F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[HB_Pencil]

How does the sustainment cost for a F35 differ than a F-15/F-16/F-18? What makes those costs unique, other than it's a brandnew airplane and the learning curve presently is steep.

Not much.... or at least not in the ways people think. In terms of raw numbers, even with inflation it will cost maybe 20% more to operate than an F-16 per hour, but that's always been known. The "worst case" scenario made in 2012 by CAPE suggested 30%, though at this stage the program already demonstrated costs below that.

Its also tough to make comparisons with the  other aircraft you list. Making a rough side by side comparison...  Its significantly cheaper to operate than an F-15 now per hour, a 40% more expensive than a Super Hornet, and around 50% more than an F-16. The Problem is that F-15s are old twin engined aircraft with very high maintenance requirements. F-16s are getting up there as well due to age, but USAF and industry has invested a lot to wring as much efficiency in the program. Shornets are in the sweetspot in their lifescycle, but they are being run pretty hard into the ground. The way the F-35 is operated means that more of the costs are contractor related, but will require fewer staff, especially in depots.

Those numbers are artificially high because there are a large number of early LRIP jets that cost more to operate, and the overall costs will decline as the sustainment processes start to align. You can see the practical effects of that with the much higher availability of aircraft based at Hill AFB compared to the fleet-wide average. Apparently they have had less staff turnover and more time to work with the jets which has improved their numbers.

Over the past year, I've spoken to a number of people who work on the aircraft, and anecdotally they praise the ease of maintenence on the aircraft... its not just ALIS but the internal ergonomics that allows for easier access to work areas. Those will show up over time.  Its not just the direct aircraft costs either; the US Military is really altering their entire system of sustainment for the F-35 that brings in more civil airlines practices. One key part is ALIS, which is being used to identify parts that are burning out more quickly (and perhaps pushing for redesign) and preemptively resolving shortages.


Hope that helps. (and sorry for the edits)

 

[HB_Pencil]

Still very much not out of the woods:

Mark
Ottawa

A bit of context behind that article that someone reminded me: Its public posturing ahead of a multiyear sustainment negotiations slated later of this year.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Progress:

F-35 Finally Can Use All [not actually] Its Weapons In Combat

The newest U.S. Air Force F-35s, both stateside at Hill AFB, Utah, and overseas in the Pacific, finally can employ the stealth fighter’s full suite of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons in combat.

The F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) has delivered the flight clearances, simulators, threat information, and logistics system required for the Air Force’s F-35As equipped with the latest software load to employ all of its weapons throughout the full flight envelope, according to the JPO, Lockheed Martin and Air Force officials.

This milestone gives the Block 3F-configured F-35As assigned to the 34th Fighter Squadron stationed at Hill and those forward-deployed to Kadena Air Base, Japan—on North Korea’s doorstep—some lethal capabilities. The aircraft now can fire Raytheon’s short-range AIM-9X Sidewinder missile, the GAU-22 25mm gun, and Boeing’s precision-guided Small Diameter Bomb, all while flying up to 9Gs at 1.6 Mach [emphasis added].

The F-35A touched down in Kadena for its first operational deployment to the Pacific in November, a highly anticipated milestone that underlines the U.S. military’s commitment to allies in the region amid tensions over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

The “Rude Rams” F-35As join the “Green Knights” F-35Bs of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121, which is permanently stationed at Iwakuni, Japan, significantly increasing the number of stealth F-35s in the region.

The 12 F-35As from Hill will be deployed to Kadena until May, a six-month rotation, as part of U.S. Pacific Command’s theater security package.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Marine Corps short takeoff, vertical-landing F-35B and U.S. Navy F-35C carrier variant configured with the 3F software will be able to deploy with their full operational capability in May and June, respectively, F-35 Program Executive Officer (PEO) Vice Adm. Mat Winter said during a Feb. 28 media roundtable. For the F-35Cs, this means the aircraft will be able to deploy Raytheon’s AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) in combat.

There is one caveat—the final 3F simulator capability has been broken into two releases, Lockheed’s Executive Vice President for Aeronautics Orlando Carvalho said in a March 5 interview. The first release has been delivered for the 3F F-35As, he said.

Even though the F-35’s long development phase finally is drawing to a close, the JPO and Lockheed will continue working to modernize the aircraft with an updated threat library, logistics system and simulators, Winter said [empasis added]...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-finally-can-use-all-its-weapons-combat

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Mark,

Emphasis aside, and with the greatest respect, that is what it was designed to do.  There is no end state...... except when the wings fall off.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Block 4 could be quite costly:

New F-35 modernization plan could come with hefty $16B price tag

Under the F-35 joint program office’s latest plan, follow-on modernization for the Joint Strike Fighter could add up to a total of $16 billion, the Defense Department’s program head confirmed Wednesday.

