Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Pentagon F-35 chief sees no change in total buy

Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:31pm EST

* Air Force still plans to buy 1,763 fighters; Navy 680

* Venlet says postponing production will add some cost

* Confident restructuring plan is realistic, achievable (Adds details from speech, quote, byline)

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON, Feb 15 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Tuesday said it remains committed to buying a total of 2,443 Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jets despite a major restructuring that postponed production of 124 airplanes until after 2016.

"We have not changed our inventory objective," U.S. Navy Vice Admiral David Venlet told industry executives at his first public appearance since taking over as program manager of the Pentagon's largest acquisition program last May.

Venlet said the Air Force still planned to buy 1,763 of the stealthy new fighter jets, and the Navy planned to buy 680 for the Navy and Marine Corps, although it was considering whether to change its mix of carrier and short takeoff variants.

Decisions on that issue would be announced by the service chiefs in coming weeks, Venlet told a luncheon hosted by the National Aeronautic Association.

Venlet said he was confident that the latest restructuring, the program's second in less than year, was realistic and achievable because it was based on "very deep assessments" of all facets of the program, including technical issues, the manufacturing process, testing, and the supply chain.

Earlier reviews were more top down, while these assessments were bottom up, he noted.

Venlet said the decision to add $4.6 billion to the program was carefully and repeatedly vetted, and he was confident that the extra money would suffice to complete its development.

He said Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter had told him that officials had been disappointed when earlier minor tweaks did not produce results. Venlet said he took it to heart when Carter told him, "I don't want to be disappointed."

The admiral acknowledged that postponing production of 124 jets as part of this restructuring on top of 100 jets already deferred earlier would drive up short-term unit costs since the program was still on a very "steep learning curve."

For the next few years, he said it would add in the range of $4 million to the cost of each airplane, tapering off to around $1 million in a few years.

Venlet said he had briefed the eight original partners and Israel on the details of the restructuring plan and its impact on cost, but he sensed continued commitment from the partners.

There had been no change in the plan to sell over 3,100 fighters to partner nations, although he said other countries would revisit their purchase commitments this year.

He said Japan, which had also expressed interest in the F-35 fighter program and had been briefed on its capabilities, could issue a request for proposals for new fighter jets soon.

"They're real serious and I think we'll have some important engagement with them this year," Venlet said.

Venlet said he supported Defense Secretary Robert Gates' drive to cancel development of an interchangeable engine for the F-35 that is being developed by General Electric (GEA.N) and Britain's Rolls Royce (RR.L).

Gates this week called the program "an unnecessary and extravagant expenses," and said he would look at all available legal options to close it down when a current stop-gap measure funding the government ends on March 4.

House lawmakers are due to vote later today or tomorrow on an amendment that would strip funding for the program out of a fiscal 2011 funding measure.

He said the debate over the second engine was driven by budget considerations, not questions about the engine makers' performance.

"This question about the engine is not about one company over another, one engine over another ... It's about constrained resources," he said, noting that he had flown military aircraft with all three engines, and all three companies offered great production and support.

Venlet acknowledged that the cost of the primary engine being built by Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N) had risen by nearly $1 billion to account for too-optimistic previous cost estimates and to guard against some added risks. The final cost was still being negotiated. (Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Bernard Orr)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/ ... 1520110215

F-16.net Sponsor

The 1,763 USAF number has been the elephant in the room for some time. The QDR on page 70 indicates 6 air superiority and 10 strike wings. There are two wings of F-22's, with a future replacement program, and 3 wings of F-15E's. Assuming every F-15C is replaced with an F-35, and not any to the F-22 follow on, there are 11 wings of F-35's. That's about 1,200 F-35's. Even a dozen wings is 1,300.

This of course completely ignores any strike wings being equipped with a future strike UCAS which is certain to happen. A more realistic number of F-35 wings is 10. That is around 1,100 F-35's. A number of 1,763 supports 16 air wings. That number is thus complete rubbish based on the QDR, assumes no cuts from the planned QDR, and assumes no wings flying a future strike UCAS.

