Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

[Bon Plan]

My sad little La Troll, it is from....
The estimated cost of building and maintaining Australia's new submarines has swelled to $225 billion over the fleet's life, according to evidence from a senior Defence official.

The head of the navy's submarine program, Greg Sammut,

The 10-page document, written by a former Department of Defence deputy secretary who was brought into contract negotiations by former defence minister Christopher Pyne, disputes at great length the claims that the French contract had blown out by billions of dollars and would not deliver on time.
But it also reveals that the French partners were obliged to sign up to commitments to Australian content without being allowed to assess whether local manufacturers could actually deliver.
...
This process began with an estimate of $50 billion mentioned in an October 2015 committee hearing which was quoting the cost of the submarine program in 2040 dollars.
"What was not stipulated but was understood at the time was that Defence was talking about the purchase of Japanese Soryu Class submarines to be built in Japan. Built and potentially delivered in the 'early 2040s,'" Mr Gillis said.
This was for a significantly smaller submarine than the current Australian subs, and submarines "built in Japan with no new infrastructure [and] no Australian content targets".
...
Mr Gillis says that the subsequent competitive bidding process delivered "a strong win for Naval Group".
"The evaluation identified that the new Attack class would be the most advanced and lethal conventionally powered submarine ever built.
"The main criteria for selection were that it would produce a regionally superior and sovereign capability.

"It was interesting at the time that my American submariner colleagues who assisted with the evaluation concluded that the new Attack could provide capabilities in a range of operational environments that would exceed some of the capabilities of the US nuclear boats.
...
"In 2016 the Program Manager Rear Admiral Greg Sammut provided in Senate Estimates evidence that the cost of the project was $50 billion in 'constant dollars' not including the inflationary factors that the Secretary had included in 2015 (based on the tendered price from Naval Group and Lockheed Martin and the costs for the shipyard and the infrastructure, sparing for the first of class and a very long list of Defence and Government related costs).
...
Mr Gillis said the situation "was exacerbated when Admiral Sammut provided an estimate to sustain the fleet over a period until 2080. Some media subsequently estimated that the total cost of the program had now 'blown out' to $235 billion."

A cabinet submission drafted by Greg Sammut, and released after an FOI request, was sent to the Defence deputy secretary responsible for shipbuilding, Tony Dalton, 34 days before the cancellation of the program on August 20 last year.

It said: "The updated program cost estimate is $46.4 billion in 2016 constant dollars, which remains within the original acquisition cost estimate of $50 billion in 2016 constant dollars announced at the outset of the Attack class submarine program in April 2016".



Now go to hell with your late, over budget, without Australian content, and may be never delivered SSN

 

[Optimist]

The 10-page document, written by a former Department of Defence deputy secretary who was brought into contract negotiations by former defence minister Christopher Pyne, disputes at great length the claims that the French contract had blown out by billions of dollars and would not deliver on time.
But it also reveals that the French partners were obliged to sign up to commitments to Australian content without being allowed to assess whether local manufacturers could actually deliver.
...
This process began with an estimate of $50 billion mentioned in an October 2015 committee hearing which was quoting the cost of the submarine program in 2040 dollars.
"What was not stipulated but was understood at the time was that Defence was talking about the purchase of Japanese Soryu Class submarines to be built in Japan. Built and potentially delivered in the 'early 2040s,'" Mr Gillis said.
This was for a significantly smaller submarine than the current Australian subs, and submarines "built in Japan with no new infrastructure [and] no Australian content targets".
...
Mr Gillis says that the subsequent competitive bidding process delivered "a strong win for Naval Group".
"The evaluation identified that the new Attack class would be the most advanced and lethal conventionally powered submarine ever built.
"The main criteria for selection were that it would produce a regionally superior and sovereign capability.

"It was interesting at the time that my American submariner colleagues who assisted with the evaluation concluded that the new Attack could provide capabilities in a range of operational environments that would exceed some of the capabilities of the US nuclear boats.
...
"In 2016 the Program Manager Rear Admiral Greg Sammut provided in Senate Estimates evidence that the cost of the project was $50 billion in 'constant dollars' not including the inflationary factors that the Secretary had included in 2015 (based on the tendered price from Naval Group and Lockheed Martin and the costs for the shipyard and the infrastructure, sparing for the first of class and a very long list of Defence and Government related costs).
...
Mr Gillis said the situation "was exacerbated when Admiral Sammut provided an estimate to sustain the fleet over a period until 2080. Some media subsequently estimated that the total cost of the program had now 'blown out' to $235 billion."

