backtop


Print 17 comment(s) - last by inperfectdarkn.. on Dec 15 at 10:19 AM

Final value of the contract will be determined in 2012

The F-35 program is facing more delays, this time at the urging of some military officials that want to slow down production in an effort to fix issues on the aircraft before there are large numbers in service. Defense News reports that the DoD now wants to stretch out its F-35 buy according to General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
 
Dempsey said, "We are committed, that is to say, the U.S. military, to the development of the fifth-generation fighter, clearly. There are some fact-of-life changes that we'll probably have to make based on the ability to procure it on timelines that we'd like to have."
 
The F-35 program is now feeling the threat of an issue from across the pond with European partner nations feeling the economic pinch that could result in reduced purchases of the F-35.
 
In addition, main F-35 contractor Lockheed Martin has signed a contract with the Pentagon that is “undefinitzed” and establishes a price ceiling for the F-35 aircraft. The Pentagon has granted the contract to Lockheed martin worth $4 billion to build 30 F-35 fighters for the USAF, Navy, and Marines.
 
Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Laurie Quincy wrote in an email, "Lockheed Martin has signed an undefinitized contract that establishes the funding for Lot 5 up to the level announced by the DoD today. The final Lot 5 contract amount will not be known until we have a definitized contract sometime in 2012."
 
The fixed price contract is for 21 conventional F-35A fighters, three F-35B STOVL aircraft, and six F-35C carrier fighters. The contact also allows for associated ancillary mission equipment and flight test instrumentation for the aircraft that will allow for flight test instrumentation for the UK. 
 
Quincy wrote, "This [contract] … will help ensure we continue to meet production schedules outlined by the program. This is an important first step in paving the way for full LRIP 5 production contract negotiations with our government customer."

Sources: DefenseNews 1, DefenseNews 2



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Good strategy
By corduroygt on 12/12/2011 1:45:48 PM , Rating: 1
Stretch it out to 1/year and make F-22's with the rest. Lockheed is happy, taxpayers are getting a good deal, the AF is happy.




RE: Good strategy
By Mudhen6 on 12/12/2011 2:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
Taxpayers are not getting a "good" deal - at least, not a better one than they were getting before. Stretching out production raises the unit cost of each F-35 - think about the extra money required to ensure upkeep/maintenance/security for facilities that manufacture various components of the fighter jet.

And as much as it pains me to admit it, F-22 manufacture is pretty much dead after 183 airframes.


RE: Good strategy
By FITCamaro on 12/12/2011 2:08:10 PM , Rating: 3
One way or another we need replacement fighters. They've already killed the F22. So the F35 is what we're left with. Flying the same F16s we've had for 30-40 years isn't an option.


RE: Good strategy
By Mudhen6 on 12/12/2011 2:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
I know. I'm not Reclaimer, I have no problem with the F-35. I don't even have that big of a problem with its price - relatively speaking, the Block 40 to 52 F-16Cs were just as (if not more) expensive as the F-15C MSIP II back in the 90s, so why would it be different here?

It's a relevant comparison, in terms of role (the F-35 is the functional successor to the F-16C and F/A-18, it is not and never was a "cheap F-22") and in terms of tech (both the '90s F-16C and F/A-18 were easily more technologically advanced than the F-15C, just as the F-35 has benefited from newer technology compared to the Raptor).


RE: Good strategy
By Reclaimer77 on 12/12/11, Rating: -1
RE: Good strategy
By Mudhen6 on 12/12/2011 5:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
Lol I'm sorry for your celebrity woes, but really, I wasn't insulting you. Yes, there are a lot of F-35 critics, but the fact is that you are one of the prototypic F-35 critics on DT.


RE: Good strategy
By Black1969ta on 12/12/2011 11:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
Oh Reclaimer, now he insults you, you aren't a celebrity, just a prototypical F-35 critic, now you are like everyone else!


RE: Good strategy
By Reclaimer77 on 12/12/2011 11:43:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'm in shock. My agent and publicist are all over this!


RE: Good strategy
By Skywalker123 on 12/12/2011 11:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yeh, you're one on the Village People, the Village Idiot.


RE: Good strategy
By drycrust3 on 12/12/2011 4:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Taxpayers are not getting a "good" deal - at least, not a better one than they were getting before.

There are two points I think are important:
1) Having 30 "identical" F35s is better and cheaper than having 30 "different" F35s, and having 30 "no modifications required" F35s is better and cheaper than 29 "varying modifications required" F35s; but the path you've been going down is to have 30 uniquely different F35s, which sounds like an expensive way to do maintenance.
2) From the sounds of the report last week, where concerns were being raised about metal fatigue in the airframe, this plane isn't anywhere near ready for operations. Putting a military plane into "full production" when it isn't ready for operations sounds like a waste of money.


