F-35 Lightning II - Discussione Ufficiale

[Scagnetti]

Leggo su wikipedia in inglese qualcosa un po' in contrasto con quanto dichiarato dall'ufficiale canadese in p0ensione, cioè i due airbus di rifornimento canadesi sono entrati in servizio nel '92 e sono acquistati di seconda mano. Quindi non è che potrebbero durare in eterno, sarebbe logico che se e quando i JSF canadesi entreranno in servizio il Canada si dotasse di altri assetti più moderni.

Comunque quello degli assetti presistenti non compatibili è un problema che le diverse aviazioni partner dovrebbero ben valutare.

 

 

 

 

Andiamo oltre, oggi nuova audizione del Gen. Debertolis in commissione difesa della Camera in merito al JSF. Il video completo è disponibile qui: http://webtv.camera.it/portal/portal/default/Commissioni/Dettaglio?IdEvento=5485

Quasi niente, a prima vista mi pare, che non sapessimo già.

 

I punti fermi di Debertolis, oltre a quelli che già aveva dichiarato in precedenza (li ho presi un po' come appunti, non ho certo voglia di fare il report completo dell'audizione):

 

 

15 miliardi di dollari di opportunità per le aziende italiane coinvolte nel programma

 

A Cameri è già iniziata la produzione per le ali dei velivoli americani (anche se a un certo punto dice che a Cameri stanno arrivando i macchinari). Pochi giorni fa si sono avute garanzie per la costruzione di 800 ali da parte di Alenia. I contratti per i primi consistenti lotti di ali dovrebbero essere firmati a breve (non sono stati ancora firmati).

 

Le famose 10000 persone coinvolte nel programma in Italia, sono figure che perderebbero il lavoro alla fine del programma EFA. Il generale non esclude però che il programma porterà anche nuova occupazione, ed è ottimista in materia. Ribadisce che il programma come l'unica misura per evitare la perdita di Know-how da parte degli ingegneri italiani.

 

Obiettivi: Gennaio 2015 uscirà da Cameri il primo velivolo italiano dopo 18 mesi di lavoro, che inizieranno nel 2013.

 

L'AMX verrà sostituito nel 2020, i Tornado nel 2027.

 

 

I primi 3 velivoli italiani costeranno 90 milioni di Euro ognuno. Il genrale conferma la ratifica dell'acquisto dei primi 3 velivoli. Attorno al 2020 gli aerei ci costeranno 63 milioni ognuno.

 

 

L'On.Di Stanislao (IDV) insiste ad avere il Piano industriale completo del programma.

Modificato 5 Dicembre 2012 da Scagnetti

[Andrea75]

F-35B Completes Second Airborne Weapons Separation: Lightning II Executes First Drop of a 500-Pound GBU-12

 

The F-35 Integrated Test Force accomplished another significant test milestone Dec. 3 when an F-35B successfully released another weapon in flight.

BF-3, a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35, released an inert 500-pound GBU-12 Paveway II Laser Guided Bomb over water in the Atlantic Test Ranges while traveling at 0.8 Mach, or 485 nautical mph, at an altitude of approximately 5,000 feet.

"Completion of this weapons separation test is a testament to the flexibility of the ITF, where every day we are verifying different portions of the F-35 flight envelope or validating multiple planned capabilities" said Navy Capt. Erik Etz, director of test for F-35 naval variants. "Today's release of the GBU-12 builds on our team's first-ever drop earlier this summer and was the result of extraordinary effort by our team of maintainers, engineers, pilots and others who consistently work long hours to deliver F-35 warfighting capability to the U.S. services and our international partners."

The release was the second for the F-35B, and the fourth overall for the program. To date, F-35 variants have successfully released the 500-pound GBU-12, a 1,000-pound GBU-32, a 1-ton GBU-31 and an AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile.

"We're expanding the envelope for the fleet," said Lt. Cmdr. Michael Burks, test pilot for the mission. "The GBU-12 is a critical weapon in the F-35's arsenal and will be vital in our mission to support the troops on the ground."

An aerial weapons separation event tests the proper and safe release of the weapon from its carriage system and trajectory away from the aircraft. It is the culmination of a significant number of tests, including ground fit checks, ground pit drops, and aerial captive carriage and environment flights to ensure the system is working properly before expanding the test envelope in the air.

Aircraft and land-based test monitoring systems collected data from the successful separation, which is in review at the F-35 Integrated Test Force at Naval Air Station Patuxent River.

 

[Andrea75]

aggiornamenti F-35 Lightning: The Joint Strike Fighter Program, 2012

 

una tabella dei costi:

 

In many ways, the American F-35 program sets the tone for all others. Countries that want the F-35, like Japan, are already seeing price hikes because of American decisions to slow initial F-35 production. Current per-plane costs are over $120 million, with initial spares and training infrastructure added on top of that. That price is expected to come down, but it requires volume orders. That means someone has to spend the money, and right now, that someone is the USA.

This leaves the United States on the horns of a dilemma.

One nightmare scenario is a fate similar to the high-end F-22A Raptor, which was initially supposed to field 1,000 fighters, but ended up producing just 183 thanks to spiraling development costs, unexpected upgrade costs, and production costs that never benefited from full economies of scale. Cuts led to continued high prices, which led to more cuts. That scenario would spell disaster for other F-35 customers, who would end up paying far more per plane than they had expected. Some would then defect, driving up prices again for the countries who remained.

The other nightmare scenario for the USA involves significant problems discovered in testing, which then require costly and extensive retrofits to the 400+ F-35 fighters that will be produced before the test program ends. This parallel test/production model has been the subject of heavy criticism from the US government’s GAO auditors. It’s a form of “political engineering” designed to make cancellation too expensive for politicians, even if it leads to sharply higher final costs, or hurts the future fleet.

American purchase decisions can be described as a balancing act between these nightmares. If they spend too much money ramping up production, other countries are more likely to buy as prices drop, but the USAF could be on the hook for a huge retrofit bill that it can’t afford. If they throttle their efforts back too far in order to avoid retrofit risk, it makes defections by existing JSF partners more likely, and hurts the fighter’s chances of landing export sales.

Lockheed Martin has tried to thread this needle by getting multiple JSF consortium members to commit to a joint buy, in order to create a big enough pool of secure orders to drive down purchase costs for everyone. So far, they’ve been unable to get the signatures they need.

 

il programma degli acquisti USA:

 

... il LIRP 6

Dec 6/12: Lot 6 lead-in. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a not-to-exceed $386.7 million contract modification for the LRIP Lot 6 Advance Acquisition Contract. This will ease some of Lockheed Martin’s cash flow concerns, and funds ground maintenance activities; depot activation activities; ALIS operations and maintenance; reliability, maintainability and health management implementation and support; supply chain management; action request resolution; activities to provide and support pilot and maintainer initial training; and procurement of replenishment spares and depot level repairs in support of flight operations.

Work will be performed in Eglin AFB in Orlando, FL (35%); and in Ft. Worth, TX (25%); El Segundo, CA (8%); Warton, United Kingdom (5%); and various locations throughout the United States (27%); and is expected to be complete in October 2013. $193.3 million is committed immediately, $58,378,517 of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-11-C-0083).

 

 

... penalità a LM EVM penalty - Earned Value Management system deficiencies Pentagon Withholds $47 Million From Lockheed on F-35

 

The Pentagon is withholding $46.5 million from Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT), its biggest contractor, because of continued flaws with a business system used to track costs and schedules for the F-35 fighter.

The money held back was assessed against two F-35 production contracts and a smaller development agreement with the Israeli Air Force that’s managed by the U.S. The funds equal 5 percent of periodic billings against the contracts for reimbursement of money spent by the company performing the work.

The F-35 has been criticized by Pentagon officials and lawmakers for test-performance failings, delays and its ballooning cost. At an estimated $395.7 billion for eventual production of 2,443 planes, the cost is up 70 percent, adjusted for inflation, from the $233 billion projected when Lockheed Martin won the program from Boeing Co. (BA) in late 2001.

The funds being withheld won’t be released until all the deficiencies in the system used by Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth, Texas-based Aeronautics unit “are corrected and the system regains approval status” from the Defense Contract Management Agency, Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said in an e-mailed statement.

Chris Kubasik, Lockheed Martin’s president and chief operating officer, told reporters on a conference call Oct. 24 that the Bethesda, Maryland-based company is making progress correcting deficiencies with the system.

2007 Concerns

The Pentagon agency first raised concerns in 2007 about the internal company data generated for Lockheed Martin’s fighter programs -- the F-35, F-22 and F-16 jets. The contract management agency decertified the Pentagon-mandated Earned Value Management system for Lockheed Martin’s aircraft operations in October 2010.

A Pentagon rule that took effect in August 2011 requires all new contracts to include language spelling out the potential for withholding payments because of deficiencies such as those in the management system.

The maximum the Pentagon can withhold from the billings under the regulation is 5 percent.

The requirement, intended to protect taxpayers from overbilling, focuses on systems that companies use to estimate costs for bids, purchase goods from subcontractors, manage government property and materials and track costs and schedule progress.

Corrective Plan

The provision was included in all F-35 contracts negotiated after the fourth production pact. The largest payment being held back is $45 million on the fifth production contract, final details of which remain in negotiation.

Kubasik said he reviews the Earned Value Management system and progress toward complying with Pentagon requirements daily.

“We have a corrective action plan that has been approved, and we are executing to that,” Kubasik told reporters during the conference call on Lockheed’s third-quarter earnings.

“We are having status checks monthly, and by all accounts everybody is satisfied with the progress that we are making,” he said. “So we expect to have a certified” system “in due course and possibly have the withhold reduced here as we make progress.”

The Aeronautics unit’s sales in the third quarter fell 6.7 percent to $3.7 billion, and profit fell 6.5 percent to $415 million from the year-ago quarter, the company said in an earnings statement on Oct. 24.

Initial production orders of F-35 jets during the quarter valued at about $300 million partially offset lower sales volumes from C-130 transports and F-16 fighters in the Aeronautics unit, Lockheed said.

 

 

 

... un articolo di commento al LIRP 5 Pentagon, Lockheed agree deal for 32 more F-35 fighters

 

Lockheed Martin Corp and the U.S. Defense Department have reached an agreement in principle on a fifth batch of 32 additional F-35 fighter planes, the Pentagon said on Friday, bringing nearly a year of negotiations to a close.

The deal is valued at around $3.8 billion, although the two sides are still finalizing details, according to a source familiar with the agreement.