A cabinet submission drafted by Greg Sammut, and released after an FOI request, was sent to the Defence deputy secretary responsible for shipbuilding, Tony Dalton, 34 days before the cancellation of the program on August 20 last year.

It said: "The updated program cost estimate is $46.4 billion in 2016 constant dollars, which remains within the original acquisition cost estimate of $50 billion in 2016 constant dollars announced at the outset of the Attack class submarine program in April 2016".



Now go to hell with your late, over budget, without Australian content, and may be never delivered SSN

My sad little La Troll. It depends what you count. The $40 is right, the $90 is right and so is the $225 for a lifetime cost.

 

[BMD]

German air chief: F-35 buy safe despite rising inflation costs

Rising prices for everything have put some of Berlin's up-arming plans into question.

www.defensenews.com

The 10-page document, written by a former Department of Defence deputy secretary who was brought into contract negotiations by former defence minister Christopher Pyne, disputes at great length the claims that the French contract had blown out by billions of dollars and would not deliver on time.
But it also reveals that the French partners were obliged to sign up to commitments to Australian content without being allowed to assess whether local manufacturers could actually deliver.
...
This process began with an estimate of $50 billion mentioned in an October 2015 committee hearing which was quoting the cost of the submarine program in 2040 dollars.
"What was not stipulated but was understood at the time was that Defence was talking about the purchase of Japanese Soryu Class submarines to be built in Japan. Built and potentially delivered in the 'early 2040s,'" Mr Gillis said.
This was for a significantly smaller submarine than the current Australian subs, and submarines "built in Japan with no new infrastructure [and] no Australian content targets".
...
Mr Gillis says that the subsequent competitive bidding process delivered "a strong win for Naval Group".
"The evaluation identified that the new Attack class would be the most advanced and lethal conventionally powered submarine ever built.
"The main criteria for selection were that it would produce a regionally superior and sovereign capability.

"It was interesting at the time that my American submariner colleagues who assisted with the evaluation concluded that the new Attack could provide capabilities in a range of operational environments that would exceed some of the capabilities of the US nuclear boats.
...
"In 2016 the Program Manager Rear Admiral Greg Sammut provided in Senate Estimates evidence that the cost of the project was $50 billion in 'constant dollars' not including the inflationary factors that the Secretary had included in 2015 (based on the tendered price from Naval Group and Lockheed Martin and the costs for the shipyard and the infrastructure, sparing for the first of class and a very long list of Defence and Government related costs).
...
Mr Gillis said the situation "was exacerbated when Admiral Sammut provided an estimate to sustain the fleet over a period until 2080. Some media subsequently estimated that the total cost of the program had now 'blown out' to $235 billion."

A cabinet submission drafted by Greg Sammut, and released after an FOI request, was sent to the Defence deputy secretary responsible for shipbuilding, Tony Dalton, 34 days before the cancellation of the program on August 20 last year.

It said: "The updated program cost estimate is $46.4 billion in 2016 constant dollars, which remains within the original acquisition cost estimate of $50 billion in 2016 constant dollars announced at the outset of the Attack class submarine program in April 2016".



Now go to hell with your late, over budget, without Australian content, and may be never delivered SSN

Oh, would you look at all the pretty colours.

A+ Good Effort.

 

[Optimist]

--

Oh, would you look at all the pretty colours.

A+ Good Effort.

The ozzie sub deal, lives in his head rent free. Why it oozed out in this thread is still a mystery

 

[BMD]

The ozzie sub deal, lives in his head rent free. Why it oozed out in this thread is still a mystery

I have another one of them explaining to me why a 113% national debt is better than a 95% national debt.

 

[Optimist]

I have another one of them explaining to me why a 113% national debt is better than a 95% national debt.

I commented on that. Even though it's a contortion to get France near the top. Australia was number 4, so I like the BS country list.
There are so many variables, that taking just the % means little. It should also be very current, because we racked up debt over covid support. I don't know where we would sit now.