Responding to questions from lawmakers about the price of implementing the new Continuous Capability Development and Delivery strategy, or C2D2, Vice Adm. Mat Winter acknowledged that U.S. and international customers could pay up to $10.8 billion for development and $5.4 billion for procurement of upgrades to the F-35 between fiscal years 2018 through 2024.

Last September at the Defense News conference, Winter announced that the JPO had re-envisioned the F-35’s follow on-modernization plan, also known as Block 4, as a more iterative process where software updates would be pumped out every six months. New computing systems, sensors and weapons would also be incorporated during the period.

Out of the 53 capabilities that will be introduced during C2D2, about 80 percent are software-related, Winter said during a hearing on the program held by the House Armed Services Committee’s tactical air and land forces subcommittee.

“It’s predominantly software, which is what drove us to pursue an agile, repetitive, iterative process to do quick software module updates and provide them to the warfighter,” he said.

“I realize that this is not traditional, and what we need to do is provide the sense of confidence for the goalpost that we can operate between, and bring that to you.”

Because the U.S. share of development costs amounts to $7.2 billion, the United States could be left with a bill of about about $1 billion a year over that seven year period before procurement costs are factored in. Winter said that is “on par for post-development” costs for an upgrade program of this size.

“That estimate will most likely come down, most likely,” he told reporters after the hearing. “But I don’t guarantee anything.”

The $5.4 billion procurement cost also represents the “worst case,” where the U.S. services decide to push all Block 4 hardware upgrades toward the end of the modernization timeline [emphasis added]...
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/03/08/new-f-35-modernization-plan-could-come-with-hefty-16b-price-tag/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Meanwhile DOT&E weighs in (further links at original):

The F-35 Still Has a Long Way to Go before It Will Be Ready for Combat

The F-35 still has a long way to go before it will be ready for combat. That was the parting message of Dr. Michael Gilmore, the now-retired Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, in his last annual report [http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/dod/2016f35jsf.pdf].

The Joint Strike Fighter Program has already consumed more than $100 billion and nearly 25 years. Just to finish the basic development phase will require at least an extra $1 billion and two more years. Even with this massive investment of time and money, Dr. Gilmore told Congress, the Pentagon, and the public, “the operational suitability of all variants continues to be less than desired by the Services."

Dr. Gilmore detailed a range of remaining and sometimes worsening problems with the program, including hundreds of critical performance deficiencies and maintenance problems. He also raised serious questions about whether the Air Force’s F-35A can succeed in either air-to-air or air-to-ground missions, whether the Marine Corps’ F-35B can conduct even rudimentary close air support, and whether the Navy’s F-35C is suitable to operate from aircraft carriers.

He found, in fact, that “if used in combat, the F-35 aircraft will need support to locate and avoid modern threat ground radars, acquire targets, and engage formations of enemy fighter aircraft due to unresolved performance deficiencies and limited weapons carriage availability.”

In a public statement, the F-35 Joint Program Office attempted to dismiss the Gilmore report by asserting, “All of the issues are well-known to the JPO, the U.S. services, our international partners, and our industry.”

JPO’s acknowledgement of the numerous issues are fine as far as it goes, but there’s no indication that the Office has any plan—including cost and schedule re-estimates—to fix those currently known problems without cutting corners. Nor, apparently, do they have a plan to cope with and fund the fixes for the myriad unknown problems that will be uncovered during the upcoming, much more rigorous, developmental and operational tests of the next four years. Such a plan is essential, and should be driven by the pace at which problems are actually solved rather than by unrealistic pre-existing schedules...
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-f-35-still-has-long-way-go-before-it-will-be-ready-24810

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

Isnt the PRC version in service ?

 

[PuckChaser]

Isnt the PRC version in service ?

They allegedly have 6 in service and was only publicly declared OpRed in Jan 2018 according to Wiki. They still don't have the actual high rate production engine completed yet.

 

[Good2Golf]

They allegedly have 6 in service and was only publicly declared OpRed in Jan 2018 according to Wiki. They still don't have the actual high rate production engine completed yet.

Neither Russian nor Chinese engine technology is anywhere near American technology.  The Shengdu J-31 has two engines (and Russian RD-93s at that, for the moment, no Chinese engine) because the Chinese don't have an engine with enough thrust and small enough form factor...and reliability, to provide a single-engine format.

Regards
G2G

 

[observor 69]

Neither Russian nor Chinese engine technology is anywhere near American technology.  The Shengdu J-31 has two engines (and Russian RD-93s at that, for the moment, no Chinese engine) because the Chinese don't have an engine with enough thrust and small enough form factor...and reliability, to provide a single-engine format.

Regards
G2G

So I'm guessing the Chinese are working overtime hacking into Pratt & Whitney F135 info.