The agreement will also pave the way for talks about preliminary funding for a sixth batch of aircraft that Lockheed, the Pentagon's largest supplier, has been building at its own cost for some time.

Lockheed shares closed 0.3 percent higher at $93.30, outperforming the Arca Defense Index, which was down 0.53 percent.

Pentagon spokesman George Little said details on the cost per aircraft would be released once the final contract is signed.

People familiar with the process said both sides expected to sign a final deal before the end of the year, which will safeguard those funds from cuts if Congress is unable to avert $52 billion in automatic budget cuts to the Pentagon's fiscal 2013 budget that take effect on January 2.

The contract includes the actual aircraft, but will also pay for manufacturing support equipment, instrumentation for flight testing and other mission equipment needed for the new stealth warplanes. The Pentagon is negotiating a separate contract with Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp, which builds the engine for the single-seat, single-engine F-35.

The agreement with Lockheed removes a cloud hanging over the $396 billion F-35 program, the Pentagon's costliest procurement program. Both sides have been trying to reach an agreement on this batch of aircraft since last December.

In September, Major General Christopher Bogdan, who will be the top overseer of the program starting December 6, said he was surprised the negotiations were taking so long and described relations between the two sides as "the worst" he had ever seen in decades of working on big acquisition programs.

Retiring F-35 program executive director, Vice Admiral Dave Venlet, said in a statement on Friday that the deal included lower production costs and set the stage for "improving business timelines" for international partners.

Eight countries are helping fund the development: Britain, Italy, Turkey, Norway, Australia, Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands. Together, they plan to buy more than 3,100 fighters in coming decades.

Israel and Japan have also ordered the new fighter jet and South Korea is weighing competing bids from Lockheed's F-35 and Boeing Co's F-15 fighter.

Lockheed spokesman Michael Rein said the company expected to reduce labor costs for the fifth batch of planes by 14 percent from the actual costs of the fourth lot. He said the overall cost of the fifth batch would also come down from lot 4 to lot 5, but gave no details.

He said each aircraft in the fifth batch would cost less than 50 percent of the first lot, which was $220.8 million per plane. Those aircraft were delivered to Edwards Air Force Base in California in May 2011.

Loren Thompson, a defense consultant with close ties to Lockheed, said the reduction in labor costs was "sizeable" and the program was on track to reach a cost-per-aircraft in 2018 that would not exceed the price of an F-16 fighter today.

"These lot 5 negotiations were a pivotal point for the F-35 program that will make it much easier to agree on terms for follow-on production," he said.

Current plans call for the cost of an F-35 to be around $66 million in 2018, excluding the engine, which is comparable to an F-16, he added.

The fifth F-35 order includes 22 conventional takeoff and landing variants for the U.S. Air Force, three B-models that can land vertically for the Marine Corps and seven C-models to be used on aircraft carriers for the Navy.

Production of the fifth lot of F-35 jets began in December 2011 under a preliminary "undefinitized contract action." This order for 32 aircraft was on top of 63 production jets already under contract with Lockheed.

Lockheed has delivered a total of 29 low-rate production and 19 developmental aircraft so far. Company officials say they are confident they will meet their commitment to deliver 30 jets this year, despite a 10-week strike by a key union at its Fort Worth plant, which means they still have 10 more planes to deliver this month.

The Pentagon's chief weapons buyer, Frank Kendall, told Reuters on Wednesday the two sides were "getting close" to an agreement after what he described as a "very productive" meeting with Lockheed President Marillyn Hewson.

Hewson also cited progress in talks about additional funding for early work on the sixth batch of F-35 jets.

Lockheed said last month it faced a potential termination liability of $1.1 billion on the sixth batch unless it received additional funding by year end.

The company did received some initial "long-lead" funding for advanced procurement of materials for the aircraft, but that money ran out a while ago. It has continued work using its own money to keep production on track.

[Andrea75]

... c'è confusione in Canada:

 

Canada's F-35 procurement cancelled?

 

Canada's National Post is reporting that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government is pulling the plug on that nation's embattled plan to buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

Sources tell the Post that the Harper government is making the move because of the imminent release of an independent audit by KPMG that will peg the total projected life-cycle cost of Canada's 65 F-35s above $30 billion. That price tag pushed the cabinet operations committee to decide on Tuesday to bail out of the gargantuan nine-nation (led, of course by the United States--we're actually paying for the overwhelming bulk of the program as one would expect) defense procurement, sources tell the Post.

The KPMG estimate aligns closely with figures reported earlier by Canada's parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, who predicted a cost of $30 billion over a 30-year life-cycle.

The F-35 procurement plan--by far Canada's biggest military program ever--has long been a political hot potato since a damning auditor general's report found that the government misled the Canadian public on how much the stealth fifth-generation fighter actually costs.

Canadian auditor general Michael Ferguson's report found that the $9 billion figure cited by the Harper government for 65 planes--$15-billion if life-cycle costs are included--was $10 billion below the Canadian Department of National Defence's internal projections. But even that $25.1 billion figure only took into account a 20-year life-cycle rather than the projected 36 year life-cycle of the F-35.

Canada's public works minister, Rona Ambrose, who is responsible for managing the Canadian F-35 buy has been signaling recently that she is unhappy with how the aircraft's requirements were drawn up.

Another newspaper, the Globe and Mail (roughly the Canadian equivalent of the New York Times) is disputing the National Post Report. "The story is inaccurate on a number of fronts," a senior official tells the Globe and Mail.

We should find out for sure some time tomorrow... there is another cabinet meeting that should clarify matters.

UPDATE: Per the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, it looks like the F-35 is not quite dead (probably) in Canada--but it looks like other jets will be considered. These could include the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Saab Gripen. I suppose the F-15SE Silent Eagle could be considered too, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

Federal government cancels F-35 fighter purchase

 

The F-35 jet fighter purchase, the most persistent thorn in the federal government’s side and the subject of a devastating auditor-general’s report last spring, is dead.

Faced with the imminent release of an audit by accountants KPMG that will push the total projected life-cycle costs of the aircraft above $30 billion, the operations committee of the federal Cabinet decided to scrap the controversial sole-source program and go back to the drawing board, a source familiar with the decision said.

This occurred after Chief of the Defence Staff Thomas Lawson, while en route overseas, was called back urgently to appear before the committee, the source said.

The decision is sure to have ripple effects around the world, as any reduction in the number of aircraft on order causes the price to go up for all the other buyers. Canada is one of nine F-35 consortium members, including the United States.

...

KPMG’s audit, due out next week, has confirmed the contention, long made by critics such as former assistant deputy minister (materiel) Alan Williams, that the F-35 program’s real cost would be much higher than any previously stated government estimate, sources say.

Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page predicted a cost of $30 billion over a 30-year life cycle.

Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose, who took on the F-35 file after Ferguson’s audit, has been signalling since last spring that she was unhappy with the procurement process. On Nov. 22 in the House of Commons, Ambrose said the government is committed to “a full evaluation of all choices, not simply a refresh.”

Lawson, in an appearance before the House of Commons defence committee Nov. 29, further opened the door when he confirmed what industry critics have long said: The F-35 is not the only modern fighter with measures to evade radar, though it is considered to be the most advanced in this respect. “Is there only one airplane that can meet the standard of stealth that’s set out in the statement of requirements?” Liberal defence critic John McKay asked.

Lawson’s answer: “No.”

The F-35’s unique stealthiness had long been advanced as the single most compelling argument for buying that plane.

Also in the mix, former industry minister David Emerson last week published a report on the aerospace and space sectors, calling on Ottawa to more aggressively press for Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRBs) and In-Service Support (ISS) contracts when inking procurement deals. Lockheed-Martin has in the past been reluctant to hand over its proprietary technology to clients. Industry insiders believe the Emerson report added impetus to the decision to start over.

Boeing’s Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Saab’s Gripen, the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the F-35, are seen as the leading contenders in any new contest to replace the CF-18 fleet.

 

 

F-35s scrapped by Conservatives as audit puts true cost past $30B

 

The F-35 jet fighter purchase, the most persistent thorn in the Harper government’s side and the subject of a devastating auditor-general’s report last spring, is dead.

Faced with the imminent release of an audit by accountants KPMG that will push the total projected life-cycle costs of the aircraft above $30-billion, the operations committee of cabinet decided Tuesday evening to scrap the controversial sole-source program and go back to the drawing board, a source familiar with the decision said.

This occurred after Chief of the Defence Staff Thomas Lawson, while en route overseas, was called back urgently to appear before the committee, the source said.

The decision is sure to have ripple effects around the world, as any reduction in the number of aircraft on order causes the price to go up for all the other buyers. Canada is one of nine F-35 consortium members, including the United States.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay is not a member of the cabinet operations committee. It remains unclear whether he was present at the meeting Tuesday. However, MacKay is a member of the cabinet Priorities and Planning committee, which is to discuss the F-35 decision Friday morning.

 

 

... qui invece parlano di postporre la decisione

 

Canada May Cancel F-35 Deal

 

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office is denying an Ottawa Citizen report that the country has cancelled an order for 65 F-35 fighters. However the prime minister' office, while calling the Citizen report "inaccurate on a number of fronts" did say the government is going to update the country on the process of replacing the Royal Canadian Air Force's 30-year-old fleet of first generation CF-18 fighters. Unnamed sources at both news organizations suggest that semantics aside, the original plan to buy F-35s and only F-35s is dead and there will soon be a competitive bidding process for the fighter contract. Besides the F-35, Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Saab’s Gripen, and the Eurofighter Typhoon, are considered contenders for the deal, worth tens of billions of dollars. At stake for other participants in the multinational Joint Strike Fighter effort is the potential increased cost of their fighters if Canada does bow out. Escalating costs are behind Canada's softening position on the F-35.

The Canadian government has been under increasing pressure to review those costs and an independent audit of the F-35 program due out next week will reportedly show the lifetime cost of each aircraft, including initial cost, maintenance and spares, to be more than $450 million. Two years ago, the government was predicting it would be half that. Until recently the government has said it believed the only suitable new fighter for Canada was the F-35 because of its stealthiness but it has been softening that position. Last week, the new Chief of Defense Staff Gen. Tom Lawson told a House of Commons committee that there were other stealthy aircraft available.

 

 

F-35 deal not cancelled, Tories insist

 

The Harper government says it has not made a decision on the F-35 as a replacement for Canada's CF-18 fighter jets, but the government now appears to concede that alternative fighter purchase options will be considered.

