F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[MarkOttawa]

LockMart and Pentagon not mutually happy campers--still; Lt. Gen Bogdan has one tough job:

Pentagon Moves Forward — Unilaterally — on $6.1B Contract for Ninth F-35 Lot

The Pentagon on Wednesday evening [Nov. 2] announced a $6.1 billion contract [without engine one presumes] with Lockheed Martin for the ninth lot of joint strike fighter aircraft, but the F-35 manufacturer is not happy with the terms of the arrangement, which was not mutually agreed upon, according to a company spokesman.

The contract covers 57 low rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft, which will be procured for 3.7 percent less than the LRIP 8 batch of jet, the F-35 joint program office stated.

The joint program office initially intended to broker a deal for LRIP 9 and 10 together, a contract F-35 program executive officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan had said would procure about 150 aircraft for a total contract value of about $14 billion. Lockheed and the government intended to finalize an agreement in the early months of this year, but as negotiations pressed on into the fourth quarter, the government opted to award a unilateral contract action — a decision Lockheed disputes.

“The definitized contract for LRIP 9 announced today was not a mutually agreed upon contract, it was a unilateral contract action, which obligates us to perform under standard terms and conditions, and previously agreed-to items,” said Lockheed spokesman Mike Rein. “We are disappointed with the decision by the government to issue a unilateral contract action on the F-35 LRIP 9 contract. For the past 18 months, Lockheed Martin has negotiated in good faith consistent with our commitment to reach a fair and reasonable agreement on this critical program. We will continue to execute on the F-35 program and we will evaluate our options and path forward."..
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/pentagon-moves-forward-unilaterally-on-61b-contract-for-ninth-f-35-lot

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

More on F-35 Joint capabilities

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/11/04/the_f-35_instrument_of_power_projection_110307.html

 

[MarkOttawa]

Trump impact on F-35?

Trump’s Doubts on F-35 Jet Cast Pall on Pace of Defense Buildup

Donald Trump’s doubts about the $379 billion F-35 jet, the Pentagon’s largest weapons program, could cast a pall over the defense industry’s early euphoria that a major boost in spending is coming after the next administration takes office.

The stealthy fighter built by Lockheed Martin Corp. was the only major weapons program Trump questioned during the campaign, even as he espoused the need for a larger Army and more warships. In an October 2015 interview with radio host Hugh Hewitt, Trump criticized the jet’s costs and said he heard “that it’s not very good. I’m hearing that our existing planes are better.”

He’ll have to decide quickly whether that skepticism still stands.

Soon after taking office in January, Trump will be faced with some key decisions about the F-35 and other weapons systems. Under current plans, the U.S. is scheduled to boost purchases of the jet in the fiscal year 2018 budget to 70 from 63 this year. The number is set to increase further to 80 in fiscal 2019. There’s also a pending “block buy” of 450 aircraft in the coming years as the Pentagon seeks a total fleet of 2,443, including 1,763 for the Air Force.

“While Trump may not be a big fan of the F-35, he really has very few other options to modernize tactical combat aircraft,” Byron Callan, a defense analyst with Capital Alpha Partners LLC, said in an e-mail.

Messages left with Trump’s transition team about whether the president-elect stands by his earlier comments weren’t immediately returned...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/trump-s-doubts-on-f-35-jet-cast-pall-on-pace-of-defense-buildup

Mark
Ottawa

 

[AlexanderM]

What a wild card this is. I'm thinking, will Trump bring back the F-22?

 

[OTR1]

Trump impact on F-35?

None.

....will Trump bring back the F-22?

No.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

What a wild card this is. I'm thinking, will Trump bring back the F-22?

Nope. Assembly line for the F-22 no longer exists.

 

[BurmaShave]

Trump impact on F-35?

Mark
Ottawa

I think Lockheed-Martin needs an F-35 sexiness upgrade (I suggest flames, or racing stripes, or those hubcaps that spin ;D).

The damn plane is plenty appealing to guys whose business is fighters (and me, cause I'm a sheep), it's just not appealing to laymen (and therefore the Donald, cause he's a different kind of sheep). Thus, we have to put up with the whole "I'm hearing our existing planes are better" rubbish.

 

[McG]

Nope. Assembly line for the F-22 no longer exists.

That is not an insurmountable barrier if one is ready to throw money at it.

 

[AlexanderM]

That is not an insurmountable barrier if one is ready to throw money at it.