RE: Good strategy
By gamerk2 on 12/13/2011 3:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1) Having 30 "identical" F35s is better and cheaper than having 30 "different" F35s, and having 30 "no modifications required" F35s is better and cheaper than 29 "varying modifications required" F35s; but the path you've been going down is to have 30 uniquely different F35s, which sounds like an expensive way to do maintenance.


Not true. Remember, you have three diffrerent requirements that now need ONE airframe. That means a problem with any varient affects the other two, necessitating a re-design.

Having the "B" and "C" varients as one airframe is driving up costs: It has to be rugged enough to handle carrier landings AND resistent enough to heat to handle the VTOL capability. As each one runs into problems, it causes redesignes that affects the performance of the other.

Frankly, the "B" and "C" varients should have been seperate airframes. That would have driven down costs, as problems with the "B" and "C" varients wouldn't have affected the rest of the program.


Typical
By Raiders12 on 12/12/2011 2:29:52 PM , Rating: 2
Wasnt the original appeal to this plane its price reduction compared to the "expensive" F22 and versatility? I understand they are different in an operational standpoint, but really air-air combat is becoming old school. Israel probably has more Aces than anyone in our AF. $4 billion/30 plans = $133 million per plane, flyaway cost of F22 Raptor is around $150 million. Also the F35 VTOL has been plagued, one of the crown features. This is just a classical overbudgeted/under managed military project funded by the hard workers of the US.




RE: Typical
By Mudhen6 on 12/12/2011 2:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
Bloat. The F-16 was originally a cheaper alternative to the F-15, but late-model F-16Cs are just as if not more expensive than the equivalent F-15C.

Whoever advertised the idea that the F-35 is a cheaper F-22 was mostly full of fecal matter. It's the successor to the F-16C and F/A-18C, which means that right off the bat that it had to assume all the bloatware that was implemented into its predecessors.

The last Israeli pilot to become an ace was in the 70s/80s. Since then, the U.S. has been engaged in more air-to-air engagements than the IAF has. One pilot, Col. Rodriguez, picked up two kills in '91 over Iraq and another kill in Allied Force over Serbia, putting his tally at 3 kills. Another pilot in Allied Force, a then-Captain Hwang, scored a double kill in a single sortie against two Serbian MiG-29s when flying a MiGCAP mission over Bosnia in an F-15C.


RE: Typical
By Amiga500 on 12/13/2011 8:08:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whoever advertised the idea that the F-35 is a cheaper F-22 was mostly full of fecal matter.


That would be the USAF.

The hi-lo mix, with the ATF (F-22) being hi and the JAST/JASF/JSF (F-35) being lo has been their principle plan for decades now. It was enshrined within the USAF development policy in the 80s and has not changed since.

Except the lo is still comparatively lo on capability but almost hi on expense.


Saab Jas 39 Gripen good stopgap ....
By simian pete on 12/14/2011 10:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
It's a good idea working out the bugs for the F-35 ! This fighter will have many advance features, technology that can also be used in the F-22 ... Hopefully they will bring back production of the F-22 ..

It's going to take a few years before they ramp up productiuon of the F-35 ! So why not replace some F-16's with the low cost Saab Gripen ? You can buy 2 to 3 Gripens for the cost of 1 F-35 ! So how about making a deal with Saab and buying a few hundred Gripens ! We could use the Gripens in active military defense - then rotate them to the Reserve and the National Guard when the F-35 is coming online ....

The Saab Gripen ! A very viable solution to temporarily replacing some F-16's !!!

Here's a link ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen




By inperfectdarkness on 12/15/2011 10:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
because the gripen is even LESS capable than the f-16. again, you're talking about rudimentary 4th-gen fighters replacing upgraded 4.2-4.5-gen fighters. why spend even MORE money on worse technology to "bridge the gap" between now and when the f-35's are online and available?


By simian pete on 12/14/2011 10:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
It's a good idea working out the bugs for the F-35 ! This fighter will have many advance features, technology that can also be used in the F-22 ... Hopefully they production of the F-22 ..

It's going to take a few years before they ramp up productiuon of the F-35 ! So why not replace some F-16's with the low cost Saab Gripen ? You can buy 2 to 3 Gripens for the cost of 1 F-35 ! So how about making a deal with Saab and buying a few hundred Gripens ! We could use the Gripens in active military defense - then rotate them to the Reserve and the National Guard when the F-35 is coming online ....

The Saab Gripen ! A very viable solution to temporarily replacing some F-16's !!!

Here's a link ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen




"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki