F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Haletown]

And in other Program news,

http://marietta.patch.com/groups/business-news/p/f35-lightning-ii-program-surpasses-10000-flight-hours

Momentum continues to build.  Now that enough aircraft are in place at both USAF and USMC squadron levels, they will get the bugs worked out of the deployment in short order.


http://www.sldinfo.com/declaring-ioc-for-the-f-35b-and-going-to-japan-lt-col-gillette-discusses-the-approach/

 

[Haletown]

Turkey pulls the F-35 trigger . . .

www.defensenews.com/article/20131021/DEFREG01/310210014/Turkey-Reissue-F-35-Order


Norway adds 6 additional aircraft to their buy

www.seattlepi.com/news/world/article/Norway-wants-to-buy-6-more-F-35-fighter-jets-4893936.php



Israel to increase their buy with a second squadron

http://dalje.com/en-economy/israel-plans-for-second-f-35-squadron/420190



Singapore and now seriously Korea look to purchase the F-35.


We will get around to it eventually.

 

[tomahawk6]

The first short take-off and vertical landing mission at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., Oct. 25. The milestone training mission was flown by Maj. Brendan M. Walsh, of the Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron-501.Walsh recently qualified in vertical landing operations at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz., in preparation for this mission.(U.S. Air Force photo/Samuel King Jr.)

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Awesome pics T6. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Haletown]

Who needs a Hog and a Gau-8 when you can loiter at 25,000ft and plink tanks with your EOTS and a GBU


http://theaviationist.com/2013/10/30/f35-gbu-12-test/#.UnLxmDK9KK0

 

[OldSolduer]

Who needs a Hog and a Gau-8 when you can loiter at 25,000ft and plink tanks with your EOTS and a GBU


http://theaviationist.com/2013/10/30/f35-gbu-12-test/#.UnLxmDK9KK0

I'm not a pilot but I always think the sound of an A 10 prowling and the sound of the GAU might change a few peoples minds about attacking our troops. Just an opinion from an infantard.

 

[Haletown]

I'm not a pilot but I always think the sound of an A 10 prowling and the sound of the GAU might change a few peoples minds about attacking our troops. Just an opinion from an infantard.

Agreed.  But having their tanks blowing up without any warning would likely also put some poo in their pants 

 

[OldSolduer]

Agreed.  But having their tanks blowing up without any warning would likely also put some poo in their pants 

Agreed, but the soldier on the ground loves to hear the cannon and the aircraft. It's psycholigically comforting,to know that nasty ass plane is on your side.

 

[GAP]

Then we need some A-10's

 

[OldSolduer]

Then we need some A-10's

But we might hurt someone with them and we can't have that. 

 

[Journeyman]

But we might hurt someone with them and we can't have that. 

Have every 48th or 56th round be a PsyOps leaflet.  ;D



...although I believe every kinetic round already sends a pretty effective IA message 

 

[Haletown]

Another potential foreign sale?

Qatar: Emir Tamim, priority to F-35 JSF (40 credits)
Posted on: Tue, Oct 29, 2013
Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad Al Thani is said to be still showing determination to give priority to acquiring the Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) for the Qatari Air Force (QAF). The following 446-word report sheds light on the subject and tells what about the latest US-Qatari contacts on the aircraft in question. [Fully reproduced in Tactical Weekly (Issue No 20/44 – November 1, 2013)]


http://www.tacticalreport.com/view_news/Qatar:_Emir_Tamim_priority_to_F-35_JSF/3649

 

[CougarKing]

An update on the RAAF's F35 program:

Defense News

Australia's F-35 Buy Unaffected by US Sequestration
Aircraft Begins 'Mate' Process With Lockheed

CANBERRA, AUSTRALIA — Australia’s F-35A program is on track despite recent delays to flight tests caused by budget sequestration in the United States, according to the country’s head of New Air Combat Capability (NACC).

However, Air Vice Marshal Kym Osley said the NACC Project Office estimates there may be up to seven months of risk remaining in the development of the war-fighting capability software, known as Block 3F (Final). While this isn’t likely to affect Australian operational capability, which is not due until the end of 2020, it could affect US Marine Corps and Air Force plans.

The first Australian F-35A, known as AU-1, began the “mate” process on the Lockheed Martin production line in Fort Worth, Texas, on Oct. 7 and is due to roll out July 1, 2014. During the process, the aircraft’s structure is formed as major components are joined.

The Australian government reaffirmed its commitment to acquiring 72 F-35A fighters to replace its older F/A-18A/B Hornet fleet in May and has a potential requirement for 28 more, depending on future decisions involving its Super Hornets. The initial program of record for 72 aircraft is valued at AUS $3.2 billion (US $3.08 billion), based on 2009 figures.

Fourteen F-35As are approved. But so far only two have been ordered, with the second aircraft set to roll out in Fort Worth on Aug. 1. The first two will be used to train Australian F-35 pilots at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., before being delivered to Australia in 2018.