There is simply no logical path to arrive at 1,763 given optimistic assumptions of projected force structure as outlined in the QDR. Any realistic analysis comes to 1,100 to 1,300 and that baseline itself can be seen as less than realistic given the budget realities and the potential of a future strike UCAS. The USAF is simply not going to be left behind and leave the USN to operate the only such combat aircraft and one or more strike wings will be flying an X-47B/X-45 class aircraft.

Quote:

...and that baseline itself can be seen as less than realistic given the budget realities and the potential of a future strike UCAS.

Exactly. Well said and noted, lb.

The inevitable class of UCAS/UCAV assets soon entering into a reducing Buying power Procurement budget cycle will indeed demand a level of funding far more than what a dozen or two UAV cost in today's budgets.

They will likely be competiting for procurement funds with both AF's Combat Procurement budget and/or any future NGB Program budgets, at a time when in all reality the overall budget will face real reductions from a probable peak spending package culminating around FY15 or FY16?

Some serious and politically premature boat rocking if talked about today, sure, but a topic which will imminently become a political absolute, when policymakers are next talking to industry. imho.

seruriermarshal wrote:

* Air Force still plans to buy 1,763 fighters; Navy 680

Good to hear but no doubt extremely painfull for some to read.
God speed Tac-air recapitalization indeed...

USAF to Train on New F-35 Before Year's End By DAVE MAJUMDAR 15 Feb 2011

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... &s=AIR

"The U.S. Air Force will begin training on new fifth-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft before the end of the year, the program's top official said.

The 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., will take delivery of 20 F-35A-model conventional take-off variant aircraft with Block 1 training software after a brief informal operational evaluation so that instructor pilots can begin their training, said Vice Adm. Dave Venlet, the new JSF program executive officer.

"We're going to put them in the hands of the fleet and the Air Force is going to be operating [Conventional take-off and landing aircraft] in training at Eglin before the year ends," Venlet told a luncheon hosted by the National Aeronautic Association.

However, because it is unusual for an aircraft to be delivered to line pilots before formal operational testing is complete, Venlet said that the program will conduct an abbreviated informal test prior to handing over the new fighters.

"It's not a full operational test, it doesn't resolve any measures of effectiveness," he said.

However, it will provide an independent evaluation to the services as to how well the new fighter performs in the real world.

"It will inform [Air Education and Training Command]," Venlet said, referring to the Air Force's training arm.

Other than the "operational assessment" of the Air Force F-35 version, Venlet said he hopes to complete sea-trials with the Marine Corps' vertical-landing F-35B model in the fall. That variant has made 30 vertical landings this year, which is good progress towards taking the plane out to sea, he said.

Additionally, the F-35C version for the U.S. Navy's carrier fleet will complete "static structural tests" this year to verify the strength of its airframe. Carrier-borne aircraft require especially robust structures to withstand the stress of arrested landings onboard a ship.

One area where there is a problem is the aircraft's helmet-mounted display, Venlet said. While the helmet is safe to fly, and test pilots fly with the equipment everyday, the images are jittery, he explained. However, the problem is especially pronounced with the night-vision system, Venlet said. The F-35 uses a revolutionary apparatus called the Distributed Aperture System where images from six infrared cameras mounted around the aircraft's fuselage are displayed in the pilot's visor.

Because pilots have to train with the helmet-mounted display, the program is looking at short-term alternatives. One alternative could be to display the imagery on the aircraft's head-down flat-panel displays, Venlet said. Early training flights could use night-vision goggle similar to current aircraft, he added. However, those are not satisfactory solutions long-term, Venlet said. "We're not giving up on the requirement," he declared.