 

[dapaterson]

Neither Russian nor Chinese engine technology is anywhere near American technology.  The Shengdu J-31 has two engines (and Russian RD-93s at that, for the moment, no Chinese engine) because the Chinese don't have an engine with enough thrust and small enough form factor...and reliability, to provide a single-engine format.

Regards
G2G

Hey!  Isn't there a group in Canada insisting on a twin-engine fighter?  The J-31 for NGFC!

 

[Good2Golf]

Hey!  Isn't there a group in Canada insisting on a twin-engine fighter?  The J-31 for NGFC!

Maybe Boeing should go halfsies with Shenyang and pitch a Super Lighteningchang Hornet?  :nod:

 

[dapaterson]

Maybe Boeing should go halfsies with Shenyang and pitch a Super Lighteningchang Hornet?  :nod:

As long as you build it in Quebec...

 

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile DOT&E weighs in (further links at original):

The F-35 still has a long way to go before it will be ready for combat. That was the parting message of Dr. Michael Gilmore, the now-retired Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, in his last annual report [http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/dod/2016f35jsf.pdf].

The Joint Strike Fighter Program has already consumed more than $100 billion and nearly 25 years. Just to finish the basic development phase will require at least an extra $1 billion and two more years. Even with this massive investment of time and money, Dr. Gilmore told Congress, the Pentagon, and the public, “the operational suitability of all variants continues to be less than desired by the Services."

Dr. Gilmore detailed a range of remaining and sometimes worsening problems with the program, including hundreds of critical performance deficiencies and maintenance problems. He also raised serious questions about whether the Air Force’s F-35A can succeed in either air-to-air or air-to-ground missions, whether the Marine Corps’ F-35B can conduct even rudimentary close air support, and whether the Navy’s F-35C is suitable to operate from aircraft carriers.

He found, in fact, that “if used in combat, the F-35 aircraft will need support to locate and avoid modern threat ground radars, acquire targets, and engage formations of enemy fighter aircraft due to unresolved performance deficiencies and limited weapons carriage availability.”

In a public statement, the F-35 Joint Program Office attempted to dismiss the Gilmore report by asserting, “All of the issues are well-known to the JPO, the U.S. services, our international partners, and our industry.”

JPO’s acknowledgement of the numerous issues are fine as far as it goes, but there’s no indication that the Office has any plan—including cost and schedule re-estimates—to fix those currently known problems without cutting corners. Nor, apparently, do they have a plan to cope with and fund the fixes for the myriad unknown problems that will be uncovered during the upcoming, much more rigorous, developmental and operational tests of the next four years. Such a plan is essential, and should be driven by the pace at which problems are actually solved rather than by unrealistic pre-existing schedules...
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-f-35-still-has-long-way-go-before-it-will-be-ready-24810

Mark
Ottawa

Nor can the bumblebee fly......

The subsequent demand forced an adolescent system to the front lines while General Atomics scrambled to move MQ-1 production into overdrive. Forgoing the normal gauntlet associated with the full Defense Department acquisition process was both a blessing and a curse. The troops received the Predator quickly, but the system lacked the refinements and debugging a full test and evaluation program would have delivered. Operators in the field and the company that stood behind them would have to overcome that burden and subsequent issues.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/03/10/curtain_call_for_the_aircraft_that_helped_eliminate_terrorists_113179.html

The Predator/Reaper development was the antithesis of DOTE development.  And yet both the development, and the various upgrades worked and provided yeoman service.

In the battle between paper and metal I suggest the paperworkers are the ones that need to rethink their processes.

 

[tomahawk6]

The F35 is at Eilson AFB under going testing.It arrived in November.

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/military/2017/11/12/the-first-f-35-jet-is-being-tested-at-eielson-air-force-base-the-fairbanks-area-is-preparing-for-a-population-jump/
The first F-35A Lightning II fighter jet has landed at Eielson Air Force Base and will spend much of November going through testing to ensure it can operate on an icy runway in frigid Interior Alaska.

"They're going 150 miles per hour down the runway, hitting the patch of ice and making sure they can still keep it under control," said 2nd Lt. Kitsana Dounglomchan, a public affairs officer on the base southeast of Fairbanks.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The Joint Strike Fighter Program has already consumed more than $100 billion and nearly 25 years. Just to finish the basic development phase will require at least an extra $1 billion and two more years.

He found, in fact, that “if used in combat, the F-35 aircraft will need support to locate and avoid modern threat ground radars, acquire targets, and engage formations of enemy fighter aircraft due to unresolved performance deficiencies and limited weapons carriage availability.”

Whea

 

[Good2Golf]

Just to finish the basic development phase will require at least an extra $1 billion and two more years.

So the F-35 is using Phoenix for its software?   