The Prime Minister's Office denied a media report Thursday that the F-35 purchase was dead, calling the report "inaccurate on a number of fronts" and promising to update the House of Commons on its seven-point plan to replace the jets before the House rises for the Christmas break at the end of next week.

That plan is now expected to involve a real competition.

Part of the government's new process for replacing the aircraft is an audit of the F-35's costs by accounting firm KPMG. The government said Thursday it now has the report and is reviewing it.

CBC News has learned the KPMG report is based on a longer and more realistic life cycle for the next-generation stealth fighter, which would therefore also arrive with a higher price tag than previously reported.

The cost of the F-35 project was first pegged at $9 billion for 65 planes when it was announced by the government more than two years ago, but successive reports by the parliamentary budget officer and federal auditor general put the total cost to buy and maintain the planes at $25 billion or more.

Public Works took over the process for procuring a CF-18 replacement earlier this year.

A statement from the office of Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose said that the government will be providing "a comprehensive public update" before the House rises.

"We are committed to completing the seven point plan and moving forward with our comprehensive, transparent approach to replacing Canada's aging CF-18 aircraft," the statement from Ambrose's office said.

The government has long maintained the F-35 was the only plane that met Canada's needs. But last week, Gen. Tom Lawson, chief of the defence staff, told MPs that there are other planes with stealth capabilities.

[TT-1 Pinto]

Dall' US Navy .... all' US Air Force ....

 

Dal "Daily Report" dell' AFA di questa mattina ....

 

 

Bogdan Takes Charge of F-35 Program ....

 

Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan ....

 

http://www.jsf.mil/leadership/lead_bogdan.htm

 

.... became head of the F-35 program, the Defense Department's largest-ever acquisition effort, on Thursday during a ceremony at the Pentagon.

 

Bogdan, who'd been serving as the F-35 deputy program executive officer since July, replaced Vice Adm. David Venlet, who led the joint program office since May 2010 and is retiring after a 36-year Navy career, according to the JPO's Dec. 6 release.

 

http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20121206_NEWPEO4F35.pdf

 

"The work by Admiral Venlet and the team over the past two-plus years on the most complex program in history is incredible," said Bogdan, who received a third star for this assignment.

 

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2012/August%202012/August%2008%202012/BogdanTappedtoLeadF-35ProgramOffice.aspx

 

He added, "We are now very well-positioned for the future."

 

Bogdan led the Air Force's KC-46 tanker project before shifting to the F-35 program, which aims to develop and deliver some 2,443 stealthy strike fighters to the US military, including 1,763 for the Air Force, and additional airframes for international partners.

 

"I'm committed to delivering these aircraft to our warfighters," said Bogdan, who raised eyebrows in September when he offered a candid assessment of the state of the F-35 program and industry-government relationship.

 

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2012/September%202012/September%2017%202012/F-35HopeandGory.aspx

 

Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan became head of the F-35 joint program office during a ceremony at the Pentagon on Dec. 6, 2012.

Bogdan, who'd been serving as the F-35 deputy program executive officer since July 2012, replaced Vice Adm. David Venlet, who led the JPO since May 2010 and is retiring after a 36-year Navy career.

Here, Bogdan (left) shakes hands with Venlet during the change-of-command ceremony.

 

DOD photo by Glenn Fawcett

 

Inoltre .... un articolo (targato "Reuters") apparso ieri sul sito di "AW&ST" ....

 

Pentagon's Maverick F-35 Manager Values Accountability ....

 

Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan jolted many when after just five weeks on the $396 billion F-35 fighter jet program, he said ties between Lockheed Martin Corp and the U.S. government were the “worst” he had ever seen.

 

Three months later, Bogdan’s trademark straight talk and insistence on accountability seem to be paying off.

 

Il seguito .... http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_06_2012_p0-524978.xml

 

[Scagnetti]

Quanta carne al fuoco.

 

Faccio alcune osservazioni.

Le tabelle di defenseindustrydaily.com postate da Andrea non sono aggiornatissime. Sebbene quella pagina probabilmente è tra le più affidabili per tenere traccia del programma, un po' di confusione vi è anche lì. Basta pensare che i 3 F-35A in corso di acquisizione dall'AMI appartengono al LRIP-6 e non al LRIP-7 come indicato dalle tabelle.

 

Eterna questione dei costi. Rispetto a quello che succede in Canada la notizia della presunta uscita dal programma si basa su "life-cycle cost"

 

Sources tell the Post that the Harper government is making the move because of the imminent release of an independent audit by KPMG that will peg the total projected life-cycle cost of Canada's 65 F-35s above $30 billion.

 

Adesso il costo di un aereo si può intendere in diversi modi, cercando un po' in rete ho trovato queste definizioni, che potrebbero essere utili per questa discussione e per altre:

 

Flyaway cost = airframe + engine + avionics

 

Weapon system cost = flyaway cost + support + long lead

 

Procurement cost = weapon system cost + spares

 

Program cost = procurement cost + R&D + Test & evaluation + MILCON (dovrebbe signifficare Military construction, non ho idea di cosa significhi, qualcuno può chiarire?)

 

Life cycle cost = program cost + operations

 

Se ci sono inesattezze qualcuno potrebbe gentilmente indicarle?

 

Nell'audizione alla Commissione difesa della Camera il Gen. Debertolis si riferiva credo a Flyaway costs, ed era straordinariamente sicuro (eccessivamente sicuro, secondo me) che rimarranno fissi. Eventuali cambi del programma oltreoceano con l'avverarsi della sequestration secondo lui avrebbero comportato per l'Italia solo uno spalmamento dei costi su più anni. Sembrava sicuro di un costo di 90 milioni di Euro per i primi 3 aerei (aerei LRIP-6, ricordo che non sappiamo ancora quanto costeranno con precisione gli aerei LRIP-5) e di 60 milioni di Euro col programma a regime. Addirittura era pronto a fornire dati su quanto ogni singolo aereo sarebbe costato nel corso degli anni, in base alle "curve di apprendimento" del programma.

 

Il Canada il parlamento sta valutando invece i Life cycle costs, 30 miliardi di dollari per 65 aerei, a fronte dei 17 miliardi (Euro, Dollari? Non ricordo) di cui si parla in Italia per 90 velivoli (Flyaway).

Modificato 7 Dicembre 2012 da Scagnetti

[Andrea75]

Canada Reconsiders JSF; Italy’s Leading PM Candidate Would Trim F-35 Buy

 

The prospect that Canada may drop the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) entirely and Italy would trim its planned buy of the stealthy jet as Washington think-tanks urge the Pentagon to cut the program is raising concern that the world’s largest and most expensive defense program could be destabilized.

...

And every cut can potentially raise the price-per-unit for JSF, already the most expensive program in Pentagon history.

“Rising costs can produce a death spiral,” said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group. If Canada moves away from the JSF, “it would be the first loss of a committed, major partner, and that could open the door to all kinds of mayhem.”

“The general problem is that as military spending is cut, the most expensive and apparently least urgent programs are hit,” said Michele Nones, head of the security and defense department at the Istituto Affari Internazionali, a Rome think tank. “But as JSF orders are cut, the costs rise so it becomes a vicious circle.”

...

Canada

Canada’s decision to move away from the JSF came as a new report expected this week from an outside auditor will reportedly show rising prices tied to a longer-than-expected lifespan for the fighter.

In July 2010, Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose announced Canada would purchase 65 F-35s. Mac-

Kay stated at the time that the F-35 was the only aircraft that could meet the country’s military needs.

Since then, however, the government has faced a public and political backlash with questions about how the F-35 was selected and what the aircraft will ultimately cost.

...

Italy

Even before Bersani’s statements this week, Italy this year already had reduced its JSF order from 131 to 90 aircraft to cope with defense cuts linked to austerity budgets.

As austerity measures bite, the JSF has come to represent a frequent target for groups in Italy seeking to protect social spending.

In an address to the defense commission of the lower house of the Italian parliament last week, procurement chief Gen. Claudio Debertolis said Italy had already saved 4 billion euros ($5.2 billion) by cutting 41 aircraft from its order, a calculation that presumes about 100 million euros per airplane.

Debertolis said the program was “fundamentally important” for Italy, reminding the commission that it would replace 18 AV8 aircraft, 136 AMX bombers and 99 Tornados now in the Italian fleet.

Direct and indirect employment linked to the Italian assembly line being built for the aircraft at Cameri would amount to 3,000, he added.

“Italy is among the countries that most needs the JSF to replace aging aircraft like the AMX and the AV8,” said Nones of the Istituto Affari Internazionali. “Italy has also invested 800 million euros in its final assembly line, so we have less flexibility.”

Italy’s former center-right Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi stepped down last November as the budget crisis mounted, paving the way for the Italian president to nominate a government of unelected technocrats led by former EU commissioner Mario Monti.

Last week Berlusconi suggested he would run again in 2013.

Monti has pushed through spending cuts and tax hikes to balance the books, but is due to step down next year to make way for elections. Bersani’s party now leads the polls, but Bersani cannot become Italy’s next prime minister if he cannot form a workable majority after the election and must ally with centrists, who would insist on Monti returning to lead the government.

Bersani won a primary vote on Dec. 2 to retain his spot as party leader. In a primary TV debate on Nov. 28, he was more circumspect about the JSF than in his Nov. 30 statement, claiming, “To Obama I would say let’s talk about [the JSF program] and see how we can reshape it.”

Earlier this year, Debertolis told the lower house commission that each conventional fighter ordered at the start of Italy’s run of orders would cost $80 million. Then, last month Italian defense undersecretary Filippo Milone told the senate commission that the figure was 80 million euros, the equivalent at the time of $114,3 dollars. A defense source said that the initial reference to $80 million rather than 80 million euros had been an error.

Last week Debertolis said the current base price for the three conventional JSFs that Italy has ordered in 2012 — its first orders — was now 90 million euros each. The price hike of 10 million euros per plane was due to Italy’s reducing its order from 131 to 90 aircraft.

 

 

inoltre Canada Preparing to Replace its CF-18 Hornets

 

 

Does Canada Have a Plan B?

At present, it does not. One might even argue that it doesn’t have a Plan A.

So far, Canada’s fighter decision has diligently avoided a strategic rationale that can separate, evaluate, and prioritize spending options. Instead, it has revolved around economic concerns, and the military’s wants.

