F-35 JSF has big contractor problems.

[PatekPhilippe]

Lies, lies and more lies.... Where is all of the outrage over this from the Lib's who touted the DNC talking point that the F-35 was cheaper than the F-22????

From Navy Times Feb. 22, 2010 pg. 21 "Experts: JSF near breaking point.":
SecDef fires Maj. General David Heinz USMC F-35 program manager....
Lockheed Martin witholding 614 million dollars in performance fees....
Price tag approaching 122 million dollars a copy...exceeding 150% of the baseline cost originally presented to Congress...
Internal Navy memo says the F-35's cost per flight hour approaches that of the F-14 Tomcat...exceeding the F/A 18!!!!!!!

Now...please begin citing DNC and Huffington talking points.....ready?.....BEGIN!!!

 

[Intense]

Here is some background.

F-35/Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Overview
F-35 Variants: US Air Force
F-35 Variants: US Navy
F-35 Variants: US Marine Corps
Images
Specifications

Sources and Resources



The F-35 is the result of the Defense Department's Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, which sought to build a multirole fighter optimized for the air-to-ground role with secondary air-to-air capability. The JSF requirement was to meet the needs of the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and allies, with improved survivability, precision engagement capability, and reduced life cycle costs. By using many of the same technologies developed for the F-22, the F-35 has the opportunity to capitalize on commonality and modularity to maximize affordability.

The Lockheed Martin X-35 was chosen over the competing Boeing X-32 primarily because of Lockheed’s lift-fan STOVL design, which proved superior to the Boeing vectored-thrust approach. The lift fan, which is powered by the aircraft engine via a clutched driveshaft, was technically challenging but DoD concluded that Lockheed has the technology in hand. The lift fan has significant excess power which could be critical given the weight gain that all fighter aircraft experience.

Lockheed Martin developed four versions of the Joint Strike Fighter to fulfill the needs of the Navy, Marine Corps, Army, Air Force and the United Kingdom Royal Air Force and Navy. All versions have the same fuselage and internal weapons bay, common outer mold lines with similar structural geometries, identical wing sweeps, and comparable tail shapes. The weapons are stored in two parallel bays located aft of the main landing gear. The canopy, radar, ejection system, subsystems, and avionics are all common among all different version as is the core engine which is based on the F119 by Pratt & Whitney.

Additional systems on the F-35 include:
1.Northrup Grumman advanced electronically scanned array (AESA) multi-function radar
2.Snader/Litton Amecon electronic countermeasures equipment
3.Lockheed Martin electro-optical targeting system
4.Northrup Grumman distributed aperture infrared sensor (DAIRS) thermal imaging system
5.Vision Systems International advanced helmet-mounted display
F-35 Variants
US Air Force Return to Top

The Air Force expects that to purchase 1763 F-35s to complement the F-22 Raptor and replace the F-16 as an air-toground strike aircraft. The Air Force variant includes an internal gun, infrared sensors, and laser designator. This is the technologically simplest version of the JSF, in that it does not require hover or aircraft carrier capability. Therefore it does not require the vertical thrust or the handling qualities for catapult launches, augmented control authority at landing approach speeds and strengthened structure to handle arrested landings. At the same time, the Air Force F-35 will have to improve upon the high standards created by the F-16. Since replacement of the F-16 by the F-35 will entail a significant payload reduction, the F-35 faces a very demanding one shot one kill requirement.
US Navy Return to Top
The requirement for carrier operations creates the largest differences between the Air Force and Navy version. The naval version has larger wing and tail control surfaces to enable low-speed approaches to aircraft carriers. Leadingedge flaps and foldable wing tip sections account for this increased wing area. The larger wing area also provides the Navy version with an increased payload capability. To support the stresses of carrier landings and catapult launches, the internal structure of this version is strengthened. In addition, the landing gear has longer stroke and higher load capacity, and of course an arresting hook is added. Compared to the F-18C, the F-35 has twice the range on internal fuel.. The design is also optimized for survivability, which is a key Navy requirement. Like the USAF version, the Navy version will incorporate an internal gun and sensors. This new fighter will be used by the Navy as a first-day-of-war attack fighter in conjunction with the F/A-18 Hornet. The Navy plans to purchase 480 JSF.

US Marine Corps Return to Top
The distinguishing feature of the USMC version of the JSF is its short takeoff/vertical landing capability (STOVL). There will not be an internally mounted machine gun, but an external gun can be fitted. This version requires controllability on all axes while hovering. Another critical design feature is its impact on the ground surface beneath it during hover. The USMC expects their version of the JSF will replace the F/A-18 Hornet and the AV-8 Harrier. The Marine Corps expects to purchase 480 STOVL versions of the F-35.

