F-35 News

[Penguin]

JSF - Now At Special Roll-Away Price
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 3/5/2009 11:17 AM CST

Our lesson for today begins with an aerodynamically advanced, efficient and relatively stealthy aircraft.


It's also an aircraft that someone other than an idiot would buy without an engine. However, this obvious fact seems to have evaded JSF program leaders, who have now started quoting prices for a fighter in a condition on which it won't go anywhere without a tow tractor. The unit tow-away price, perhaps? To quote Amy Butler's report:

"Officials are now quoting cost in 2014 dollars to ensure that potential partners can properly weigh their options; a range of cost figures cited in various years have muddied the ability to make apples-to-apples comparisons, [program office director MG Charles] Davis says. In 2014 dollars, the CTOLs in LRIP-2 cost about $70 million without engine and Stovls cost about $80 million without engine."

What one might ask Gen. Davis is precisely how quoting a no-engine cost un-muddies the issue, when nobody else in the fighter business works with such a price? For potential partners, weighing this sort of nonsense against the detail offered by Gripen (and I'm pretty certain this includes the engine) is even more difficult.

One caveat: within the program, a no-engine price is relevant, because the engines are handled under a separate contract and delivered to Lockheed Martin as government-furnished equipment. Outside it, not so much.

One motivation is to put a low price out there and hope that it gets picked up by the media without qualification (or that someone will think that it's normal, a bit like an airline buying A330s and then making three companies compete separately for the motors). How much difference it makes is uncertain, although the USAF values the F-22 engine at just over $10 million. Like the cost of the aircraft itself, the engine price is high today and should decline in full production.

Moreover, it adds another variable to an already complex picture where flyaway cost (a bare-bones number even with the engine, which excludes most overheads), procurement cost (essentially, what the customer spends each year under F-35-related procurement lines) and program costs compete for attention. Result, as Puzzled in Norway puts it in an email:

The Norwegians think it's $52M.
The Israelis think it's +$100M.
The Dutch think it's €56M.
The Danes think it's $82M with spares and training.
Davis thinks it's $70M for an F-35A in 2014.
Davis thinks it's $70M for a F-35C without engine in 2014.
Davis thinks it's $80M for a F-35A in 2014.
The USAF budget says it's $91M flyaway in 2013.
The GAO thinks it's $104M.

The USAF budget is close; the GAO figure includes the more costly B & C models, also for 2013 - a year which is well up the production ramp-up line. (See these numbers.)
But this is all gearing up for the real fun in the coming month, with both the Selected Acquisition Reports and the GAO annual report on JSF waiting to be released. Recall that a year ago, the JSF program leaders spun the SAR numbers to such good effect that the media responded like a first-generation APG-66 being jammed by a regiment of Backfires, variously reporting that the SAR showed JSF costs to be up, down or stable.
In that context, it might be good ECCM practice for everyone to ignore any "no engine" numbers until this pernicious practice stops.

[Strike7]

Pela demora, ele teria que ser melhor que tudo que existe hoje, alguem ai acredita que ele será tudo o que a imprensa e seus criadores afirmam ser???

Pessoalmente já perdi as esperanças de que ele chegará perto do F-22. Agora gostaria de saber de vocês. O F-35 conseguirá ser superior aos atuais caças de 4 geração??

[Dieneces]

Pela demora, ele teria que ser melhor que tudo que existe hoje, alguem ai acredita que ele será tudo o que a imprensa e seus criadores afirmam ser???

Pessoalmente já perdi as esperanças de que ele chegará perto do F-22. Agora gostaria de saber de vocês. O F-35 conseguirá ser superior aos atuais caças de 4 geração??

Acho que só na questão furtividade ele faz a verdadeira diferença , assim mesmo não pendurando armamento nos pilones externos. Versões atualizadas dos quarta geração acho que equilibrarão a arena de guerra aérea do futuro com o Lightning II , nos demais quesitos . Salvo melhor juízo . E quanto à furtividade , novas técnicas de detecção de alvos aéreos devem anular essa vantagem , como o uso de radares com sensores de varredura espectral , combinados com leitores cinéticos geovetorizados , aproveitando a curvatura terrestre , enfim , toda a parafernália contida no projeto Octant...

[P44]

Dutch Cabinet Feels the Heat Over JSF


(Source: NRC International; published March 9, 2009)



Ask anyone in the Netherlands to react to the words Joint Strike Fighter and there is a good chance he or she will say 'expensive'.

The money set aside for the Joint Strike Fighter is more than the Netherlands spends on development aid on a yearly basis. It is also more money than was spent on the Betuwelijn, the new freight railway line from Rotterdam to Germany that went so much over budget that it will now never make a return on investment.