LM already provided a quote of something like 170M per on something like 76 aircraft, but if the US were to change it's position and allowed other countries to purchase, the cost would come down as the numbers increase. If the numbers went up to over 200+ then the cost might be more reasonable.

 

[HB_Pencil]

LM already provided a quote of something like 170M per on something like 76 aircraft, but if the US were to change it's position and allowed other countries to purchase, the cost would come down as the numbers increase. If the numbers went up to over 200+ then the cost might be more reasonable.

No, it won't. The real problem is that they actually don't have a workable avionics system for the aircraft: that's going to have to be started from scratch or ported over from the F-35 at an immense cost. The EMD for this part of the system was one of the reasons why Gates canned the fighter in 2008 because they had to do that to produce more than ~200 aircraft.

The F-22 line restart is basically a massive pipedream, largely conjured up by people who don't realize that air warfare isn't about raw performance anymore. Would the Air force have liked to have two more squadrons worth of aircraft produced back in 2009? Absolutely. Would they like two more squadrons be produced today at the expense of 4 or 5 squadrons of F-35s? Absolutely not.


As for trump, if you read his comments back a year ago, they are basically made by someone who really hasn't had a briefing on the program. Stuff like "not as good as a F-16" is hallmarks of someone who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about when they are faced with this file. The article in Canada highlighting his comments a few days ago was bordering on sensationalist journalism.

 

[SupersonicMax]

HB_Pencil,

The F-22 offers far more than raw performance.  It's sensors and capabilities are next to nothing (only second to maybe the F-35).

 

[Good2Golf]

I think Lockheed-Martin needs an F-35 sexiness upgrade (I suggest flames, or racing stripes, or those hubcaps that spin ;D).

The damn plane is plenty appealing to guys whose business is fighters (and me, cause I'm a sheep), it's just not appealing to laymen (and therefore the Donald, cause he's a different kind of sheep). Thus, we have to put up with the whole "I'm hearing our existing planes are better" rubbish.

The F-35 isn't so bad.  JSF fashionistas dodged a bullet when the competition eliminated Boeing's X-32, a.k.a. "Jaws"

 

[HB_Pencil]

HB_Pencil,

The F-22 offers far more than raw performance.  It's sensors and capabilities are next to nothing (only second to maybe the F-35).

Yes, I'm very well aware of what the F-22 brings in terms of its sensors and capabilities, I gave an overview of that several pages ago. However what's not apparent is just how limited those capabilities are in terms of future growth, and even how they relate to the future battlefield.

Basically the F-22's problem is that its avionics suite was designed in the 1990s using 1980s design thinking on avionics. With its main sensor inputs being the RWR, Radar and Link-16 (receive only), and the limitations of programming at the time, they built an customized system that has proven exceptionally expensive to upgrade. For example the APG-77 doesn't have an independent processing unit: all it does is basically preprocesses the data and sends it to the aircraft's central processor for actual data processing, in ADA. The architecture has been a  huge issue for upgrading it.

This was why in the mid 2000s the plan was to take the F-35's avionics (hardware and software) and marry it to the F-22 to build more tails. That was scrapped because it was found to be prohibitively expensive and the F-22 line was cancelled after 180 tails. Since then they have been struggling to get even modest upgrades: I think it was only last year that they got an HMD and the ability to fire the 9X.

That's not to say that its actually capabilities are not impressive: the battlefield management experience its had over Syria is profound and points to a new epoch in how we conduct aerial warfare. A Raptor pilot I spoke to described it as being a mini-awacs flying over the battlefield. The running joke in the AF right now is that for every problem you send an F-22.  How to cure cancer? F-22.

But despite the excellent performance, the F-22's limitations are evident, especially compared to the F-35. The F-22's data inputs are somewhat limited, as its ability to actually manage the battlespace. The F-22 can currently only communicate with non-F-22s through voicecoms, though they are pushing to give it link-16 transmit capabilities as fast as they can. Still that's an incredibly costly effort.

So to zoom this out back to the broader picture, what you're starting to see the USAF focus on is building this dense net of integrated platforms, and managing the battlespace with it. The problem is that to keep the F-22 at the cutting of this capability costs a lot more than to do so for the F-35, particularly given the vast disparity in fleet sizes. The also have major costs elsewhere: the B-2.1 program, the penetrating counter-air program, and the F-35 itself. I think I've said this earlier, but I have a suspicion that the F-22 will be retired sooner than most people realize because of the aircraft's costs.