United Kingdom Royal Navy and Air Force Return to Top
This version will be very similar to the one procured by the United States Marine Corps

Federation of American Scientists :: F-35/Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

 

[Intense]

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
Congressional Research Service
Summary
The administration’s proposed FY2010 defense budget requested about $10.4 billion in research
and development and procurement funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. This
would fund the procurement of 10 F-35As for the Air Force, 16 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps, and
four F-35Cs for the Navy.
The administration’s proposed FY2010 defense budget also proposed terminating the F-35
alternate engine program, which is intended to develop the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136
engine as an alternative to the Pratt and Whitney F135 engine that currently powers the F-35. The
Obama administration opposes further funding for the alternate engine program and has
threatened to veto the FY2010 defense authorization or appropriation bill if either “would
seriously disrupt” the F-35 program. The F-35 alternate engine program has emerged as a major
item of debate on the FY2010 defense budget.
FY2010 defense authorization act: The conference report (H.Rept. 111-288 of October 7, 2009)
on the FY2010 defense authorization act (H.R. 2647/P.L. 111-84) authorizes funding for
procuring a total of 30 F-35s in FY2010, as requested. The report authorizes $430 million in Air
Force and Navy research and development funding for continued development of the F136
alternate engine, and $130 million in Air Force advance procurement funding to begin F136
procurement. Section 131 of the act requires a report on the procurement of “4.5”-generation
fighters that is to include, among other things, “a discussion regarding the availability and
feasibility of procuring F-35 aircraft to proportionally and concurrently recapitalize the Air
National Guard during fiscal years 2015 through fiscal year 2025.” Section 217 requires future
DOD budgets to provide separate line items for the F-35B and F-35C within the Navy aircraft
procurement account and the Navy research and development account. Section 244 requires, for
the period 2010-2015, an annual Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the status of
the F-35 program.
FY2010 DOD appropriations bill: In lieu of a conference report, the House Appropriations
Committee on December 15, 2009, released an explanatory statement on a final version of H.R.
3326. This version was passed by the House on December 16, 2009, and by the Senate on
December 19, 2009, and signed into law on December 19, 2009, as P.L. 111-118.
The explanatory statement includes $6,840.5 million for 30 F-35s in 2010. Additionally, the
statement contains $430 million in Navy and Air Force research and development funding for
continued development of the F136 alternate engine, and $35 million in Air Force procurement
funding designated for the alternate engine program.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
Congressional Research Service
Contents
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1
In General............................................................................................................................1
Alternate Engine Program.....................................................................................................1
Background ...............................................................................................................................2
The F-35 In Brief ..................................................................................................................2
In General.......................................................................................................................2
Three Service Versions....................................................................................................3
Alternate Engine Program.....................................................................................................5
JSF Program Origin and Milestones ......................................................................................7
Procurement Quantities .........................................................................................................8
Planned Total Quantities .................................................................................................8
Annual Quantities ...........................................................................................................9
Program Management ...........................................................................................................9
International Participation ...................................................................................................10
In General.....................................................................................................................10
Friction over Work Shares and Technology Transfer ......................................................13
International Sales Quantities and Schedule...................................................................16
Cost and Funding................................................................................................................17
Total Program Acquisition Cost.....................................................................................17
Prior-Year Funding........................................................................................................17
Unit Costs.....................................................................................................................18
Manufacturing Locations ....................................................................................................18
Proposed FY2010 Budget ...................................................................................................18
FY2010 Funding Request..............................................................................................18
Proposed Termination of Alternate Engine.....................................................................19
Issues for Congress ...................................................................................................................20
Alternate Engine Program...................................................................................................20
Summary of Arguments ................................................................................................20
Administration Perspectives ..........................................................................................22
GAO And Other Perspectives ........................................................................................28
Mandated Studies of 2007 on F-35 Alternate Engine .....................................................35
Recent Developments Concerning F135 Engine ............................................................37
Recent Developments Concerning F136 Engine ............................................................49
Operational Risk ...........................................................................................................54
Size of F-35 Engine Production Run .............................................................................55
Industrial Base ..............................................................................................................55
Relations with Allies .....................................................................................................56
Planned Total Procurement Quantities .................................................................................58
Potential for Further Cost Increases and Schedule Slippage .................................................60
May 2009 Administration Perspective ...........................................................................75
March and May 2009 GAO Perspectives .......................................................................77
Affordability and Projected Fighter Shortfalls .....................................................................79
Implications for Industrial Base...........................................................................................81
Legislative Activity for FY2010 ................................................................................................82
Summary of Quantities and Funding ...................................................................................82
FY2010 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647/P.L. 111-84) ...............................................83


http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The fact that the F-35 program, now that it's been chosen, will double in costs seems to escape the DNC parrots we have on this board.....