A rigid and secretive procurement system has only exacerbated these tendencies. Multi-billion single-source buys have been a problem with numerous other Canadian procurements over the last 5-7 years, following the 20+ year rolling fiasco of its Maritime Helicopter Program competition. Canada’s choice of the F-35 has been no different, and the only real debate has taken place in the realm of federal elected politics.

Opposition critics has cited significant cost uncertainties for the F-35, the shift toward UAVs, and the availability of cheaper aircraft on the global market as reasons to avoid a sole-source purchase. Instead, they’ve alternated between favoring an open competition with public criteria, and making noises about avoiding a fighter buy altogether. A 2011 election seemed likely to decide the issue, as the F-35 became a campaign topic. The results were indeed decisive, as the governing Conservative Party finally won its long-sought majority.

That result leaves the F-35 with a number of elements in its favor.

One is the structure of the Canadian Parliamentary system, in which a majority government has no meaningful checks and balances. If the current majority Conservative Party government wants a plane, it can force the sale through, easily. The Conservatives in particular will bear little political cost for doing so, because they have become the only party in the country with serious security credentials. The national security constituency largely lives within that party, and will be happy that something is being done after decades of neglect. The rest of the population isn’t overly interested. The Liberal Party found this out to their sorrow when they tried to make the F-35 an election issue in 2011, and watched the attempt fizzle. They had a solid case, but the messenger had no credibility with people who were interested in the issue.

Another point in the F-35’s favor is its industrial program. It’s working as intended, by creating industrial constituencies with a strong interest in keeping the purchase. The power of that constituency is partly offset by the fact that Boeing, Canada’s largest aerospace player, is on the other side of the dispute. But only partly. Organizations billing actual dollars will always fight harder that those who might benefit at some future date. Which is why the F-35’s industrial benefits are the current focus of the government’s F-35 defense.

A third point in the Lightning’s favor is the commitment of senior DND members, who have gone public with a very absolute commitment. Never mind the fact that this commitment seems to mask some shoddy work underneath. In that circumstance, there’s little alternative to a no-compromise stonewall defense, until and unless senior leadership at DND changes.

Barring a reversal in the next elections, therefore, only a large external shock can change Canada’s commitment to the F-35A. Unfortunately, the F-35 program is busy providing that, as costs continue to rise and major partner countries like the USA, Britain and Italy move to delay or cut their buys. Those moves will keep the plane at lower rates of production for a longer period of time, and low-rate production aircraft are much more expensive.

Unfortunately, Canada wants to begin replacing its CF-18s by 2017. Which means that it needs to place an initial order by 2014. The net effect is a fighter whose purchase costs are uncertain, but are clearly set to stay very high in the near term. Worse, at the time of purchase, the operating and maintenance outlays that comprise 2/3 of total lifecycle costs will be extremely vague.

The Harper government’s response has been to insist that the procurement budget is C$ 9 billion, period, and higher prices will just mean fewer planes bought. At some point, however, a low enough number of planes bought makes it impossible for them to cover their assigned missions. Canada’s air force is already close to that margin in asking for just 65 aircraft, in order to cover the 2nd largest country in the world and participate in international missions.

Politically, a “wait and see” strategy makes a lot of sense under these circumstances. Which is exactly what we’re seeing. Statements by ministers like Julian Fantino are telegraphing that approach, without changing Canada’s underlying commitment. Perhaps some sort of “group buy” approach by the partners will bring purchase costs down, or program news may improve. If so, the purchase goes forward easily.

If the math continues to look grim, on the other hand, the difficult decisions can always be made later. The government’s shift of program leadership to the Public Works ministry, following a scathing 2012 auditor’s report, makes backtracking easier. The 1st real indication of cracks in the facade didn’t come until November 2012, however, when the government backed away from DND’s original tailored-for-F-35 fighter requirements.

Modificato 10 Dicembre 2012 da Andrea75

[Andrea75]

... prosegue la telenovela canadese, ecco la rassegna stampa: Canadian Media Blasts Government on F-35

 

Canadian media reports continued to blast the government’s handling of the F-35 acquisition process since the Ottawa Citizen first reported on Dec. 6 that the government had decided to cancel the purchase after a report by audit firm KMPG showed the F-35’s lifetime costs would exceed $45 billion, or three times the amount government has insisted the program would cost.

 

John Ivison: F-35s officially costed at $45,802,000,000 in new report

 

$45,802,000,000. That’s the number that will stand out when the Harper government releases KPMG’s report on the cost of the F-35 program early next week.

The National Post has seen sections of the report, including the cost estimates calculated by the accountancy firm charged with forecasting the entire 42-year life cycle cost of buying 65 new fighter jets.

According to KPMG, it will cost Canadian taxpayers nearly $46-billion to replace the fleet of 77 aging CF18s with the F-35s — nearly twice the numbers circulated by the Department of National Defence and roughly what the province of Ontario spends on health care every year.

The cost per plane is now estimated to be $88-million in five years, when production is expected to be at full throttle, compared to DND’s earlier forecast of $70-75-million.

The sticker shock is likely to put a severe dent in public, and ministerial, enthusiasm for the F-35, which the Conservatives defended against all comers as the best plane and the best value for money, until the Auditor-General, Michael Ferguson, released a scathing report on the amount of due diligence done on the fighter last spring.

However, contrary to rumours of its demise, the F-35 program is still very much alive. The government’s operations committee has discussed the roll-out of the KPMG report but full Cabinet has not made any decisions on the program. The KPMG report, when viewed in context, does not suggest the F-35 should be dismissed as a contender to succeed the CF18s.

The report validates much of the costing done by National Defence. The acquisition costs are identical at $8.9-billion. DND calculates sustainment costs will be $7.3-billion, while KPMG says $15.2-billion. On operating costs, DND estimates $9-billion, whereas the accountancy firm calculates $19.9-billion.

But the vast majority of those cost differences can be explained by the different time-scales used – DND’s costs are for a 20-year period, while KPMG fulfilled the mandate given it by the Auditor-General to give Canadians a full costing over the 42-year lifespan of the F-35s.

The conclusion that Canadians should draw is that it will cost them a little over $1-billion a year to operate a fleet of F-35s, according to both National Defence and KPMG.

 

 

Government 'looking at other options' besides F-35, MP says Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/government-looking-at-other-options-besides-f-35-mp-says-1.1072292#ixzz2EedFb6Zq

 

Accused by opposition parties of misleading Canadians over the ballooning costs of the F-35 jet procurement contract, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of National Defence says the government is looking at alternative options to replace Canada’s aging fleet of fighter jets.

Ahead of the release of a report on the cost of buying and servicing new fighter jets, the junior defence minister Conservative MP Chris Alexander confirmed other options besides the F-35 will be considered under the government’s seven-point plan for aircraft replacement, and insisted a decision on the controversial procurement has not yet been set in stone.

 

 

F-35 fiasco knocks Conservative spin off its axis

 

Where to start in describing the fiasco of the F-35 fighter jet contract?

From the moment the Harper government inherited the F-35 program from the Liberal government, its handling of the file has featured photo ops, deceptions, endless political spin (of course), errors of fact, contradictions and relentlessly upward cost estimates.

 

 

‘It’s panic all over’ as Ottawa rethinks F-35 purchase

 

The ballooning lifetime cost of the F-35 fighter and Ottawa’s decision to shop around for alternatives is creating panic among Canadian companies betting on supply contracts for the Lockheed Martin plane, sources say.

“It’s panic all over.…They are very concerned at this stage,” a Defence Department source said.

“The numbers are a lot bigger than anybody could imagine,” the source said, adding reports that Ottawa is preparing to back away from its 2010 choice of the F-35 and mull buying another plane are casting doubts on the future of Canada’s involvement with the cutting-edge jet. “The messages are fuzzy enough [from Ottawa] that it looks like they are looking at backing off, delaying it.”

 

 

Sticker shock and tenuous industrial benefits renew Canada's F-35 jitters

 

Skepticism about the future of F-35 program spiked after an independent analysis, written by accounting firm KPMG, determined that the full life-cycle cost of the F-35 would be far above $40 billion rather than $16 billion originally set by the government.

The eye-popping price tag ballooned after auditors determined a total in-service life of 42 years for the fighter-jet, which is at least a dozen more than both the auditor general and the parliamentary budget officer estimated in their costing.

The longer a plane is flying, the more expensive it becomes to maintain and sources say auditors at KPMG settled on a service life of four decades because that's how long the Canadian military has been keeping aircraft on the flight line.

A companion study that is due to be released next week at the same time as the KPMG report assessing promised industrial benefits or economic spin-offs from F-35 production may provide further headaches for the government.

When the Harper government first signalled its intention to buy the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 Lightning II, it proclaimed that Canadian aerospace companies would benefit by receiving as much as $12 billion in manufacturing or spare parts contracts over the lifetime of the project.

Industry Canada quietly rowed those expectations back to US $9.85 billion last spring in the wake of Auditor General Michael Ferguson's scathing assessment of how the program has been managed thus far. The report accused National Defence and Public Works of not doing their homework, low-balling the cost and to a lesser extent, exaggerating the benefits.

The benefits analysis will apparently show Canada struggling to reach the US $9 billion mark over the decades in the face of stiff competition from other nations whose participation in the development of the aircraft give them preferential access to the U.S. manufacturer's supply chain.

To date, 70 Canadian companies have secured over US $435 million in contracts on the development and initial production of the fighter.

 

 

Tories misled Canadians on F-35, opposition MPs charge

 

The government has consistently misled Canadians and is continuing to hide the true cost of the F-35 fighter jets being considered to replace the military's aging CF-18s, opposition MPs charged Friday.

"I don't see how the minister of defence [Peter MacKay] can possibly continue in his job," interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae said.

"He's basically been a sales spokesperson for Lockheed Martin, the manufacturers of the F-35, since he took office. He's denigrated and attacked every person in opposition, in the Liberal Party or elsewhere, who has ever raised concerns or questions about this."

The Conservative government says it has not made a decision on the F-35 as a replacement for Canada's CF-18 fighter jets, but it now appears to concede that alternative fighter purchase options will be considered.

The Prime Minister's Office denied a media report Thursday that the F-35 purchase was dead, calling the report "inaccurate on a number of fronts" and promising to update the House of Commons on its seven-point plan to replace the jets before the House rises for the Christmas break at the end of next week.

