Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Last edited by geogen on Nov 28, 2009 - 11:11 AM; edited 2 times in total

Quote:

Building of the jet now is low rate, we will not get too far along before significant flight test feedback. Fact is, the rate level we will get to requires building now for the lessons

Good insight, thanks for comments, rs.

As far as 'not getting too far along' goes... I think one of the main critical points being offered on this issue is that in FY11 and FY12 alone, there will be some 165 'lesson jets' bought - prior to the expected test complete/SDD mature date in '13. That's a considerable number of jets (and perhaps the best argument for not stopping an operational Program at 187 units, cough Wink

), but while 165 a/c over the next 2 FY procurements might not be 'too far', relative to the total number expected delivered over the entire program, it's arguably a good many of potentially expensive 'lesson jets'. (Especially when these first LRIP examples are possibly US$200m a pop (TY) UPC, on avg, taken out of respective Defense Procurement budgets.)

edit: For those counting: calculating said initial 210 +/- pre-SDD LRIP jets for example, gives USD$40+ Billion accordingly in Procurement alone (for only 1/3 of LRIP)! *Could some of LRIP be DoD leased, instead of bought??

I know you seem to be on the manufacture side, and that's commendable don't get me wrong (the actual grunt engineers, scientists and qc managers are undertaking an historic project), but the 'capital P' Program critics out here are many times in support of the Jet but simply cringing at the financial and actual tactical planning risks.

F-16.net Sponsor

rivetspacer wrote:

Tai will build complete center fuselages, exactly like those sourced within the states (second source). Final jets will roll off the itallian final assembly & check out facility. I don't know what else to call that except complete assembly. Some 400 or so jets are planned to be built in such a way. The fort worth plant alone will never reach 1 jet a day. The program might, but the Texas checkout will not.

Well it seems clear IF Italy does get the plant, it will only max out at 2 a/c per month and that clearly leaves the Texas plant with the ability to meet the 200+ requirement it plans on building all by its lonesome.

Alenia Aeronautica will operate Italy's F-35 final assembly facility at Cameri air base under Lockheed's control, with the site likely to be capable of completing two aircraft per month.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... plant.html

Then this about negotiations on actually getting the plant in Italy:

At least, that is the vision of the F-35's multinational industrial team. To become reality, the facility first must overcome Alenia's shock over Lockheed's initial price tag to open the production line. As important as Cameri is for Alenia, the company must win the support of a sceptical Italian parliament, which has already slightly reduced planned F-35 orders.

Within the nine-nation partnership, Italy ranks behind only the USA and the UK in its level of investment. Italian industry was initially discouraged by its failure to win key industrial supplier deals from Lockheed. Although its success rate improved, the Italian government is counting on the Cameri plant to recoup its financial investment in the F-35 development programme. The government has estimated the plant would be worth more than $700 million to Italian industry.

The plan to launch the facility was delayed last year by a government change in Rome. But negotiations could reach a climax by the end of the year. Alenia has said that the plan must be approved by the Italian government no later than January. If the decision is delayed again, it would be impossible to deliver the first aircraft from Cameri in 2014.

That schedule pressure had apparently intensified a dispute over the facility's possible cost. It is not clear how Lockheed priced its initial offer to open the facility, but Alenia officials balked, saying in September that the plan needed to be streamlined. The initial offer for Cameri included advanced tooling and processes that Lockheed designed to support a production rate exceeding 200 aircraft a year - the peak output for the Fort Worth final assembly line, but far in excess of the needs for Cameri.

Alenia responded to the Lockheed proposal by suggesting less advanced production tooling and methods that would not generate the same upfront costs.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... e-hub.html

Personally it sounds to me like Italy is trying to get an assembly plant on the cheap. Hopefully LM does not budge on what is expected from a final assembly plant and if Italy wishes not to pony up the cash to do it right, then do not put it there as it is NOT needed anyhow. The Texas plant DOES have plans to build over 200 per year ( and that is considered to be close to 1 per day as they do close down on weekends and holidays ) and that is with a plant that is not going 24/7.. 365 days a year. It could easily add shifts and keep it open more if it had to it would seem. And as the article says, the only planes actually scheduled to be built there are the 120 planes Italy would be getting, with the *possibility* of assembly of the 80 planes scheduled for the Netherlands. So only 120 planes and maybe 80 more for max of 200 there. Not much out of 3500+?

Beazz

Quote:

I know you seem to be on the manufacture side, and that's commendable don't get me wrong (the actual grunt engineers, scientists and qc managers are undertaking an historic project), but the 'capital P' Program critics out here are many times in support of the Jet but simply cringing at the financial and actual tactical planning risks.

Smartest thing I've read on this site in a long time Thumb

Thank you sir! I hope that partly makes up for the dumber things typed when trying to express a viewpoint here Very Happy

Cheers from an old McClellan AFB F-111 final approach spotter and honorary Vark fanclub member.

VarkVet wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/business/24plane.html

They are putting 35’s on the ramp faster than Illegal immigrants produce anchor babies?

Problem is … they are not flying!

that was uncalled for dude...
this aint the flightline.

taans1 wrote:

VarkVet wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/business/24plane.html

They are putting 35’s on the ramp faster than Illegal immigrants produce anchor babies?

Problem is … they are not flying!

that was uncalled for dude...
this aint the flightline.

Oh good grief. What he say was funny, as it was meant to be. If you're that thin skinned maybe you need to not be on a public forum? This is not the Hussein administration where everyone goes around apologizing for their very existence and can't even call a terrorist a terrorist for fear of offending the ones not dead yet!!

Beazz

You know what's uncalled for, DUDE? Illegal immigrants sneaking into this country by the truck load and having anchor babies. That IS what's "UNCALLED FOR". It's ILLEGAL and a total financial liability. Take your PC somewhere else!

<Throttling>

I didn't even know the F-35 was going to be produced outside of the US. Italians are good allies, but maybe we should just build all of them in the US. I know other partners in the program want to see a return on their investment, but don't we need to create more jobs here in the US?

On the other hand, I could see the USAF actually basing F-35As in Europe and Asia, so maybe having an assembly/logistical base in Italy and Korea would help the US Military and NATO partners support aircraft better.

Looks like I just argued with myself. LOL!

discofishing wrote:

You know what's uncalled for, DUDE? Illegal immigrants sneaking into this country by the truck load and having anchor babies. That IS what's "UNCALLED FOR". It's ILLEGAL and a total financial liability. Take your PC somewhere else!

Guess what? This country was - ahem - founded by illegal immigrants. What the hell else do you think the so-called "Pilgrims" were, besides being crazed, murderous religious fanatics whose behavior was no better than Al Qaeda's? Funny how one's perspective on history can change when you look at it OBJECTIVELY... Rolling Eyes

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-16, F-35, and Fort Worth?