 

[Cold Fusion38]

IMO a JSF is a HORRIBLE idea and I said as much WAY back when my brothers friend an areonautical engineer mentioned that they were going to use ONE platform for serveral diferent branches of the military. IMO it means you will get THREE different "MILK TOAST" varients of a "MILK TOAST" platform.


And I don't care HOW cheap or expensive it is!

The Air Force needs an AIR FORCE fighter.

The Navy needs a NAVY fighter/bomber.

And the Marines need a MARINE STOL/VTOL aircarft built SPECIFICALLY for their needs!!!




I personally don't care HOW MUCH it costs all three branches need their OWN aircraft!!!

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Well gotta go guys my buddy needs some help moving but I will say this before I leave. You guys are RIGHT ON about the F-35 and it should be SCRAPPED before we send our Airmen up in an INFERIOR aircraft!



Oh and as you know PP I am left leaning on MOST topics but this one I am RIGHT THERE with you.


Have a good day I will check back later!

 

[Amzi]

Though the JSF isn't superb in all (or really any) specific categories (e. Strike, air-air) it is not a horrible plane you all are making it out to be. It is meant to be the future U.S military workhorse but it will still be supplemented by the superb air-air/strike F-15 (With new variants like the Silent Eagle) good/great navy fighter-bomber F/A-18, payload heavy and versatile F-16 Block C/Ds etc.

Also while the initial development costs are going over it will save lots of money in the future with cheaper inter-branch maintenance and even inter-military (JSF operator) maintenence.

My biggest problem with the plan isn't its modularity, it's the small payload.

Furthermore, I am sure that the JSF/F-35 will evolve into several different categories and in the end we will end up with a Navy F-35 that is much different than the Air Forces Strike F-35 while still maintaining a baseline similarity.

 

[ski87]

Haven't read through all of the posts, but the reason for its high price tag is its versatility as an uhhmm...Joint Strike Fighter. I aint the sharpest knife in the drawer but I do know that the F-35 will perform a dual-role for the USN, a VTOL role for the USMC and an air to air role for the USAF. I count 3 branches of the service that this will go to whereas the F-22 only goes to the USAF, so that kinda makes it a moot point to compare it at all with the F-22's price tag as the F-35 has a three-fold mission, in three different branches of the Armed Forces.

I guess that it has reached the threshold for spending established by Congress years ago, and in the budget crunch coming in 2012, they had better get their act together in order to maintain this contract. I hope to see it fully fielded, at least with the USN/USMC.

 

[uscitizen]

Have we ever built a major weapons platform at or under budget?

 

[ski87]

Have we ever built a major weapons platform at or under budget?

weapons platform...dunno...weapon system..yes, the M-16, it was developed within budget and on-time. It has been the most successful weapon system in the history of the US, second in the world only to the AK-47 of course.

 

[uscitizen]

Have we ever built a major weapons platform at or under budget?

weapons platform...dunno...weapon system..yes, the M-16, it was developed within budget and on-time. It has been the most successful weapon system in the history of the US, second in the world only to the AK-47 of course.

Well that is good, And yes if you keep em clean like you are supposed too.
The AK47 is far more forgiving of poor maintenance.
but an M16 is like building one minor component of a modern military fighter jet.

 

[Cynical175]

the JSF-35 is a piece of junk. It cost more than the F-22. It is already totally outclassed by the Sukhoi-35
It is over weight. No room for future improvent such as a larger engine (airintakes redesign will be a major hurdle) or more electronics because it has not got the cooling capacity to support it. Already now if it is not supported by the F-22 it will be a turky shoot with the Sukhois and massively increased and improved airdefences. Teen fighter like the Phantom (F-4) or the hud (F-105) are kinematically better performers. Weaponload is already significantly reduced from its original proposal. Hang some external ordenance on the outside and its marginal low observance is out of the window. Has not the combat range or endurance because of weight and size problems Weight increase=performance decrease etc. etc. Good luck guys. Better buy the Su-35s