[Andrea75]

Canada Preparing to Replace its CF-18 Hornets

 

il dettaglio dei partner industriali del programma

 

[Andrea75]

... arriva la firma Pentagon To Sign Deal for 32 F-35s

 

The Pentagon has notified Congress of its intent to sign a multibillion-dollar deal with Lockheed Martin for 32 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, according to a senior defense official. The actual inking of the contract is expected on Dec. 14.

The final dollar value of the contract will be determined when the contract is signed, said Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics. The Pentagon also expects a preliminary deal for the sixth batch of F-35s in the near future.

[Andrea75]

... dal Canada

 

... per il Wall Street Journal Canada to Restart Fighter Jet Acquisition

 

The Canadian government scrapped its plans to buy 65 Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 fighter jets, saying it will launch a new search to find a replacement for its aging military aircraft.

It is the latest in several moves by foreign governments to scale back orders of the F-35, amid the jet's high costs and budget cuts in many nations that had once embraced the aircraft. The U.K., for instance, whose defense industry had taken part in the project as part of a consortium led by Lockheed, originally indicated interest in 138 jets.

 

... Canada stops order for F-35 fighters

 

Canada has balked at a $46.4 billion price tag to buy 65 F-35 fighter jets and has canceled its contract with Lockheed Martin, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The Journal said the Canadian government will try to find another alternative.

The surprise news dealt a blow to Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) and the subcontractors for the advanced fighter jet, including a number of Pittsburgh-based companies.

The F-35 program is coming under increasing pressure for costs from foreign governments expected to buy the aircraft. The United Kingdom has cut its order from 138 to under 50, the Journal reported.

 

F-35 fighter more dangerous to governments than any potential enemy

 

The F-35 fighter jet is proving more dangerous to the governments committed to buying them than to any potential enemy they may ever face in the skies.

Wednesday, Canadians learned that the purchase of 65 of these aircraft – the number announced by the Harper government in 2010 – will cost in the order of $46-billion over the 42 year projected life cycle of the aircraft. If Ottawa still goes ahead with the purchase it will be the most expensive military procurement in Canadian history.

But Canada’s ongoing F-35 drama is but the tip of the F-35 iceberg. The United States still plans to purchase 2,443 of the aircraft at a total cost (purchase and operations) of well over a trillion dollars. But virtually all of the nations that have signed on to the F-35 consortium are seriously questioning their commitment to the jet. And there is furious debate and much unhappiness in Washington over the F-35’s costs and production delays.

Why did it happen?

There is nothing new about the desire to have the best weapon possible. It is at least as old as war itself. From the moment when someone first lashed a stone to a stick to create a war club, someone else tried to make a better one. Inevitably, they succeeded and the cycle to out-arm the competition began.

Yet, when the F-35 was first conceived, there was (and is) no real “enemy” out there that it could possibly be used against. State to state conventional war among major powers – the only kind which can afford jets like these – is simply inconceivable today. So when the U.S. military was asked to dream up its requirements for a “fifth” generation fighter, it simply decided to have everything it could for any possibility that might arise. It was to be the flying version of the deluxe Swiss Army Knife.

That is why the F-35 is still not a fighter plane; it is a development project. When it was conceived back in the 1990s the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps wanted an aircraft with capabilities that didn’t even exist yet. Some of the original requirements for the aircraft have still not been perfected fully 11 years after the U.S. contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin. There are F-35s flying with the US Air Force in various states of development, but not a single aircraft meets the performance specifications originally laid out.

Canada and other nations that joined the F-35 consortium (Canada first committed itself in 2002), believed that the technical barriers to the F-35’s projected capabilities would be overcome at reasonable cost and that developing the aircraft together, as it were, would lead to substantial savings and lucrative production contracts distributed among the consortium nations. That belief was clearly wrong.

There is no point for Canadians to ask why the aircraft Ottawa apparently committed to buy in 2010 is turning out to be much more expensive, and taking far longer to develop, than first projected. The answers to those questions can only be found south of the border where defence contracts have long had a way of ballooning way out of control.

The questions for Canadians is: Why did Canada simply take the U.S. Defense Department’s word that the plane would do all it was supposed to do at the cost that was then quoted? (Canadians ought also to remember that although the Tories announced the purchase of the aircraft in 2010, it was the Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin Liberals which made the first two down payments on the jet.)

The answer is that the procurement system in Canada is badly broken and has been for two decades at least. To begin with, there is no transparency in the process. The system is opaque from top to bottom. So, whether it’s ship-board helicopters, armoured fighting vehicles, or even trucks, no one but an omniscient procurement genius can ever know quite what’s going on with any project at any given moment.

To make matters worse, Canadians in general simply don’t care enough about defence to learn why the procurement process is such a mess and to demand that it be fixed. Yes, the F-35 is a fiasco, but the new fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft that was promised more than a decade ago and is still probably another half decade away from delivery is no less a fiasco, though potentially a much cheaper one. And where are the headlines about that?

[Andrea75]

Norway Has Already Considered the Cost Picture for Defence's New F-35

 

“New cost estimates in any of the partner in the F-35 program may give the impression that there are large increases in lifetime cost around F-35. This is not correct - what happens is that other countries are beginning to work with many of the same assumptions as Norway has done from the beginning,” says Anders Melheim, director of the fighter program.

One such example of the new estimates is that Canada has commissioned an external evaluation of its cost-based consulting firm KPMG. In their report, they presented figures for the possible life-cycle costs of the F-35 which is considerably higher than previous estimates that have been presented by the Canadian government.

This is largely because KPMG believes that Canada must take into account factors that have long been included in the Norwegian estimates.

“From the beginning, we put forward the most complete and true image that conveys what it will actually cost Norwegian society to buy, own and operate a fighter capacity until around 2050. Other countries are now also starting to include as many factors, and are planning to operate the aircraft as long as we do, so it is not surprising that their estimates gradually begin to resemble ours,” says Melheim.

Parliament has decided that the military of the future will have a structure of up to 52 combat aircraft of the type F-35, and that these will be based in Orland.

Deliveries of the aircraft will begin in 2015 when the first aircraft will to be used for training Norwegian pilots stationed in the U.S., followed by the delivery of the first operational aircraft to Norway in 2017.

The Norwegian cost estimate for the procurement phase has remained stable at just over 60 billion since 2008, and is now estimated at 61.2 billion in real 2012-kroner.

“We have made good progress in the program and look forward to building the first Norwegian aircraft will soon be starting. This is a major investment in Norway's security and independence and it is our duty to undertake procurement within the framework of the program as defined by the political leadership,” says the program director.

 

 

Australia’s Future Air Capability

Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today provided an update on planning for Australia’s future Air Combat Capability.

“Australia’s Air Combat Capability is a vital part of our national security framework. The Government will not allow a gap in our Air Combat Capability to occur,” Mr Smith said.

In May this year, Minister Smith announced that the Air Combat Capability Transition Plan, an assessment of the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter project progress and any potential capability gap, would be presented to Government by the end of 2012 to inform Government decisions about Air Combat Capability.

The Air Combat Capability Transition Plan prepared by Defence includes an assessment of whether alternative options need to be implemented to ensure continuity in Australia’s Air Combat Capability in light of Joint Strike Fighter project delays and the ageing of Australia’s Classic F/A-18 Hornet fleet.

The Air Combat Capability Transition Plan considered the process for managing the Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF) transition from the current mix of Classic Hornet and Super Hornet to a future Air Combat Capability fleet, including the Joint Strike Fighter.

The plan includes an assessment of progress of the Joint Strike Fighter project, the life of the existing 71 ‘Classic’ F/A-18 Hornets, any potential capability gap and management of the Super Hornet and Growler capabilities.

It includes options to purchase additional Super Hornet aircraft.

The Classic Hornet fleet, which originally comprised 75 aircraft, entered service in Australia between 1985 and 1990. The fleet has undergone an intensive maintenance program to ensure the fleet is able to operate until around 2020.

In September this year, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) completed a performance audit on the management of the F/A-18 fleet upgrades and sustainment. The ANAO found that Defence’s management of the aircraft has been effective thus far in identifying the risks to their continued operation, that effective mitigation measures have been put in place for these risks, and outlined those that will require ongoing close management by Defence.

The Government has now considered the Air Combat Capability Transition Plan and has directed Defence to undertake further work on a range of Air Combat Capability options, including seeking from the United States up-to-date pricing information on Super Hornets. (Emphasis added-Ed.)

RAAF currently has a fleet of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft. The fleet was introduced between March 2010 and October 2011.

The F/A-18F Super Hornet was a major step forward in technology for Australia’s Air Combat Capability.

The Super Hornet gives the RAAF the capability to conduct air-to-air combat, to strike targets on land and at sea, to suppress enemy air defences and to conduct reconnaissance.

The Super Hornet is vital to ensuring Australia’s regional Air Combat Capability edge is maintained until the introduction into service of the Joint Strike Fighter capability.

The Government is also acquiring the Growler electronic warfare system for the Super Hornet. Growler is an electronic warfare system that gives the Super Hornet the ability to jam the electronics systems of aircraft and land-based radars and communications systems.

Australia will now send a Letter of Request (LOR) to the United States seeking cost and availability information for up to an additional 24 Super Hornet aircraft through the United States Foreign Military Sales program.

The Australian Government has not made a decision to purchase more Super Hornets. The sending of this LOR does not commit Australia to purchase more Super Hornets. It is being sent so that the Australian Government can further consider all options in 2013 with the latest and best cost and availability information. This has been made clear to both US officials and to the Defence industry.

Following receipt of the LOR response, Government will further and fully consider Australia’s Air Combat Capability in 2013.

 

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Minister Smith announced in May that the government would make a decision on F-35 purchases within the 2012-13 financial year. The delay announced above delays the decision by at least six more months, into a new budget and election cycle when anything may happen.)

[Andrea75]

Ex-general Bouchard bows out of panel looking for F-35 fighter-jet alternatives

 

The Harper government has redrawn the list of independent monitors who will oversee a hunt for alternatives to the F-35 Lightning fighter after retired general Charles Bouchard bowed out.

The Conservatives are announcing panelists Wednesday to vet the federal government’s new search for a warplane in the face of ballooning cost estimates for the jet Ottawa picked in 2010.

The monitors’ task will be to ensure Canada is conducting a rigorous rethink of this procurement and these appointees will be putting their reputations and credibility on the line as a result.