 

[BMD]

I commented on that. Even though it's a contortion to get France near the top. Australia was number 4, so I like the BS country list.
There are so many variables, that taking just the % means little. It should also be very current, because we racked up debt over covid support. I don't know where we would sit now.

Nah, it's because the ECB sets the rate for all of Europe. Italy and Greece are on the same interest rate as them. They are being propped up by healthier nations within the bloc, a charity case basically.

As regards asset values. Assets are worth X until you need to sell them quickly, then they are worth X/2. The list also tried to include private assets and wealth, which I would wager is impossible due to the hidden wealth factor, offshore trusts etc. And how would you use the privately owned assets of individuals and companies to pay for national debt interest anyway? Try and they will just leave.

Australia is very healthy anyway based on national debt - only 36% - and very high GDP/capita, you don't need BS estimates to make you okay. Ironically your interest rates are twice as high as the EU's though. People just prefer lending to larger blocs because it's safer if your money goes up in larger puff of smoke.

 

[Optimist]

Nah, it's because the ECB sets the rate for all of Europe. Italy and Greece are on the same interest rate as them. They are being propped up by healthier nations within the bloc, a charity case basically.

As regards asset values. Assets are worth X until you need to sell them quickly, then they are worth X/2. The list also tried to include private assets and wealth, which I would wager is impossible due to the hidden wealth factor, offshore trusts etc. And how would you use the privately owned assets of individuals and companies to pay for national debt interest anyway? Try and they will just leave.

Australia is very healthy anyway based on national debt - only 36% - and very high GDP/capita, you don't need BS estimates to make you okay. Ironically your interest rates are twice as high as the EU's though. People just prefer lending to larger blocs because it's safer if your money goes up in larger puff of smoke.

I care about this one, median individual wealth. Wealth held by the 0.1% means nothing to me.
The median Australian adult finished 2021 with a net worth of $US273,900, making them richer than the comparable resident of any other country, according to Credit Suisse’s annual global wealth report.

https://static.ffx.io/images/$width_1240/t_resize_width%2Cq_52%2Cf_auto/b7ae1ef4322c959c95213f292ea0bab9da32a3e3

Location	Adults	Median wealth	Mean wealth	Gini %

Iceland *	257,000	375,735	457,795	64.6
Luxembourg *	504,000	350,271	657,564	66.3
Australia *	19,359,000	273,903	550,110	66.2
Belgium *	9,026,000	267,887	381,114	59.9
New Zealand *	3,634,000	231,257	472,153	70.0
Hong Kong *	6,315,000	202,376	552,930	73.8
Denmark *	4,538,000	171,175	426,494	73.9
Switzerland *	7,003,000	168,084	696,604	77.2
Canada *	30,203,000	151,248	409,297	72.6
Netherlands *	13,527,000	142,994	400,828	75.0

 

[BMD]

I care about this one, median individual wealth. Wealth held by the 0.1% means nothing to me.
The median Australian adult finished 2021 with a net worth of $US273,900, making them richer than the comparable resident of any other country, according to Credit Suisse’s annual global wealth report.

https://static.ffx.io/images/$width_1240/t_resize_width%2Cq_52%2Cf_auto/b7ae1ef4322c959c95213f292ea0bab9da32a3e3

Yes, Australia is very healthy, lots of resources, low debt, high GDP/capita. Incidentally, France is again slightly below the UK on that list despite McKinsey's evaluations of assets vs liabilities.

 

[Optimist]

List of countries by wealth per adult - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

UK 11th, France 12th

United Kingdom *	52,562,000	141,552	309,375	70.6
France *	50,171,000	139,169	322,074	70.2
Norway *	4,225,000	132,482	334,432	79.4
Japan *	104,763,000	119,999	245,238	64.7
Taiwan *	19,733,000	113,938	297,864	70.7
Italy *	49,766,000	112,138	231,323	67.2
Spain *	37,825,000	104,163	222,888	69.1
Qatar *	2,428,000	100,014	183,106	58.6
Malta *	359,000	97,524	162,581	61.1
Sweden *	7,829,000	95,051	381,968	88.1
United States	251,779,000 93,271 579,051 85.0

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

I care about this one, median individual wealth. Wealth held by the 0.1% means nothing to me.
The median Australian adult finished 2021 with a net worth of $US273,900, making them richer than the comparable resident of any other country, according to Credit Suisse’s annual global wealth report.