It is the uncertainty over what the Joint Strike Fighter will eventually end up costing that makes its critics draw a parallel with the Betuwelijn. The Netherlands have so far invested more than 1 billion euros in the development of the American fighter plane. But since no fixed price has been set for the JSF it is unclear if the current budget of 5.7 billion euros will suffice for the planned purchase of 85 planes. In 2010, the Dutch government will decide on the purchase of only a first batch of probably 55 planes.

There is another parallel between the JSF - or the F-35 Lightning II, as Lockheed Martin is calling it now - and the Betuwelijn: both projects came about after successful lobbying work by the industries involved. The Betuwelijn was pushed by the Rotterdam port industry; the JSF by a coalition of the Netherlands air force and Dutch defence companies united in the Netherlands Industrial Fighter Aircraft Replacement Platform (NIFARP). It was with the interests of the Dutch defence industry in mind that the second cabinet of prime minister Wim Kok in 2002 decided to invest 800 million dollars in the development of the JSF. At the time, the cabinet said the investment would pay off "to the very last cent" - but only on the condition that the Netherlands would buy the JSF for its own armed forced.

Too late to quit?

Over the next few years the Netherlands became more and more involved with the JSF. In 2006, it signed a memorandum of understanding about the production and further development of the fighter plane. According to the MoU, the Netherlands would pay a maximum of 359 million euros. Last year, the Dutch parliament agreed to Dutch participation in the 'operational test phase' of the JSF for an amount of 274 million euros. Before the end of April, parliament has to agree to the purchase of the first two JSF planes, a condition for participation in the test phase.

One could argue that this is a mere formality. After all, the Netherlands could hardly get out of the JSF project at this late stage. The defence ministry estimates that getting out now would cost the Netherlands 500 million euros.

But the JSF has nevertheless found itself at the centre of a political storm. Labour, a government coalition party, has been waging a guerrilla war against the JSF in the defence subcommittee of the Dutch parliament. And Labour's member of parliament Angelien Eijsink's stubborn fight to obtain more information about the defence ministry's handling of the JSF has gained her the respect of erstwhile sceptical colleagues. There has been increasing irritation among the members of the defence subcommittee about the way deputy defence minister Jack de Vries, a Christian Democrat, has been 'pushing' the JSF.

"The past year has been a real eye-opener for me," Hero Brinkman of the populist Party for Freedom (PVV) recently told this newspaper. "We are being taken for a ride."

Support eroding

The support of the PVV, an opposition party, means that Eijsink now has a majority in parliament behind her. This has allowed the defence subcommittee to demand that De Vries get a fixed, binding price offer for not just the JSF but also for the Swedish Saab Gripen, cheaper at 4.8 billion euros for 85 planes, and the Advanced F-16.

Last week, De Vries informed parliament that he is ignoring its demands. According to De Vries, it is customary to ask for a fixed price only from manufacturers who can deliver a product that meets the requirements. And according to a recent ministry comparison of the JSF with the Saab Gripen 'Next Generation' and the Advanced F-16, the latter two fighter planes are "unsuitable for the Netherlands".

De Vries is increasingly at odds with parliament over the JSF. Even the orthodox Christian party ChristenUnie, the government's junior coalition partner that has always supported the JSF, is now openly voicing doubt. During a recent visit to the US, ChristenUnie spokesperson Joël Voordewind hinted at the possibility of buying just one test plane this year instead of two.

The question is what the cabinet's next move will be now that the decision to buy the test planes is likely to be rebuffed by parliament. The 2007 coalition agreement between the Christian Democrats, Labour and ChristenUnie merely said that the cabinet has to take a final decision about the JSF no later than 2010. Labour leader and finance minister Wouter Bos doesn't seem very interested in the JSF; he has his hands full with the recession. By the end of April we should find out if Bos is willing to risk confronting the Christian Democrats over the JSF in order to please his own rank and file.

One thing is for sure: the decision over the purchase of the test planes is more than just another step on the way to the JSF. If the Netherlands decide to buy the JSF test planes, Saab has threatened, it will withdraw the last serious contender for the F-35 from the race.

-ends-

[caixeiro]

Nao tem F-35 vomos de F-117.

Israel pode receber alguns F-117 antes dos seus F-35 ficarem prontos e seria uma solucao de, lavar as maos, dos americanos com relacao ao desejo de
Israel de fazer um ataque ao Ira vale a leitura.

Should the F-117 stealth fighter be transferred to Israel? Part One: The Problem
March 14, 9:06 PM

Long standing US policy in the Middle East has been to assure the state of Israel that America would guarantee their military a qualitative edge compared to other regional powers- particularly relating to airpower. With the rising threat of Iran, Washington has been equipping other allies in the region with advanced armaments such as precision guided munitions and advanced warplanes. Often, these allies are not friendly to the Israelis, which causes unease in our only “Western” democratic ally in the area.

