F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

[bd popeye]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

^^^ Wow! that article kinda puts the kibosh on the NYT article. Looks to me as long as the funding is in place the F-35 will go forward into a great production run.

 

[Subedei]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

^^^ Wow! that article kinda puts the kibosh on the NYT article. Looks to me as long as the funding is in place the F-35 will go forward into a great production run.

maybe not! this nyt article,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

a follow-up to the first (which is sop for reputable news houses), gives more in-depth detail to the specifics of going-forward.

the program will progress, of course. but, the gov is now showing more responsibility in governing cost overruns. something i'd think that all us citizens concerned with fiscal responsibility would demand.

UPDATE: and, out of my respect for the reuters agency, which i also consider to be a reputable house, i did a quick search and found that the previously cited article is also a follow-up. for those who are interested in reading the article it followed, go here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jeff Head]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

a follow-up to the first (which is sop for reputable news houses), gives more in-depth detail to the specifics of going-forward.

Of course they updated it...it was so full of inaccuracies it was ludicrous.

The fact is this, the US is going forward and doing so responbsibly. The system works.

With any high tech, difficult, new tech project, there are going to be problems. If someone does something willfully wrong, there are numerous organizations within the military, and within the purchasing and acquisition branches of governemnt, as well as within the House of Representatives and Senate (who represent the people), to correct them.

The fact is, as predicted, the cost is coming down...and will continue to come down so that the vast majority of the aircraft will be built very near the deisred cost, and with the commonality sought for...despite the initial problems.

Not built a twice the cost...and not built at 20 or 30% commonality.

As I did before, I predict that the F-35 program will ultimately be viewed as one of the most successful programs in US procurement history that will provide game changing aircraft to all three major US military branches as well as to numerous allied nations at an utlimate very good cost for what they receive.

The program...almosty any prgoram...has to mature in order to do that, and the F-35 program is going through that cycle.

Unfortunately, the F-22 was cut off before it realized those savings, so 187 aircraft had to pay an ROI intended for a couple of thosuand, and the cost mushroomed...and will not never come down, and we are left with, IMHO, far too few aircraft.

I am grateful to see that the F-35 may very welll get beyond that stage and become the success is was designed to be.

 

[Subedei]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Of course they updated it...it was so full of inaccuracies it was ludicrous.

followed-up, not updated. did they misquote either the general or the admiral who head the military program?

 

[Jeff Head]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

followed-up, not updated. did they misquote either the general or the admiral who head the military program?

The first one made wild claims, unattributed in the artcle which was discussed in some detail earlier on the thread...about both the cost of the program and the amount of commonality between aircraft.

New articles have since come out about the new US acquisition contract of the next batch of low production F-35s which show the price has been cut in half since the firts batch, and will be cut in half again when the full production of the aircraft kicks off in 2017.

The quotes by the head of the program (an admiral now and a general coming) did not make those claims, they were thrown in with the otherwise correct statements by those individuals, but done in such a fashion as to paint the whole thing with a brush of the author's making.

Now that the new contract has been signed showing that the initial article was wrong in its unsubstantiated claims...I was simply making the comment that those areas where they were so far off the mark ought to have been updated/followed-up on/corrected...whatever you want to call it.

Quite frankly, the first article was so far off that I do not consider that particular author or outlet redeemable whatever they do. Their first effort could have been easily given accurate info if they desired...its out there for anyone to pick up. It was clear to me from that, and from comments in the article itself, that it has a definite and obvious bias against the program and they were using the article and outlet as a stage to vent it.

 

[bd popeye]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

ATLANTIC OCEAN (Dec. 3, 2012) F-35B test aircraft BF-3, flown by Lt. Cmdr. Michael Burks, completes the first aerial weapons release of an inert 500-pound GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb by any variant of the F-35 Lightning II aircraft. BF-3 dropped the GBU-12 over the Atlantic Test Ranges from an internal weapons bay. The F-35B is the variant of the Lightning II designed for use by the U.S. Marine Corps, as well as F-35 international partners in the United Kingdom and Italy. The F-35B is capable of short takeoffs and vertical landings to enable air power projection from amphibious ships, ski-jump aircraft carriers and expeditionary airfields. The F-35B is undergoing flight test and evaluation at NAS Patuxent River, Md., prior to delivery to the fleet. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin by Layne Laughter/Released)

 

[z117]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Faced with the imminent release of an audit by accountants KPMG that will push the total projected life-cycle costs of the aircraft above $30-billion, the operations committee of cabinet decided Tuesday evening to scrap the controversial sole-source program and go back to the drawing board, a source familiar with the decision said.

This occurred after Chief of the Defence Staff Thomas Lawson, while en route overseas, was called back urgently to appear before the committee, the source said.
Related

The decision is sure to have ripple effects around the world, as any reduction in the number of aircraft on order causes the price to go up for all the other buyers. Canada is one of nine F-35 consortium members, including the United States.

 

[bd popeye]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Translation to the above article.. Canada is canceling it's purchase of the F-35.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

OTTAWA — The F-35 jet fighter purchase, the most persistent thorn in the federal government’s side and the subject of a devastating auditor-general’s report last spring, is dead.

Faced with the imminent release of an audit by accountants KPMG that will push the total projected life-cycle costs of the aircraft above $30 billion, the operations committee of the federal Cabinet decided to scrap the controversial sole-source program and go back to the drawing board, a source familiar with the decision said.