With this criterion, Malta, Spain and Italy are better ranked than the US.

 

[BMD]

With this criterion, Malta, Spain and Italy are better ranked than the US.

Rich people, poor country. Like I said, public and private sector are separate entities.

 

[Optimist]

With this criterion, Malta, Spain and Italy are better ranked than the US.

It is for the people who live there. GINI of wealth is important. If 1% has 90% of the money and 25% live under a bridge. Come to the US where min wage is $5 and you live in poverty with better TV reception

Rich people, poor country. Like I said, public and private sector are separate entities.

Or those countries with a poor GINI. Rich country, poor people.

 

[Optimist]

Now I know we all are multimillionaires. However, looking at the wealth of the man in the middle. Where 50% have more money and 50% have less. Is a worthy value. That guy in Australia has $273k and in the US $93k. I know who I'd rather be. The median person has 3 times the wealth of that person in the US. Median age would bias the result. US 38.1 AU 38.4

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

In the latest Air FAN (N° 482) there is an article on the F-35 Block 4. And in that article there is a reminder of the key dates of the programme. It is these dates that I would like to extract from that article in this post.

The SDD development phase began in late 2001 and was to end in April 2012 with the qualification of the Block 3.

The first flight was made by the CTOL AA-1 on 15 December 2006. This aircraft was a prototype. This flight had been planned in the SDD schedule for the end of October 2005.

A PSFD agreement was signed with all partners between 14 November 2006 and 27 February 2007 to define the conditions for post-SDS developments.

In February 2007, the programme director, General Charles R Davis, declared: "The first sorties of the aircraft have shown that we are on a trajectory of verification and validation of our simulations, not on the hazardous path of discovery."

In June 2007 the DoD authorised the production of LRIPs at a reduced rate (6 LRIPs at the time). The only available aircraft, the AA-1, had been grounded since May 4, 2007 and would not fly again until December 14.

The first flight of a production F-35 will take place on November 14, 2009.

On April 17, 2014, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition F. Kendall declared the need to launch Block 4 so that the aircraft could counter emerging threats in time. Block 4 had two phases: 4A by 2022 and 4B by 2024.

In the spring of 2015 Block 4 was split into 4 stages 4.1 by the end of 2019, 4.2 in 2021, 4.3 in 2023, and 4.4 in 2025.

In August 2015 Kendall decides that Block 4 is not a major programme but a simple upgrade to avoid congressional oversight.

On 21 December 2016 the Pentagon admitted to D Trump that it had underestimated the technical challenges, had based itself on unrealistic forecasts, and had launched production far too early.

On 21 March 2017 the general framework document for the up to 4.2 standard was validated by the JROC chaired by the Vice Chief of Staff.

On 6 June 2017 John McCain expressed particular concern about the conditions under which the F-35 Block 4 upgrade would be carried out. The 4.1 increment appeared to be able to correct only the most critical flaws in 3F and 4.2 was contingent on a core system update to Tech Refresh 3 (TR3).

The testing of block 3, which became block 3F, was officially completed on 11 April 2018 despite a long list of identified and uncorrected defects (some of which are critical).

In October 2018, the DoD adopted an Agile development strategy for Block 4 called C2D2, which consists of delivering smaller but more frequent increments

The IOT&E technical-operational evaluation started on 5 December 2018.

In January 2019 DOT&E Robert F Behler was sceptical about the possibility of developing in C2D2 semi-annually.

US Navy pronounced the F-35 C IOC on 28 February 2019

On April 4, 2019 Admiral Mathias W. Winter set the C2D2 increment at 6 months.

In May 2019 the cost of Block 4 is estimated at $10.6 billion at 2012 economic conditions.

In early 2020 Behler notes that modifications made to correct defects or to introduce elements of Block 4 have generated instabilities or even disrupted the proper functioning of already installed capacity

In May 2020, the cost of Block 4 is estimated at 12.1 billion dollars and then at 14.4 a few months later.

In January 2021 Behler notes that the list of defects is not shrinking because new ones are being discovered to replace those that have been fixed.

In 2021 the cost of Block 4 is estimated at 15.1 billion dollars until 2028 and the deadline for completion is pushed back to 2029.