Venlet also said that developmental testing is now slated to end in the first quarter of fiscal year 2016 when flight sciences testing of the A-model and C-model jets, along with the mission systems testing for the variants, will be complete. The F-35B, which has an especially challenging flight envelope to clear due to its unique vertical-landing capability, will lag behind until the fourth quarter of that year. The formal operational testing plan is being reviewed, Venlet said, in order to better integrate it with the flight test plan.

Overall, the Air Force requirement is holding steady at 1763 jets while the Navy and Marine Corps are still planning on buying 680 planes, Venlet said."

They'll figure out the camera problems. Mating six cameras that oscillate is no small feat, but it's also not impossible to overcome.

lb wrote:

The 1,763 USAF number has been the elephant in the room for some time. The QDR on page 70 indicates 6 air superiority and 10 strike wings. There are two wings of F-22's, with a future replacement program, and 3 wings of F-15E's. Assuming every F-15C is replaced with an F-35, and not any to the F-22 follow on, there are 11 wings of F-35's. That's about 1,200 F-35's. Even a dozen wings is 1,300.

This of course completely ignores any strike wings being equipped with a future strike UCAS which is certain to happen. A more realistic number of F-35 wings is 10. That is around 1,100 F-35's. A number of 1,763 supports 16 air wings. That number is thus complete rubbish based on the QDR, assumes no cuts from the planned QDR, and assumes no wings flying a future strike UCAS.

There is simply no logical path to arrive at 1,763 given optimistic assumptions of projected force structure as outlined in the QDR. Any realistic analysis comes to 1,100 to 1,300 and that baseline itself can be seen as less than realistic given the budget realities and the potential of a future strike UCAS. The USAF is simply not going to be left behind and leave the USN to operate the only such combat aircraft and one or more strike wings will be flying an X-47B/X-45 class aircraft.

You're not factoring in training, attrition replacement, and reserve airframes.

madrat wrote:

They'll figure out the camera problems. Mating six cameras that oscillate is no small feat, but it's also not impossible to overcome.

The problem is not with the cameras, but with the display in the HMD.

Yes those numbers certainly do include numbers for training, attrition, etc. Ten air wings is 720 aircraft and the number presented was 1,100 required for 10 air wings. A common method to arrive at the number of aircraft needed is to add 50 to 55% over the raw number required by units.

wrightwing wrote:

lb wrote:

The 1,763 USAF number has been the elephant in the room for some time. The QDR on page 70 indicates 6 air superiority and 10 strike wings. There are two wings of F-22's, with a future replacement program, and 3 wings of F-15E's. Assuming every F-15C is replaced with an F-35, and not any to the F-22 follow on, there are 11 wings of F-35's. That's about 1,200 F-35's. Even a dozen wings is 1,300.

This of course completely ignores any strike wings being equipped with a future strike UCAS which is certain to happen. A more realistic number of F-35 wings is 10. That is around 1,100 F-35's. A number of 1,763 supports 16 air wings. That number is thus complete rubbish based on the QDR, assumes no cuts from the planned QDR, and assumes no wings flying a future strike UCAS.

There is simply no logical path to arrive at 1,763 given optimistic assumptions of projected force structure as outlined in the QDR. Any realistic analysis comes to 1,100 to 1,300 and that baseline itself can be seen as less than realistic given the budget realities and the potential of a future strike UCAS. The USAF is simply not going to be left behind and leave the USN to operate the only such combat aircraft and one or more strike wings will be flying an X-47B/X-45 class aircraft.

You're not factoring in training, attrition replacement, and reserve airframes.

How many wings and attrition birds will the Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard have?
There's more than just active duty units receiving new aircraft.

The 16 fighter wings in the QDR include the reserve and guard.

wrightwing wrote:

How many wings and attrition birds will the Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard have?
There's more than just active duty units receiving new aircraft.

Salute!

This aspect about the F-35 still bugs me.

I realize how all the pinball wizards "love" the cosmic HMD and all its "capabilities". But fer chrissakes, how come the basic jet doesn't have a HUD that has been used and proven since the late sixties, then add on the HMD when it is ready?