;D

 

[MarkOttawa]

Political insistence on going for Eurofighter (and SPD doubts about retaining NATO nuclear role with F-35A?):

Luftwaffe chief dismissed over F-35 support

The Chief of the Luftwaffe is to leave his position in large part due to his support for a German procurement of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), Jane’s has learned.

Lieutenant General Karl Müllner will leave his position by the end of May, with the news of his retirement breaking just two days after Germany’s defence secretary, Ursula von der Leyen, was sworn in for another term.

Jane’s understands that Gen Müllner’s outspoken public support for the JSF as a successor to the German Tornado fleet was pivotal in the decision for his early retirement. “The Luftwaffe considers the F-35’s capability as the benchmark for the selection process for the Tornado replacement, and I think I have expressed myself clearly enough as to what the favourite of the air force is,” Gen Müllner told Jane’s and other media in November 2017.

The Chief of the Luftwaffe’s active support of the JSF clashes with current Ministry of Defence planning, which prefers a successor solution involving the Eurofighter Typhoon.
http://www.janes.com/article/78644/luftwaffe-chief-dismissed-over-f-35-support

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

From inside the USAF itself:

Air Force Risks Losing Third of F-35s If Upkeep Costs Aren't Cut

    Operating costs may force cutting 590 fighters, analysis finds
    Half of support expenditures are spent on contractor support

The U.S. Air Force may have to cut its purchases of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 by a third if it can’t find ways to reduce operations and support costs by as much as 38 percent over a decade, according to an internal analysis.

The shortfall would force the service to subtract 590 of the fighter jets from the 1,763 it plans to order, the Air Force office charged with evaluating the F-35’s impact on operations and budgets, in an assessment obtained by Bloomberg News.

While the Defense Department has said it has gained control over costs for developing and producing a fleet of 2,456 F-35s for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps -- now projected at $406 billion -- the internal analysis underscores the current and looming challenges of maintaining and operating the warplanes.

It may cost as much as $1.1 trillion to keep the F-35s flying and maintained through 2070, according to the current estimate from the Pentagon’s independent cost unit.

A chart in the Air Force analysis, which was completed in December, said the service has “very limited visibility into how” increasing funds going to Lockheed for “contractor support” are spent.

First Disclosure

The analysis represents the first public disclosure of the potential impact if support costs aren’t reduced. Using figures developed in 2012, the Air Force faces an annual bill of about $3.8 billion a year that must be cut back over the coming decade.

The Air Force analysis doesn’t represent anything close to a final decision, according to spokeswoman Ann Stefanik. The potential reduction in aircraft was a “staff assessment on aircraft affordability. It’s premature for the Air Force to consider buying fewer aircraft at this time,” Stefanik said.

The Air Force is working with the Pentagon’s F-35 program office to reach the 38 percent reduction in operation and support costs through 2028 from the $38 billion calculated in 2012, she added...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-28/air-force-risks-losing-third-of-f-35s-if-upkeep-costs-aren-t-cut

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Further to above post, bonne chance et on verra:

US Air Force aims to lower F-35 sustainment costs to that of an F-16

The U.S. Air Force’s top general wants to see the cost of operating and sustaining an F-35 joint strike fighter fall to the same levels as current fourth-generation fighters like the F-16, he told reporters Thursday.

“Our initial target is to get them down to the equivalent or very close to what we’re currently spending to sustain fourth-generation fighters,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein said during a roundtable.

There could be dire consequences for the F-35 program should operations and sustainment, or O&S, costs not go down as far as desired. On Wednesday, Bloomberg reported that the Air Force could trim its planned purchase of F-35As by a third unless O&S costs decrease by 38 percent over the next 10 years.

On Thursday [March 29], Goldfein downplayed speculation that the program could be cut, telling reporters that he continues to be committed to the Air Force’s entire 1,763-unit buy.

“We’re going to be buying these aircraft for a number of years, so it’s way too early to be talking about any curtailment of any procurement or any buy,” he said, adding that any decision to decrease the program of record “is really well out into the future.”

The U.S. Government Accountability Office projected in 2017 that total sustainment costs over the life of the F-35 program could amount to more than $1 trillion during a 60-year life cycle.

Support costs have been increasing as the number of planes and flight hours grow, but the internal Defense Department analysis paper obtained by Bloomberg pointed out that the Pentagon has only “limited visibility” into how the F-35’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, spends that money as a contractor.

O&S costs are “absolutely” a major concern, Goldfein acknowledged, and part of the department’s strategy is to pressure Lockheed to lower personnel- and contractor-support costs.

However, “it’s just not true that’s there’s any intent on our part to go one aircraft below the program of record, because that’s what we require today to actually accomplish the [national defense] strategy as its currently written,” he said...
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/03/29/air-force-aiming-to-lower-f-35-sustainment-costs-to-that-of-an-f-16/

Mark
Ottawa