The panelists include:

- James Mitchell of the consulting group Sussex Circle, a former senior civil servant who has served cabinet and Treasury Board;

- former Communications Security Establishment chief Keith Coulter, a former fighter pilot;

- former federal comptroller-general Rod Monette, who also served as a senior bureaucrat in National Defence;

- University of Ottawa professor Philippe Lagassé, an outspoken critic of the jet procurement.

 

The list was supposed to include retired Lieutenant-General Bouchard, who led the NATO mission in Libya.

But sources on Wednesday said Mr. Bouchard informed the government that he was too busy to take on the task.

The Harper government is going shopping for alternatives to the controversial F-35 in the most significant demonstration yet that it is prepared to walk away from its first choice for a new warplane.

It’s releasing new independent cost estimates Wednesday that show the full lifetime cost of the jets will exceed $45-billion.

In an attempt to head off public skepticism that Ottawa’s “options analysis” is something less than a rigorous rethink of which jet is best, the government is enlisting four independent monitors to vet the process.

The Conservatives, who have been heavily criticized for selecting the F-35 without due regard for price and availability, are launching this effort to repair their credibility as stewards of public money.

The Conservatives announced in July, 2010, they had decided to buy the F-35 without any competition, and for more than a year and a half, described the jet purchase as a $9-billion acquisition. But in April, 2012, Auditor-General John Ferguson revealed it would cost $25-billion for the first 20 years alone.

To demonstrate that they are restarting the procurement process from scratch, Canadian officials will collect information from other plane manufacturers, including U.S.-based Boeing, maker of the Super-Hornet, and the consortium behind the Eurofighter Typhoon. They may also contact Sweden’s Saab, manufacturer of the Gripen, and France’s Dassault, maker of the Rafale.

The ballooning lifetime cost of the F-35 fighter and Ottawa’s decision to shop around for alternatives are creating panic among Canadian companies betting on supply contracts for the Lockheed Martin plane, sources have said.

The government will start this process Wednesday by releasing National Defence’s updated cost estimates for buying 65 F-35 fighters, and an independent review by KPMG of the forecast price for keeping the jets flying for their full lifespan. The planes are expected to last 36 years, and they should be ‘costed’ as such, the Auditor-General suggested in his April report.

Sources say the full price of ownership for the F-35 would add up to more than $45-billion when all costs, including fuel and upgrades, are included – or more than $1-billion a year over the F-35s’ lifespan.

This price, however, will not include the cost of extra planes to be bought for spare parts. The Auditor-General suggested in April that Canada would need 14 extra F-35s over 36 years, but sources say Ottawa believes it will more likely require only seven to 10 extra planes.

The government aims to complete this reappraisal of what the fighter aircraft market can offer Canada as expeditiously as possible in 2013. The government is requesting answers to questions, including: what kind of plane does Canada need? How long can Ottawa keep its aging CF-18s keep flying? Which jet makers can meet Canada’s budget and requirements in a timely fashion? Do other jets need to be purchased as a stop-gap? Is the best plane still the F-35?

The terms of reference for this options analysis, which will also be released next week, say Ottawa will “review and assess fighter aircraft currently in production and scheduled for production.” This will include the F-35.

Government sources say Ottawa has not decided whether to call for competitive bids to supply a plane and will await the results of the options analysis.

Canada has signed no contract to buy F-35s, and while it has signalled to Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer, that it wants 65, it has no obligation to buy them. It did sign a memorandum of understanding in 2006 that set the terms by which a country would buy the aircraft and also enabled domestic companies to compete for supply contracts for the plane.

 

 

... una ulteriore opinione Kelly McParland: A dissenting opinion on the fallout of the F-35 cancellation

 

I may be alone in this (which wouldn’t be the first time), but I don’t believe the federal Conservatives will suffer as much fallout from their mishandling of the F-35 jet fighter purchase as is presently being forecast.

 

There is no question that they botched it. Royally. They bought into the military’s argument that no other plane could possibly deliver the capabilities of the F-35, and that Canada couldn’t get by with anything less. Whether they were duped in this by the F-35′s fans in the military and the bureaucracy, or willingly went along is up for debate.

 

They insisted the price would be lower than appeared likely, and stuck by that price even as evidence mounted that it was large part fantasy, mixed with a healthy dose of pure stubbornness. They adamantly refused to share even the most meagre information related to the purchase. Rather than share responsibility for the decision with the military, they claimed it all for themselves, insisting again and again that the F-35 was the right plane, that that there was no chance the government would change its mind, that critics were unpatriotic wretches with no respect for the needs of the country’s fighting men and women. If you’d like a list of the damning quotes in that respect, the opposition parties will be happy to supply one.

 

Still, the notion that the damage to the government will be deep and long-lasting strikes me as unlikely. For several reasons.

 

1. It assumes Canadians were deeply engaged in the issue, which I doubt they were. It’s a big deal in Ottawa, but hardly the focus of chatter in the coffee shops of the land. The economy, taxes, the job situation, health care – those are top-of-mind issues. A plan to buy new fighters over a 30- or 40-year period is deep down the list. I’d be surprised in most voters know what an F-35 is… some next tax form, perhaps, to go with the T-4?

 

2. It presumes Canadians expect prudence and efficiency when it comes to large military acquisitions, when the opposite is more likely the case. Voters have been conditioned by experience to assume that any large-scale purchase of boats or planes will be a disaster. The term Sea King has become a national joke. The four submarines the Liberals bought used from Britain in 1998 might as well be stuffed with flowers and used as planters. Jean Chretien cancelled the Mulroney government’s helicopter purchase 20 years ago out of pure pique, paying $500 million in cancellation fees, and won two more majority governments. I expect, for most Canadians, the shock would have been if the F-35 purchase had gone ahead smoothly, on budget, and without incident.

 

3. While the Tories look foolish for shooting their mouths off about the merits of the F-35 and their determination to press ahead with the purchase, the actual financial cost has been minimal. The figures named in reports critical of the purchase – suggesting the final bill would be $45 billion – triple anything the Tories were willing to own up to — are all projected costs. That is: what the price would have been if the purchase had been made. But the purchase hasn’t been made. Although much bureaucratic time and expense has been taken up, bureaucrats are paid one way or the other. In the end, the extra cost to the budget of the Tories’ fling with the F-35 is minimal, certainly nothing as egregious as Chretien’s $500 million in cancellation fees.

 

4. Canadians care when the government wastes money, but all the Tories have really wasted in this instance is time and their own credibility. Their refusal to entertain the slightest notion that they might be chasing the wrong plane, and their habitual rubbishing of any opinions to the contrary, has become a hallmark of the way this government does business. If voters had harboured the illusion that the Harper government was open, cooperative and respectful of its opponents, the F-35 cancellation might come as a shock. But it has been in power seven years; Canadians know how it acts. At most, this latest episode may reinforce existing impressions.

 

5. As for the government’s reputation as economic managers. Again – it didn’t buy the planes. It didn’t spend the money. Even the worst figure unveiled yesterday — $45 billion over $42 years – works out to slightly more than the annual CBC budget. If the money had been spent, which it hasn’t. “The economy”, to most voters, means their tax bill and price inflation. If those remain in check, a non-purchase involving X billions over X years becomes pretty much ephemeral.

 

I suspect Peter MacKay’s days as a credible minister are over. He argued Wednesday that his concern for the troops got in the way of his fiscal responsibilities. “I feel passionately about my obligation to ensure the Canadian Forces have the best equipment to ensure mission success – they assume unlimited liability.” That’s all very nice, but ministers aren’t appointed to fall in love.

 

Other than that , I expect the opposition parties will treat the climbdown like a blunderbuss they can aim at the government from now until the next election. But the blunderbuss was never much good at hitting anything.

[madmike]

Oltre ai costi il velivolo non è ancora stato messo a punto ma mostra già carenze sotto il profilo dell’autonomia e delle prestazioni “stealth” , cioè della capacità di risultare invisibile ai radar nemici, che doveva costituire l’asso nella manca del jet. L’ex comandante dell’aeronautica canadese, generale Steve Lucas, ha ammesso che nel raccomandare l’adozione dell’F 35, nel 2006, i vertici militari non fornirono alcune “informazioni chiave” sul velivolo.

 

http://www.analisidifesa.it/2012/12/il-canada-rinuncia-ai-cacciabombardieri-f-35/

[Andrea75]

... il Governo canadese cancella l'ordine e ... Magellan Aerospace Completes First F-35A Horizontal Tail Assembly (ditta canadese)

 

Magellan Aerospace announced today, it has completed the first F-35A Lightning II horizontal tail assembly at its Winnipeg manufacturing division. This achievement is a product of, and reflects investments made over a five year period, to develop state of the art facilities and processes necessary to perform the work. Magellan is under contract with BAE Systems to produce horizontal tail assemblies for the Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) variant of F-35 and is expected to produce more than1,000 sets of the components for the program over a 20-year period. “This achievement represents far more than the completion of our first assembly for the program,” said Mr. James Butyniec, President and Chief Executive Officer of Magellan Aerospace. ”It marks the culmination of Magellan’s aggressive investment in facilities, equipment, and processes that has preceded today’s event by more than five years. Magellan recognized that participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program would be strategic, creating opportunities supporting Magellan’s core expertise and elevating the skills of our workforce to the next level of advanced manufacturing.” Magellan has achieved sales approaching $100M Cdn. on the F-35 program to date. Canadian companies like Magellan Aerospace have had unprecedented competitive opportunities in this sophisticated international program since the inception of Canada’s participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program in 1997. This program milestone demonstrates that companies such as Magellan can be successful and competitive in the globalized aerospace supply chain that exists in the industry today.

...

This press release contains information and statements of a forward looking nature, including in relation to the estimated future revenues from an agreement over the next five years and timing of expected deliveries, and is based on a number of assumptions, including the continuing demand for the F-35 Lightning II aircraft, and is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including those associated with the economic recovery and general declines in defence spending, that are difficult to predict, and\or are beyond the Corporation's control. A number of important factors, including those set forth in the Corporation's Annual Information Form, could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. -

 

 

... mentre la Norvegia ostenta tranquillità Canada's Decision Has Marginal Effect on Norway

 

“As we understand the Canadians, they are not dissatisfied with the plane. However, they are dissatisfied with the process behind the choice of aircraft. This has led for the first time to the presentation of total acquisition costs over the lifetime of the aircraft.

 

“These had already been released by Norway in 2008, and these estimates are still stable since then,” says Norwegian deputy fighter program manager Brigadier Morten Klever.