Another major concern for Israel is the likely proliferation of advance integrated air defense systems (IADS) by Iran and Syria. With the acquisition of such weapons by these states, Israel’s ability to maintain air dominance over the battlefield will be threatened. While Syria’s air defenses are largely composed of older Soviet designs, the Syrians have long attempted to purchase the latest Russian systems with some success. Syria has reportedly purchased advanced Russian air search radars and at least a modest number of the advanced Russian point defense surface to air missile system known as the Tor-M1 (or SA-15 in NATO terminology). Syria has also attempted to purchase the long range and extremely potent SA-20 (also known as the S-300) surface to air missile system (SAM).

Iran, likewise, has also attempted to purchase similar systems but on a much larger scale. These late generation SAMs- especially when operated as part of an integrated air defense system- pose a lethal threat to non-stealthy conventional aircraft which comprises not only the entire Israeli fleet, but also the bulk of the US arsenal. Indeed, both Israeli and US reports indicate that the SA-20 may already have been delivered to Iran-though the Russians deny these claims.

In addition to the SAM threat, comes the danger from the proliferation of 4th generation fighters such as the Russian MiG-29 and Su-27 series and their derivatives around the world. These fighters are equal in most respects to current generation US built fighters such the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon which comprise the bulk of the US and Israeli arsenal. In fact, certain versions of these advanced Russian built fighters are superior in one or more areas to US 4th generation fighters. Only the superior skills of Israeli and American pilots would prevent potential adversaries from gaining air superiority. However, superior training can take you only so far…

Exercises have shown that the loss rate for friendly forces flying 4th generation fighters against late model Russian designs increases dramatically as the technological edge shifts in favour of a potential adversary. A few years ago, American pilots flying the F-15 Eagle air superiority fighters during exercises faced Indian pilots flying Su-30s, a derivative of the Su-27 series, and found themselves surprised and at a severe disadvantage against the powerful Russian built jets.

Upgraded models of the Su-27 are now found worldwide, operated by even the most desperately poor Third World countries- such as Angola and Ethiopia. Advanced warplanes can be found even in the arsenals of countries such as Myanmar and Bangladesh, both of whom operate the formidable MiG-29 Fulcrum. Syria and Iran already operate the MiG-29 and there are reports of the two countries attempting to acquire even more advanced and powerful Su-27 derivatives such as the Su-30- advanced versions of which are operated by India and China. Venezuela operates a full squadron of advanced Su-30 fighters.

More disturbingly, some recent reports have suggested that the Chinese have offered to sell their powerful new J-10 fighter to Iran. The J-10 is at least an equal to the US built F-16 and is probably closer in performance to the extremely potent European Typhoon fighter aircraft according to many analysts.

If these reports prove to be correct, the Iranians would for the first time, possess a warplane capable of striking at Israel directly. The ultimate irony here being that the J-10 was developed by China with considerable technical assistance from Israel using technology developed for the now defunct Lavi project (which itself was based on the US F-16 fighter). Combined with an advanced integrated air defense system, these fighters pose a serious challenge, not only for the Israelis, but also for American airpower.

The potential threat of an Iranian nuclear weapons program is another challenge faced by the Israelis. With the procurement of advanced integrated air defenses and modern fighters by Iran, Israel does not have the capability to strike with impunity against suspected nuclear sites in that country. The Israeli strike on the purported Syrian nuclear facility a couple of years ago was deceptive in its ease as the Syrian air defenses are not nearly as formidable as those of Iran. An additional factor was that the relative distances involved were quite short. Ultimately, Israeli success may have also had as much to do with Syrian ineptitude as it did with the military prowess of the IDF (Israel Defense Force).

Another concern for the Israelis is that the relative qualitative edge that their military currently enjoys compared to their largely hostile neighbours is being eroded by an unlikely source- the United States. Keen to counter a rising Iran, the United States has approved the sale of advanced precision guided weapons such as the JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) to such Arab countries as Saudi Arabia. In fact some Arab countries operate equipment that is comparable or in some cases superior to aircraft operated by both Israeli forces and the United States military.

The United Arab Emirates’ Block 60 F-16E/F is a prime example of an American built warplane that is superior to any version of that aircraft operated by either the US or Israel. Additionally, the recent Saudi purchase of the Eurofighter Typhoon is yet another example of an Arab qualitative advantage in terms of equipment. Of course, in terms of training, the IDF maintains a huge qualitative edge over any Arab state, however, training can only make up for so much of a performance deficit.