This occurred after Chief of the Defence Staff Thomas Lawson, while en route overseas, was called back urgently to appear before the committee, the source said.

The decision is sure to have ripple effects around the world, as any reduction in the number of aircraft on order causes the price to go up for all the other buyers. Canada is one of nine F-35 consortium members, including the United States.

The CF-18s currently flown by the RCAF are at the tail end of their life cycle and are not expected to be operable much beyond 2020 at the outside.

The fighter procurement process has been the responsibility of Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose since last spring, following an audit by Auditor General Michael Ferguson. It is understood that veteran senior bureaucrat Tom Ring, who handled the government’s much-praised shipbuilding contract process in the fall of 2011, is now steering the reframed fighter replacement process, from within Public Works.

Last spring, Ferguson ignited a political firestorm when he reported that the top-line cost cited by the Conservatives in the 2011 election campaign — $9 billion for 65 planes, or $15 billion including maintenance and other life-cycle costs — was $10-billion below the Defence Department’s internal estimate.

Even the internal figure of $25.1 billion was suspect, critics said, because it assumed a 20-year life cycle. The longevity of the Lockheed-Martin-built aircraft, according to the Pentagon, is 36 years.

KPMG’s audit, due out next week, has confirmed the contention, long made by critics such as former assistant deputy minister (materiel) Alan Williams, that the F-35 program’s real cost would be much higher than any previously stated government estimate, sources say.

Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page predicted a cost of $30 billion over a 30-year life cycle.

Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose, who took on the F-35 file after Ferguson’s audit, has been signalling since last spring that she was unhappy with the procurement process. On Nov. 22 in the House of Commons, Ambrose said the government is committed to “a full evaluation of all choices, not simply a refresh.”

Lawson, in an appearance before the House of Commons defence committee Nov. 29, further opened the door when he confirmed what industry critics have long said: The F-35 is not the only modern fighter with measures to evade radar, though it is considered to be the most advanced in this respect. “Is there only one airplane that can meet the standard of stealth that’s set out in the statement of requirements?” Liberal defence critic John McKay asked.

Lawson’s answer: “No.”

The F-35’s unique stealthiness had long been advanced as the single most compelling argument for buying that plane.

Also in the mix, former industry minister David Emerson last week published a report on the aerospace and space sectors, calling on Ottawa to more aggressively press for Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRBs) and In-Service Support (ISS) contracts when inking procurement deals. Lockheed-Martin has in the past been reluctant to hand over its proprietary technology to clients. Industry insiders believe the Emerson report added impetus to the decision to start over.

Boeing’s Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Saab’s Gripen, the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the F-35, are seen as the leading contenders in any new contest to replace the CF-18 fleet.

Postmedia News
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Read more:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[icbeodragon]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Canada says reviewing F-35 report, denies plan to cancel

OTTAWA (Reuters) - The Canadian government said on Thursday it was reviewing an independent report on the costof the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, but denied that it had decided to cancel its planned purchase of 65 of the Lockheed Martin Corp warplanes.

The CTV network reported earlier that the cost of Canada's planned F-35 purchase was set to soar in cost and the government would start looking at alternative planes.



The media report was the latest embarrassment over the F-35 for the Conservative government, which announced in July 2010 it would buy 65 of the Joint Strike Fighters for C$9 billion.

Ottawa consistently brushed off critics who said the figure was too low, but had to launch a formal review of the project in April after a spending watchdog said the initial decision to buy the jets had been based on bad data from officials who deliberately downplayed the costs and risks.

CTV, citing unnamed sources, said the government would next week release an independent study showing the cost of buying and maintaining the jets was in fact around C$40 billion ($40.4 billion), much higher than the initial estimate of C$25 billion for purchase and maintenance.

The television network did not say what time period the C$40 billion covered. The C$25 billion estimate was for 20 years.

Andrew MacDougall, spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said the government was reviewing the report prepared by the accounting firm KPMG, but that reports indicating the government had decided to cancel its F-35 buy were false.

He said the government planned a "comprehensive public update" before the House of Commons takes a Christmas break at the end of next week.

"We are committed to completing the seven-point plan and moving forward with our comprehensive, transparent approach to replacing Canada's aging CF-18 aircraft." MacDougall told Reuters.

CTV said Ottawa would launch a new review of how best to replace its aging fleet of CF-18 fighters, which will be retired in 2020, and could remove a requirement for the new jets to have stealth capability. Possible alternatives include Boeing Co's F-18 Super Hornet.

The $396 billion F-35 program, the largest in Pentagon history, is already late and well over budget.

The Canadian Defense Ministry did not hold an open competition to replace the CF-18s, saying the F-35 was the only plane that could meet all of Canada's requirements.

In April, Ottawa responded to the spending watchdog's criticism by stripping the Defense Ministry of responsibility for buying new jets and handing it to the Public Works Ministry.


No one in the office of Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose was immediately available for comment.

Lockheed is developing three variants for the U.S. military and eight partner nations: Britain, Canada, Italy, Turkey, Australia, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands.

Neither Lockheed nor the Pentagon's F-35 program office had any immediate comment on the Canadian media reports.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Someone jumped the gun, as of yet its not decided.

 

[Jeff Head]

re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Thread

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Someone jumped the gun, as of yet its not decided.

Yep. We'll see what happens. IMHO, they will be knee jerking and over-reacting to inevitable bumps in the road in initial testing before all the bugs are ironed out and the savings and capabilities are realized. If they do pull out, they will end up settling for something less while extending their dependence on the older aircraft.