 

“Should Canada finally choose a different plane than the F-35, it would of course be regrettable, but their procurement accounts for only about 2% of the total number of aircraft. Their withdrawal would have only a marginal effect on Norwegian costs,” the brigadier added.

 

“We have chosen the aircraft that best meets Norway’s future requirements. We are part of a broad international cooperation that will ensure that this remains the best plane for Norway in the years to come.

 

“I am very excited that we will begin construction of the first Norwegian plane so that we really can get started with the biggest investment in Norwegian security and independence ever, says Morten Klever.

 

Facts about the Norwegian fighter aircraft procurement:

 

• Norway will acquire up to 52 F-35 combat aircraft to replace the F-16.

• In 2008, the United States made an offer for 48 aircraft, without any equipment, at a price of 18 billion kroner at 2008 prices.

• The entire program, which now includes 52 aircraft with support equipment, logistics, training, weapons, simulators, etc., is at present estimated to cost 61.2 billion This includes adjustments for inflation over time.

 

•The JSF program consists of nine partner countries and, to date, two external buyers, which all together plan to buy about 3,000 aircraft. In addition, at least two other countries are considering buying the F-35, so that the total figure could rise further.

Modificato 14 Dicembre 2012 da Andrea75

[vorthex]

carenze sotto il profilo dell’autonomia e delle prestazioni “stealth” , cioè della capacità di risultare invisibile ai radar nemici, che doveva costituire l’asso nella manca del jet.

e su quali dati si basa tale dichiarazione, il solito NULLA dei soliti noti?

Modificato 14 Dicembre 2012 da vorthex

[TT-1 Pinto]

Definitivo il contratto per il 5° lotto ....

 

 

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:a40efe4a-3a75-4f61-9e58-a0a86f889ee6

 

http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4938

[madmike]

e su quali dati si basa tale dichiarazione, il solito NULLA dei soliti noti?

 

 

boh! qualcuno ne sa di più (ad esempio chi sono 'i soliti noti'?)?

 

forse hanno tratto le conclusioni leggendo (anche) qui, anche se mi paiono opinioni.

 

Who’s right? It’s hard to say at this point, because the respective approaches haven’t been fully tested against top-end enemy systems. American stealth worked very well against Iraq, twice. Modern European fighters were more than sufficient over Libya in 2011, however, and the stealthless Israelis sliced through Syria’s dense air defenses to bomb a nuclear reactor in 2007. If jamming keeps pace, or if stealth’s advantages can be beaten or watered down, the European approach creates cheaper planes with better aerodynamic performance. On the other hand, if stealth remains fully or mostly relevant, even Europe’s high-end jets will be unable to compete with American stealth fighters, and the F-35’s full-rate production costs beyond 2020 will make it equally lethal in export competitions.

 

Whether the F-35 will be able to prevail against high-end enemy air defense systems and fighters fielded after 2030 is a matter of controversy. The need to combine detection, tracking, and kill reach may keep stealth relevant for some time, since a plane only has to defeat one link in the chain in order to survive. A plane that’s detected and tracked, but leaves the incoming missile’s small seeker with a weak lock, can still live.

 

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canada-Preparing-to-Replace-its-CF-18-Hornets-05739/

 

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/f-35-gets-stealthier/

 

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2012/11/30/pol-lawson-committee-f35-stealth-options.html

Modificato 15 Dicembre 2012 da madmike

[Andrea75]

Experts: Canada’s Potential F-35 Cut Would Hurt Mission

 

l'articolo tratta del travaglio del programma JSF tra Canada ed Australia.

Riporto una interessante indiscrezione made in UK:

 

Better JSF News in Britain

 

Britain has committed to ordering 48 of the F-35B jump-jet versions in the current 10-year core equipment program, but Jon Thompson, the permanent undersecretary at the Ministry of Defence, told the parliamentary defense committee Dec. 12 that he expected the number of aircraft purchased to “rise over time to more than 100” aircraft.

The first production orders are expected to be placed after the government’s 2015 strategic defense review.

 

The MoD has taken delivery of two F-35s ordered for test and evaluation purposes and a third aircraft is in production. A fourth aircraft could be ordered next year for evaluation work.

 

The F-35 will fly first operationally with the Royal Air Force in 2018, followed by the Fleet Air Arm and soon after from new aircraft carriers, which are now in production.

[Andrea75]

... l'ennesima analisi che aggiunge poco rispetto a quanto già segnalato Latest F-35 Production Contract Keeps Program On Glide-Path To Affordable Planes; segnalo solo alcuni estratti commentati dal sito defence-aerospace

 

...

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin has managed to deliver the planes for less than government cost analysts predicted in every production lot to date. (Some evidence to support this remarkable statement would be welcome—Ed.)

...

As with the legacy fighters in the force today, that does not include the engine, which the government procures under a separate contract. When you add up all the expenses, though, the cost of manufacturing each F-35A (the Air Force variant) five years from now looks likely to be identical to what manufacturing the latest version of a single-engine F-16 costs today. (Again, evidence to support this remarkable statement would be welcome—Ed.)

 

... una delle agenzie di rating che "rivede" la valutazione (economica) di Lockheed Martin per il tribolato programma JSF - il più grande - e considerando i tagli del Governo federale nel medio termine Fitch Rates Lockheed Martin's Exchange Notes 'A-'; Outlook Negative (excerpt)

 

Fitch Ratings has assigned an 'A-' rating to Lockheed Martin Corporation's planned issuance of approximately $1.3 billion of 4.07% senior unsecured notes due 2042.

The new notes, along with approximately $225 million in cash, will be issued in exchange for approximately $1.2 billion of existing notes maturing from 2023 to 2040 that are subject to the recently expired exchange offer. The Rating Outlook is Negative.

…/…

Sequestration is a large threat in the near term, but Fitch's base case is that it will be avoided. However, DOD spending reductions are likely to be a part of any deal that avoids Sequestration, and there is also the possibility that only a temporary resolution is put into place.

LMT's largest program, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, accounted for 13% of the company's revenues in 2011, and the program is in the midst of a significant growth period, with probable double-digit annual growth rates over the next several years. However, the program has undergone three restructurings in as many years because of cost growth, work scope changes, and delays. The main challenge for the program is the concurrent development and production.

Despite the restructurings, the program remains the DOD's largest, and is still probably a credit positive for LMT going forward from a revenue perspective. The DOD requested $9.2 billion in the FY2013 budget. The program remains under tremendous scrutiny because of schedule changes and cost increases.

Fitch believes the main risks to the program are LMT's margins and the ultimate size of the program given fiscal pressures in the US and other partner nations. Given the large number of likely orders from the U.S. and key international partners, the recent announcement by Canada that it is re-evaluating its F-35 purchase plans is not a credit issue at this time.

 

 

... e ora in Canada si parla di manipolazione nella scelta (resettata) del F-35:

 

F-35 process ‘corrupted’ from the beginning

Federal bureaucrats are the ones who “hijacked” the F-35 procurement process, but Cabinet ministers went along without questioning it when they should have in order to avoid the controversy the government is facing today on acquiring 65 stealth fighter jets at a newly-projected cost of $45.8-billion over 42 years, say some critics.

“We know that the fiasco certainly started by the bureaucrats hijacking the process,” said Alan Williams, former assistant deputy minister for procurement in National Defence and a leading critic of the government’s F-35 procurement process.

Since 2010 when the government signalled it would in fact buy the F-35s in a sole-sourced procurement process for $9-billion and $7-billion in operation and maintenance costs, it has been mired in controversy over several issues—the two major ones being a disputed cost (the Parliamentary Budget Office estimated the price tag to be $29-billion over a life-cycle of 30 years for acquisition, operation and maintenance which Auditor General Michael Ferguson later verified in his own report at $25-billion over 20 years) and the secrecy behind the sole-sourced procurement, which eventually led to the government being found in contempt of Parliament and triggered the May 2011 election.

All along the way, the majority-governing Conservatives have maintained that their numbers are correct, that the PBO was wrong, that the Canadian Air Force needs the F-35s and would not go to an open competition for new fighter jets to replace Canada’s ageing CF-18s, that the opposition was not patriotic enough or standing behind men and women in uniform, that they followed Treasury Board guidelines, and that they won a majority government which clearly meant Canadians were behind them on the purchase.

When Mr. Ferguson said in his critical April 2012 report that the government did not apply due diligence in this case, the government slightly retreated and set up the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat, moving the procurement process from DND to Public Works, and introducing its “seven-point plan” to address the F-35 acquisition.

It back-pedalled again last Wednesday when it released an audit by KPMG which analyzed the stealth fighter jets’ full life-cycle costs at $45.8-billion over 42 years, including $565-million for development, $9-billion for acquisition, $15.2-billion for maintenance, $20-billion for operations and $65-million for disposal.

The estimate was for 30 years of operation and 12 years of research and development and disposal.

Mr. Williams said it didn’t have to come to this, however.

“Why the ministers blindly went along with it, I don’t know. Why they didn’t question and challenge, why [then National Defence Minister Gordon] O’Connor didn’t say to them, ‘You’re recommending this to me? Where’s the statement of requirements? Why should I accept this? My staff tell me that this is just in the early stages of development? How the hell do you know what’s it going to be able to do? You can’t even tell me how much it’s going to cost? What kind of stupid support am I getting from you guys?’ That could’ve been his reaction, but it wasn’t obviously. They bought into it. I’m not sure why they bought into it. I do know that the bureaucrats were inexcusable in making that recommendation, but I can’t explain why for the last two years when all the information was coming out saying that everything that they were saying made no sense, why they simply didn’t get off the train earlier,” Mr. Williams told The Hill Times.

Last week, the government said it would “reset” the procurement process that would allow the fighter secretariat to complete its “seven-point plan” and return to an “options analysis” of available fighter jets to meet Canada’s needs, but stopped short of saying that it would move to an open and transparent competitive bidding process with a change in DND’s statement of requirements.

“We are pressing reset on this acquisition in order to ensure a balance between military needs and taxpayer interests. To do so, we need to have all viable options on the table for the replacement of the CF-18,” Defence Minister Peter MacKay (Central Nova, N.S.) said at a press conference last Wednesday on Parliament Hill. “No decision on a replacement for Canada’s ageing fighter aircraft will occur until the seven-point plan is complete.”

Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose (Edmonton-Spruce Grove, Alta.) announced the independent panel that will be overseeing the options analysis.