I'll leave you with this: in the past two years I've personally seen a vast change in the views of people within the USAF on this topic. In the 2000s there was still a platform centric view on capabilities, but now you hear everybody talking about is the systems of systems and how the F-35 sits in the center of this future. It really bodes poorly for us, given our idiotic delays on this program.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I am not sure how much actual experience you have with F-22s but I have a bunch both in training and combat.  I am pretty well aware of its capabilities and I can tell you, it fits nicely in a "system of systems" environment.  There are very good reasons why some of the architecture is the way it is. 

I am unsure why the fact the APG-77 doesn't fully process data at its level is important.  The data would still go to the mission computers for fusing and display.  You send the data where it is going to be processed and displayed the fasted.

The F-22 did not have the 9x for the longest time because there was no urgent requirement to have it:  it can do awesome without and literally owns the battlespace: it doesn't need but the 9x sure is certainly nice to have....  Had there been a requirement before then, it would have been integrated.  It is not that difficult.

Again, I have seen the F-22 employed in very simple exercices and very complex ones with literraly close to 80 airplanes airborne (blue and red) and I had the chance to be a Mission Commander for such a mission: They are definately the go-to guys for anything A/A and I don't see that changing anytime soon.  I also employed with them downrange and was alway extremely impressed with what they could bring to the table, even in the A/G role, a role which wasn't initially meant to be.

While re-openning the production line may create some other issues, I don't think capabilities is one of them.  Yup, they could be better, but so could the JSF. 

Personally, if I were to chose a replacement, my order of preference would be:

-F-15E (Lots of playtime, obnoxious amount of ordnance, decent sensors)
-F-22 (Good endurance for northern ops, great sensors)
-F-35 (Same of better playtime than legacy Hornets, amazing sensor suite)
-F-18E (It's a Hornet)

 

[SupersonicMax]

The F-35 isn't so bad.  JSF fashionistas dodged a bullet when the competition eliminated Boeing's X-32, a.k.a. "Jaws"

Happiest plane on Earth!

 

[HB_Pencil]

I am not sure how much actual experience you have with F-22s but I have a bunch both in training and combat.  I am pretty well aware of its capabilities and I can tell you, it fits nicely in a "system of systems" environment.  There are very good reasons why some of the architecture is the way it is. 

I am unsure why the fact the APG-77 doesn't fully process data at its level is important.  The data would still go to the mission computers for fusing and display.  You send the data where it is going to be processed and displayed the fasted.

The F-22 did not have the 9x for the longest time because there was no urgent requirement to have it:  it can do awesome without and literally owns the battlespace: it doesn't need but the 9x sure is certainly nice to have....  Had there been a requirement before then, it would have been integrated.  It is not that difficult.

Again, I have seen the F-22 employed in very simple exercices and very complex ones with literraly close to 80 airplanes airborne (blue and red) and I had the chance to be a Mission Commander for such a mission: They are definately the go-to guys for anything A/A and I don't see that changing anytime soon.  I also employed with them downrange and was alway extremely impressed with what they could bring to the table, even in the A/G role, a role which wasn't initially meant to be.

While re-openning the production line may create some other issues, I don't think capabilities is one of them.  Yup, they could be better, but so could the JSF. 

So I don't think that anything you said about your experiences contradict anything I said;  I fully agree and acknowledge all of the F-22's current capabilities in my post above. It is the premier tactical aircraft right now.. Certainly I don't have your experience of it up close, however I do have a lot of time discussing it with people involved on the other side of the fence in DoD, Ft Worth and other locations, looking at its directly in its PM, and as part of the USAF/DoD roadmap for the future.

The focus of my posts above is the F-22's future  considering its capabilities and potential upgradability. That to me is the question, particularly considering the forthcoming budget crunch the AF faces. If you read some of documentation coming out of the United States right now, talk to the people leading the third offset/whatever, and watch how budgets are being allocated, the system of systems and the capability decisions around it are starting to influence procurement decisions. Consequently I think the nature of aerial warfare will change just as dramatically in the next five to ten years as it did in in the last five to ten. Wait until block 3I and 4 F-35s start appearing: its avionics capability will be a significant improvement on what the F-22's can do. Is that all surprising given that its almost two decades newer in development?