(...)

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I don't want to restart the debate on individual plane cost and all that is or isn't included depending where you are form, but if I do the math, we are talking about 43 millions US$ per plane, which is by far the lowest figure I have seen anywhere. Does anyone know why there is such a discrepancy?

 

[Haletown]

I don't want to restart the debate on individual plane cost and all that is or isn't included depending where you are form, but if I do the math, we are talking about 43 millions US$ per plane, which is by far the lowest figure I have seen anywhere. Does anyone know why there is such a discrepancy?

Something not quite right there.  Earlier this summer I spent some time trying to figure out the various F-35 "prices" and comparable ones for the Rafale, F-18E and the Typhoon . . .  all I got was a headache . . .  PAUC/APUC/URFC . . .  true black arts in putting these costings together.

The "best" source I have for the F-35 is the latest Select Acquisition Report for the F-35.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/144280342/DOD-JSF-2012-SAR-May-2013-20130524-pdf

See the table page 70.



LochMart uses a URFC (drive it off the lot sticker) price of $78.7 million for the F-35A, $106.5 million for the F-35B, and $87 million for the F-35C, in 2012 dollars.

http://www.xairforces.net/newsd.asp?newsid=1232&newst=8#.UngG3NKshcY


Maybe HB_Pencil is around and provide some insights.

 

[Good2Golf]

OGBD, it may sound simple, but the only way of knowing what a "unit flyaway cost" for a particular nation is, is to divide the total acqusition contract by number of airframes...simple as that.  Pick any aircraft procured in recent times and even if very similar, there is not a single nation that has paid the same as another nation for the same aircraft...even in joint programs.  Look back at CC-177. Physically differing pretty much by only a roundel and radio-call placard, yet not the same as any other C-17 user's "unit flyaway cost."

I'd be very suspect of anyone who told you that they had access to perfectly-normalized unit costs...

Truth is, you never know full details of what each nation's acquisition package includes beyond a singleton airframe (which itself is pretty much a useless thing on its own once it leaves the factory...)

The issue becomes more stark if you ask the prime contractor, for instance, if after contracting two JSS (or whatever we're calling them these days), how much would a third one cost? Answer........not just 50% again.

At the end of the day, a program costs what it costs, both for acquisition and, if applicable, in-service support costs. Can you then take the total program costs and divide by number of articles? Well, yes...but does that 'averaged' cost mean that's what you'd have to (or be able to) pay if you wanted N+1? Probably not... :nod:

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[dapaterson]

The issue becomes more stark if you ask the prime contractor, for instance, if after contracting two JSS (or whatever we're calling them these days), how much would a third one cost? Answer........not just 50% again.

[sarcasm, but only slightly]

It's a Canadian shipyard.  It would probably be +100%.  Got to get those Regional Economic Benefits, after all...

[/sarcasm, but only slightly]

 

[Kirkhill]

OGBD, it may sound simple, but the only way of knowing what a "unit flyaway cost" for a particular nation is, is to divide the total acqusition contract by number of airframes...simple as that.  Pick any aircraft procured in recent times and even if very similar, there is not a single nation that has paid the same as another nation for the same aircraft...even in joint programs.  Look back at CC-177. Physically differing pretty much by only a roundel and radio-call placard, yet not the same as any other C-17 user's "unit flyaway cost."

I'd be very suspect of anyone who told you that they had access to perfectly-normalized unit costs...

Truth is, you never know full details of what each nation's acquisition package includes beyond a singleton airframe (which itself is pretty much a useless thing on its own once it leaves the factory...)

The issue becomes more stark if you ask the prime contractor, for instance, if after contracting two JSS (or whatever we're calling them these days), how much would a third one cost? Answer........not just 50% again.

At the end of the day, a program costs what it costs, both for acquisition and, if applicable, in-service support costs. Can you then take the total program costs and divide by number of articles? Well, yes...but does that 'averaged' cost mean that's what you'd have to (or be able to) pay if you wanted N+1? Probably not... :nod:

:2c:

Regards
G2G

So what you're saying, G2G, is that aircraft pricing is handled by the same marketing types that sell me my airline seat tickets......


451 seats on a Dreamliner and 551 seat prices.  ;D

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

OGBD, it may sound simple, but the only way of knowing what a "unit flyaway cost" for a particular nation is, is to divide the total acqusition contract by number of airframes...simple as that. 
Regards
G2G

Thanks GTG.

That is what I did, and that is why I am trying to understand how the Aussies can be so far below everybody else in fly away cost, even drastically lower than LochMart's own "drive-off-the-lot" price.

What I was wondering is are they acquiring the combat suite/avionics/engines, etc. separately and then it doesn't count in their advertised purchase price. What are they doing different than anyone else?

 

[dapaterson]

Are the Aussies planning to sell off some of their other a/c, and including the estimated proceeds from the sale in their overall cost estimates?