 

‘Trust is broken’: Page on F-35 process

 

The government’s handling of the fighter jet program has broken trust with Canadians – and a simple “reset” on the process is not enough to get over that, Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page said.

“Trust is broken. I don’t think you get, in terms of a reset, that trust back until you have that debate in front of Parliament,” Page said during an appearance on the Global News program The West Block with Tom Clark.

From my view, the (F-35) process that we had up to date, certainly our experience in 2010-11, was a complete failure, and, I think, a lack of leadership both politically and I think by public servants as well.”

What’s needed is an open debate in Parliament on Canada’s fighter jet requirements, the options available and the costs associated with each, as well as the potential industrial benefits the various choices offer to Canada, he said.

Page’s comments come less than a week after the government released a report from accounting firm KPMG that said the F-35s would cost about $45 billion over a 42-year lifespan. When the report was released, the government promised full analysis of options before committing to purchase any jet.

The government has argued that the higher financial figure in the KPMG is mostly due to the longer time-frame used to assess that life cycle. Government figures from 2010 pegged the cost at about $25 billion over 20 years.

Nonetheless, Page said Canadians and Parliament were misled in the way the government presented information in the past.

“There were numbers that existed at DND (Department of National Defence) that were much higher than what was presented to Parliament,” Page said. “Canadians saw the lower set of numbers ... So in that sense, they were misled.”

Page praised the government’s recent reports on the F-35 program and how it will go about replacing the aging fleet of CF-18s, but asked why it took so long to produce this kind of information.

“Why didn’t we have that report two years ago?” he asked. “My sense is that report existed two years ago (or) something very similar.”

Chris Alexander, parliamentary secretary to Defence Minister Peter MacKay, responded later in the show.

“It’s a bit rich to being saying there’s a total failure of leadership for a project where no money has been spent,” he said.

He said Page’s comments about the public being misled amounted to “rhetoric” that would be more typical coming from the opposition parties.

Alexander repeated the government’s familiar lines that the information released previously relating to purchasing of F-35s had been done in way that was standard, but on the advice of the auditor general earlier this year, the government decided to improve the quality of the information it releases.

Page said there are lessons to be learned from the F-35 process as the government moves forward with a $35-billion shipbuilding program

“Can we go down the same road with ships?” he asked. “Yes, if we’re not careful ... There were some principles around transparency, scrutiny and debate, and I think if we don’t get those principles, then yeah, we can have problems with ships as well.”

 

 

Modificato 17 Dicembre 2012 da Andrea75

[Andrea75]

... link alla pagina dei piloti che testano gli F-35 F-35 Pilot Roster

[Andrea75]

... inizia la formazione dei piloti istruttori USAF Finally Begins F-35 Pilot Training

 

After more than a year-long delay, the U.S. Air Force has begun training its F-35 instructor pilots at Eglin AFB, Fla.

Gen. Edward Rice, who heads the Air Education and Training Center, gave the formal nod to begin pilot training Dec. 17 during a visit to the base, which is where the first F-35 schoolhouse has been established.

The Air Force had slated formal pilot training for last fall, but that plan slipped owing to concerns offered by the Pentagon’s chief tester about the single-engine, stealthy jet’s readiness for regular operations. The Air Force opted instead to institute a rigorous process to test the training syllabus during a formal operational utility evaluation (OUE), which ended earlier this fall. “We didn’t expect any surprises and we didn’t have any surprises,” Rice tells Aviation Week of the OUE.

Meanwhile, the Marine Corps has been training pilots using its F-35B aircraft at Eglin. “Today is a significant milestone,” Rice says. “We have been flying the aircraft for some time now. We have got enough data to give us [a] level of confidence that we are on the timeline that we set out for ourselves — which was slow, to medium, to fast in terms of how aggressive we are going to be — and that we are able to begin a formal pilot training program.”

Though the OUE used the syllabus for the F-35A Block 1A version, the first class to go through formal pilot training will use the Block 1B software, Rice says. Six classes, each with six student pilots, are slated for next year. Training will begin in January. That pilot production rate of 36 pilots is likely to hold for the foreseeable future, he says, though when more aircraft are delivered for operational use an increase will be necessary. “We designed the system to start very slowly,” he says.

The 1A software simply allowed for basic flying and approaches into Eglin. The 1B software includes some data fusion in the cockpit avionics and security features. Weapons capability does not show up, however, until Block 2B.

All the pilots to be trained in the next year will be instructors.

Maintainer training began earlier this year with the arrival of the first F-35A. Nine F-35As owned by the U.S. Air Force, 11 F-35Bs owned by the U.S. Marine Corps and two F-35Bs owned by the U.K. are housed at Eglin.

 

... solo per curiosità, quanto durerà il periodo di formazione?

 

 

 

... analisi dei costi sul LRIP 5 F-35 Deal Targets Lower Price, More Shared Risk

 

The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin have finally agreed on a 4% decrease in the target cost for the next production lot of stealthy F-35s after more than a year of antagonistic negotiations.

Target per-unit airframe costs are as follows for the three variants of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF): $105 million for the conventional-takeoff-and-landing F-35A; $113 million for the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing F-35B and $125 million for the carrier suitable F-35C, according to Joe Dellavedova, a spokesman for the JSF program executive officer. Low-rate, initial production (LRIP) lot 5 includes 32 aircraft — 22 F-35As, three F-35Bs and seven F-35Cs, all for the U.S.

The contract’s total value is $3.8 billion and covers the airframe only; negotiations between the Pentagon and Pratt & Whitney on purchasing the F135 engines for the single-engine fighter are still ongoing, Dellavedova says.

The contract increases Lockheed Martin’s exposure to risk for cost overruns if they occur in building the aircraft. The company must pay 55% of any overruns up to a ceiling of 112% of the target cost, with the government picking up the remainder, Dellavedova says. The LRIP 4 contract evenly split the cost of overruns.

The Pentagon has paid $136 million in concurrency costs for LRIP deals 1-3, or about $4.86 million per aircraft.

The unlikely benefits of cost underruns are equally shared between the Pentagon and Lockheed.

Perhaps more significant is a shift on potential “concurrency costs” associated with the aircraft. This refers to the price of retrofits to already produced aircraft that would be needed as a result of discoveries made during the ongoing F-35 testing program.

In LRIP 4, the Pentagon took any concurrency cost of more than $52 million out of the company’s award fee. The LRIP 5 deal includes a 50/50 split on costs associated with concurrency, Dellavedova says.

The Pentagon embraced the concept of concurrently developing and producing the F-35 when it signed the contract with Lockheed in 2001, but has since worked to shift the financial risk for the strategy to the contractor as a result of ongoing cost overruns, earlier testing delays and missed delivery deadlines.

The contract also includes a payment schedule based on each aircraft’s journey through the production process until the jet is accepted by the Pentagon.

Prior to LRIP 4, the Pentagon bore the burden of overruns to producing the aircraft. Last year, the Pentagon said that totaled $771 million for those lots, averaging at $27.5 million per aircraft (including the concurrency costs).

Deliveries under LRIP 5 are slated to last from August 2013-May 2014, Dellavedova says. Lockheed has delivered 20 airframes in 2012; its goal is 30. A spokesman says the final 10 are off the production line and awaiting paperwork for the formal delivery.

Meanwhile, program officials say that they expect to declare the F-35A training wing at Eglin AFB, Fla., ready to produce instructor pilots by year’s end as earlier proposed.

[TT-1 Pinto]

.... inizia la formazione dei piloti istruttori ....

.... solo per curiosità, quanto durerà il periodo di formazione?

Starting January 7, the Air Force said new F-35A pilots will spend about six weeks in a classroom learning about the new plane, and six weeks of flying time.

 

They will receive about 130 hours of instruction, including 21 hours on a simulator that prepares them for in-flight emergencies such as an engine fire and to use a new helmet that fuses data from the many sensors on the plane.

 

Toth said the current version of the helmet, which has faced some technical challenges, was working well, but pilots could only fly during the daytime and had to avoid thunderstorms.

 

Each pilot will also spend nearly 23 hours training on a ground-based device that prepares them to use the plane's ejection seat.

Fonte .... http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/18/us-lockheed-fighter-training-idUSBRE8BH00F20121218

 

Altre fonti (ufficiali) ....

 

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123317192

http://www.eglin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123326090

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123330275

[Andrea75]

Fonte .... http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/18/us-lockheed-fighter-training-idUSBRE8BH00F20121218

 

Altre fonti (ufficiali) ....

 

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123317192

http://www.eglin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123326090

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123330275

 

 

... grazie, preciso e puntuale come sempre

[Andrea75]

F-35 Lightning: The Joint Strike Fighter Program, 2012 ... un ulteriore segnalazione riguardo al LRIP 5

 

Dec 14/12: LRIP-5. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $127.7 million fixed-price-incentive-fee and cost-plus-incentive-fee modification, finalizing the F-35’s LRIP Lot 5 contract for 32 planes. This contract also includes funds for manufacturing support equipment; 2 program array assemblies; ancillary mission equipment, including pilot flight equipment; preparation for ferrying the aircraft; and redesign to change parts with diminishing manufacturing sources.

 

News reports place the contract’s figures at $3.8 billion, but a review of past contracts, and conversation with Lockheed Martin, show that the entire LRIP-5 is actually $5.15 billion. The distribution also differs from some reports: 21 F-35As, 4 F-35Bs, and 7 F-35Cs. Past awards, in millions, include:

 

Dec 14/12: $127.7 (finalize)

Aug 6/12: $209.8 (spares)

Apr 13/12: $258.8 (add 1 F-35B, 1 F-35C for USA)

March 12/12: $56.4 (support of delivery schedule)

Dec 27/11: $485 (production requirements, incl. some tooling)

Dec 9/11: $4,011.9 (initial 30: 21 F-35A, 3 F-35B, 6 F-35C)

 

So $5.15 billion is the entire contract LRIP-5 so far, including planes, spares/support and tooling/ manufacturing investments (PNR). The support and PNR pieces are still unfinalized and in negotiations, so the figure could climb slightly higher. For the planes themselves, the announced figures add up to about $4.398 billion ($4,011.9 + 258.8 + 127.7), or an average of $137.45 million per plane.

 

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (35%); El Segundo, CA (25%); Warton, United Kingdom (20%); Orlando, FL (10%); Nashua, NH (5%); and Baltimore, MD (5%), and is expected to be completed in October 2014. All contract funds were committed on award, and $112.9 million will expire on Sept 30/12 (N00019-10-C-0002).