Even back when the Earth was still cooling, we had a basic gunsight to use if the HUD had a problem.

The basic capabilities of the F-35 WRT low observability, range, loadout, etc should be the drivers. All the high-tech crapola that still has to be finely-tuned and such is getting in the way of fielding a new strike jet to replace the Hornet and Viper.

If the USAF and Navy and the USMC demanded all the cosmic avionics and such in the contract, then we are seeing the "gold-plated" weapon system and not a basic one that meets basic operational requirements.

Gotta think on this a bit more, but a close friend who flew Harriers can't understand the "B" model. His opinion of the only big capability was to be able to land in a soccer field if he ran outta gas. So I question the USMC "requirement" for the STOVL variant.

Gums sends...

Gums, The USMC have been talking about their requirements for a few years now - getting ahead of the 'anti F35B curve'. Even only one F-35B over their battlefield will be useful in their networked environment (to various ground assets etc.). Having some on their mini-aircraft carrier flattops is very useful to the USMC. Sadly their Harriers were not always used to their capabilities (depending on situation now over a long period of time - so I generalise mightily).

One thing that struck me recently after investigating the Harrier and USMC use was the difference between RN FAA & USMC deployment. Granted their ships are different but unfortunately the USMC seems to have been hampered by USN restrictions. For example DECK Landings were made a chore, needing LSO skills to do well, when the RN did not make vertical landings a big deal - regarding them as the same as vertical landings ashore - with the help of an LSO in FlyCo if needed (seldom).

However the USMC seem to have been forced to use the conventional USN LSO model which is not appropriate. I can post text if required. The new USMC ConOps with F-35B is out there. Some good stuff on SLDinfo.com mentioned in these threads now many times.

AFAIK the HMD is fine in daytime just not up to perfection at night - apparently fixable though.

Salute!

I hear ya, spaz.

I understand the "night" problem with the HMD. I do not understand why a $200,000 HUD/backup sight is not there if the jet costs $100,000,000.

My buddy that flew Harriers ( RAF, not USMC) also flew Thuds, Slufs and Vipers and two combat tours. I take his opinion seriously.

I also hearya about the Navy "rules". I am also familiar with the "gator navy", having worked on the upgrade for the USMC Cobra. I never saw or heard about any Harriers taking off from a helo boat. Landing, yes.

I look at the likely places for employment and I can't see very many that can't allow flying from a boat ( carrier for those not familiar with the lingo) or a real runway a few hundred miles away. If there's one thing about the F-35, it has legs like the A-7.

My fear is that the "B" is holding up the program and getting all the bad PR. My preference is to set the "B" aside for development by the Marines and put most resources into getting the "A" and "C" online ASAP.

For those that keep pushing for new Super Bugs and Vipers, please look at the operational requirements and the LO features and the inherent avionics architecture of the new jet and .... As much as I loved my jets, I have zero problems moving to the next generation. I would not like to go into a war today in the A-7. I would take a Viper, but would not like to face a highly-integrated defense system operated by folks more competent than we saw in 'raqi I or 'raqi II. I would like better situational awareness provided by the avionics. I would like the legs that the F-35 has using internal fuel. In short, i would like to wage war in the F-35.

Gums sends...

Gums, my 'ex-A4G then RN SHAR Harrier' sources have their own story to tell. Some were 'ex-A4G, USMC Harrier (on exchange) then SHAR'. Some of what they have to say is in the 4.4GB PDF online at the URLs in my signature.

It seems that US F-35 people have listened. The F-35B is no longer the lead aircraft - it has been decoupled so as to not hold up the other two variants. USMC is still happy. That is the main thing.

I believe way back there was an issue with the NEW HUD. Took some oldies some getting used to it but once it was a goer there was no problem. I used a fixed gunsight in the A4G whilst some even put grease pencil marks at various spots on front windshield - for the use of. Laughing