would be tied to the timely delivery of planned aircraft complete with scheduled software and capability improvements. The bulk of the remaining fee is tethered to achieving the current aircraft development plan on time and budget, he said (DefenseAlert, April 24, 2013).
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
His call for many of the things that would enhance the amphib force are things we have talked about for years here on SD.
It will be interesting to see how it turns out. For eample, the call for a AEW V-22 and a refueling V-22 are no briners IMHO and should have been done long ago, particularly the AEW. Another, which would also be good for the LHA is the ASW V-22.
Imagine a USS America with four EV-22 AEW aircraft, six SV-22 V-22 aircraft, four of the refuelers, and then twenty F-35Bs. That would be a heck of a carrier in its own right and would be a serious competitor to almost every other carrier in the world outside the US's own nuclear carriers.
It along with suitable escorts would be completely capable of escorting any task force or convoy, providing air support to any amphibious or air assault operation, and would relieve the US Navy of having to use a CVN for those purposes.
I read that over the weekend and agree with most of it.
His call for many of the things that would enhance the amphib force are things we have talked about for years here on SD.
It will be interesting to see how it turns out. For eample, the call for a AEW V-22 and a refueling V-22 are no briners IMHO and should have been done long ago, particularly the AEW. Another, which would also be good for the LHA is the ASW V-22.
Imagine a USS America with four EV-22 AEW aircraft, six SV-22 V-22 aircraft, four of the refuelers, and then twenty F-35Bs. That would be a heck of a carrier in its own right and would be a serious competitor to almost every other carrier in the world outside the US's own nuclear carriers.
It along with suitable escorts would be completely capable of escorting any task force or convoy, providing air support to any amphibious or air assault operation, and would relieve the US Navy of having to use a CVN for those purposes.
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread
And those same 7 would also be good ideas for allied naval forces to.
And those same 7 would also be good ideas for allied naval forces to.