On 13 April 2021, the programme director Eric T. Fick abandons the delivery of increments every 6 months (as unrealistic) and hopes for annual deliveries.

In August 2021 Air Force Secretary F. Kendall said: "We are now (with Block 4) in a situation that is very similar to the one I experienced in the past, when the F-35 suffered from many uncorrected design flaws, while at the same time we were buying large numbers of aircraft that we knew would inevitably have to undergo extensive modification."

By December 2021, there were 826 defects listed, mostly from the technical debt inherited from Block 3F in 2018.

On 2 May 2022 the Congressional Research Service writes: "It may be interesting to see how the Department of Defense presents the history of the program when it is not intended for the general public."

As of June 26, 2022, Lockheed Martin had delivered 814 production F-35s, and will deliver 173 additional aircraft by mid-2023 to the F 3F standard.

The IOT&E is still not complete, with testing suspended pending the availability of complex threat simulators due in 2023.

The DoD will be able to launch the full production phase after receiving a satisfactory report of the tests conducted in such a simulated environment

In fact, full production has already been fraudulently launched by increasing the number of LRIPs from 6 to 14, which already represents 987 F-35s, and this is not the end of the story, as LRIP 15 and subsequent LRIPs are being negotiated.

Belgium, Poland and Finland are expecting their first F-35 A Block 4 in 2023, 2024 and 2025 respectively.

The GAO wrote in April 2022; "If TR 3 is not available by the planned date [2023] the F-35 program management plans to continue producing the aircraft with TR-2 and then retrofit them with the new equipment at a later date."

 

[Optimist]

That's good how they did that with half truths. Now do one for the F-16 early years. When it was known as the 'lawn dart', a game played by children.

I'm losing count with the F-35. Are they up to 20 countries, that want or have ordered it yet? I guess they don't read frog magazines.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Now do one for the F-16 early years. When it was known as the 'lawn dart', a game played by children.

We are in the "Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor': News & Discussion" thread and there is no "Lockheed Martin F-16: News & Discussion" thread.

 

[Optimist]

You might want to tell your frog mate, bon plan. That it's not a sub thread either,

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

You might want to tell your frog mate, bon plan. That it's not a sub thread either,

But @Bon Plan is not asking me to write a HS post!!!

 

[Herciv]

Oups :
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-has-m...ilots-to-fly-them-ben-wallace-admits-12735825
UK has more F-35 fast jets than pilots to fly them, Ben Wallace admits
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace says "our pilot pipeline is not in a place I would want it to be".
Deborah Haynes

The UK has more state-of-the-art F-35 fast jets than pilots because of problems with flying training, the defence secretary has revealed.
The Ministry of Defence only has just over 20 of the next-generation £100m warplanes but cannot even man all of them, Ben Wallace confirmed.
Outbrain -What is Outbrain? Discovery Platform Powered by Native Advertising
"It's a shambles," a former Royal Air Force officer said.
Speaking to a committee of Peers, the defence secretary described the situation as "quite a challenge", claiming that the deficit in pilots was also because the F-35 Lightning aircraft is new.
However, the Ministry of Defence formally announced its intention to buy the jets - a programme led by the United States and the US defence giant Lockheed Martin - back in 2006, and the first British pilot flew one in 2010.


The defence secretary conceded that the military's flying training - beset by delays, with pilots waiting up to eight years to qualify instead of the target time of between two-to-three years - was a key factor.
"Our pilot pipeline is not in a place I would want it to be," Mr Wallace said.

He had instructed Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston, the head of the Royal Air Force, to sort out flying training as his only priority more than three years ago. Yet - as revealed by Sky News over the summer - it is still in crisis.
The F-35 is one of the UK's most expensive and coveted equipment programmes, with the jets seen as bringing a new level of capability to the armed forces because of their sophisticated radars, sensors and other pieces of covert equipment.


Analysis: RAF's three simultaneous crises put Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston under pressure
Britain originally intended to buy 138 of the F-35 jets over time.
However, at present it has only bought 27 of the aircraft.
One of them is out of use after crashing into the sea off one of the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers last year, three more are in the US, leaving just 23 in the UK to be used by Royal Air Force and Fleet Air Arm pilots.