I raise the APG-77 and 9X upgrades as part and parcel of a larger issue with its upgradability. You say that there wasn't an urgent requirement to add the Aim-9X. The reason why it wasn't "urgent" is, because the difficulty the USAF had other, major priorities in the queue that was eating billions of dollars in funding (addressing the skin delamination and galvanic corrosion being major ones). Avionics have been an even bigger can of worms, partly because of its immense complexity and unique features of the system. Part of the problem I've heard is that the people who designed them are long gone, and its an entire relearning process for upgrades... one person I interviewed called it "one of the worst cases of vendor lock-in he's seen." The USAF has tried four different approaches to get at upgrades, with very mixed results. I don't discount that USAF may throw billions more at the program to get what it wants. However in the age of serious budget pressures, and the fact the F-22 line was cut in part because the F-35 offered a lot of the same capabilities at the same price, I have difficulty seeing them continually spend billions on the aircraft to keep it current, much less spend even more to get additional aircraft.

The F-35 has some of these issues, but it has a much more robust development roadmap with regular planned software and hardware refreshes. Furthermore its development was launched in a period when the foundations of avionics development were much more solid, meaning that it is easier to manage its development.

So with those impediments in mind, consideration on the F-22's capabilities are also tied to broader questions on the future battlefield management architecture, decision-making, platform employment. Who and where are decisions made when certain platforms have significantly better situational awareness? How do UCAV's fit in? Will the F-22 become another spear carrier for the F-35, or perhaps this will all be managed from upgraded widebodies, or by ground stations? All the services are grappling with this right now.

Frankly, Canada is a decade behind all of this, and except for a very small segment of people within DND, nobody has discussed this at all. One of the reasons why I've pushed for the F-35 so hard is that it basically is not just a direct replacement for the CF-18: it offers DND a readymade solution to a whole bunch of questions about concept of operations that we haven't even started to think about and going alone will be ruinously expensive to get interoperability working right.

Again, I'm not saying that the F-22 is rubbish or anything like that. It really is the preeminent fighter in the skies right now. But what makes it so great, its avionics/sensors systems mixed with low observables, are capabilities the F-35 seeks to build upon. All I am saying is that if you look at the future, where funding is being allocated and how capabilities are shaping up, the situation is not too encouraging for the F-22 in the mid-to-long term.

 

[Kirkhill]

The F-35 isn't so bad.  JSF fashionistas dodged a bullet when the competition eliminated Boeing's X-32, a.k.a. "Jaws"

You mean "The Pelican"?

A wonderful bird is the Pelican
It's beak can hold more than its belly can.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Not as pretty as the Tunnan:

http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/text/29tunnan.htm

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Just on the subject of Trump, although I don't think he'll do anything to jeopardize the economics of the JSF, I do anticipate he'll pay to fasttrack FA-XX.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Sure would help get price down:

Pentagon arms buyer 'hopeful' that Lockheed F-35 block buy will proceed

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's chief arms buyer, said on Saturday [Nov. 3] he was hopeful that a proposed three-year block buy of Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets, expected to generate large savings, would go ahead."I can't say what's in the final budget, but I'm very hopeful that the block buy will proceed as planned, Kendall told Reuters at the annual Reagan National Defense Forum in southern California.

Kendall said Pentagon officials had debated postponing or scrapping the block buy, which would cover more than 400 aircraft and includes purchases by the U.S. military and other countries participating in the F-35 program, until after operational testing and evaluation had been completed.

The Pentagon's chief weapons tester, Michael Gilmore, has long argued about the need to test the planes before buying and building larger quantities.

The Pentagon and its international buyers have pushed hard for the block buy to help drive costs lower via bigger economies of scale.

Partners counting on the "block buy" include Norway which is banking on saving about $50 million (400 million Norwegian kroner) when it buys 12 F-35 warplanes from Lockheed in the proposed group purchase.

News that the bundled purchases were likely to continue come after tense negotiations between Lockheed and the government about the latest F-35 contracts.

In November, negotiations on buying the ninth batch of F-35 warplanes broke down and the government imposed a contract on the U.S. arms maker after more than a year of negotiations had failed to culminate in a suitable agreement. Ultimately, the DOD priced the 57 jets in ninth batch of F-35s at $6.1 billion [that's without engines I'm pretty certain]...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-arms-buyer-hopeful-lockheed-f-35-block-051727780--finance.html

Mark
Ottawa