[caixeiro]

Should the F-117 stealth fighter be transferred to Israel? Part Two: The solution
March 15, 3:18 PM

Part Two continues with a potential partial solution:

One quick solution the United States might undertake to immediately restore Israel’s undisputed qualitative edge in the airpower arena in the near term would be to transfer the USAF’s recently retired F117 stealth fighters to the IDF. It will not restore the Israeli advantage over Arab or Iranian operated 4th generation fighters, but it would address the issue of defeating advanced integrated air defense systems to a large extent- weapons systems that will eventually be fielded in the region (if they have not been already). That being said, only an air to air capable 5th generation fighter such as the F-35 or F-22 can address the threat of enemy fighters, but for the time being, the transfer of the F-117 Night Hawk stealth fighter is a good temporary solution.

While this idea may seem sacrilegious to many, the transfer of the F-117 is not a huge step. The United States has already agreed to export to Israel the far more advanced and infinitely more capable F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter- however the F-35 will not be available to the IDF until 2014 at the earliest. The F-35 is still in developmental flight testing and will not be operational for quite sometime. As such, the transfer of the F-117 would provide an immediate boost to Israeli capabilities and would signal a firm US commitment to Israeli security by the Obama Administration.

The F-117 has been replaced in US service by Lockheed Martin’s outstanding F-22A Raptor air dominance fighter with the surviving F-117 aircraft having been relegated to mothballs in the hangars in Tonopah, Nevada, where they were once based. However, the aging strike aircraft are still formidable warplanes. With the introduction of the Raptor, they represent a redundant capability during a time when the USAF has no money to spare.

Being a design that dates back into the 70s, the F-117 is not a particularly advanced aircraft having largely been built from off the shelf components taken from other aircraft. Its faceted design has long since been rendered obsolete by modern computer aided design technologies. Whatever classified technologies that remain onboard the aircraft- which the United States needs to protect- can probably be safely removed prior to any transfer of the aircraft. Along with security arrangements and end-user monitoring negotiated with Israel, this would protect US technology from being passed on to third parties such as China.

With the F-117 in already in storage, a program to transfer the aircraft to the IDF could begin in short order. This would bridge the stealth gap for the IDF until the arrival of the first 25 stealthy multi-role F-35s sometime during the next decade. In fact, the F-117 aircraft might enable the IDF to purchase fewer F-35s while maintaining a significant stealthy long range strike capability. The transfer of the F-117s to Israel for a nominal cost would significantly bolster Israeli capabilities without the full purchase of the currently planned 75 F-35 JSF aircraft for the IDF- which may be too expensive for Israel with the level of customization requested by the IDF (if in fact such modifications are feasible).

Even with the threats that surround Israel, a plane such as the F-22 Raptor is more capability for a much higher cost than is required by the IDF. More importantly, the F-22 was never built for export, it has none of the anti-tamper devices designed to protect sensitive American technologies built into its avionics from theft, duplication, or transfer to a third party- which is critical given the Israeli record on such matters.

Installing such technologies to the Raptor would boost the F-22’s already high cost of 130+ million dollars per unit to somewhere in the realm of 250+ million dollars per plane and may not completely guarantee the security of the aircraft’s sensitive avionics. Additionally, while the Raptor has no equal in the air dominance role- it has rather limited air to ground capabilities even with the scheduled integration of the Increment 3.2 software package in 2011.

The Raptor currently only has the capability to carry two internal 1000 lbs JDAMs. In the future however (around 2011), when it will be able to carry eight SDBs (Small Diameter Bomb) and include a SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) radar mapping capability, it will still be less capable in the strike role and have a shorter ranger than the F-35. Granted is the fact that the Raptor will be more survivable due to it’s much greater altitude and speed. Selling the Raptor to Israel would also send a very negative signal to America’s Arab allies in addition to the technology security issues highlighted earlier. Granted also is that transferring the F-117 will not win us any popularity contests either, but it would allow Israel to deal with Iran without direct US intervention.

In short, America’s long standing policy towards Israel has been to guarantee that nations’ qualitative military edge over its largely hostile neighbours. This edge has recently been diminished by the proliferation of new and advanced weapons from the Russians, Europeans and the United States into the theatre. In order to restore the potential capabilities gap in long range strike in a high threat environment that is likely to develop in the area in the near future prior to the arrival of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the United States should supply surplus F-117 stealth aircraft to Israel.

[Enlil]

Se isso acontecer a Rússia tem q liberar S-300 pro Irã, afinal muito se fala da ameaça nuclear iraniana, mas são eles q estão sendo insistentemente ameaçados por Israel q não quer perder o monopólio nuclear no Oriente Médio. Santa hipocrisia... Esse TNPN só vale p/os desafetos de Washington...

[Sintra]

Primeiro contrato de produção fora dos Estados Unidos assinado. Três F-35B para a Grã Bretanha.
Excelentes noticias para a JSF Team.

UK signs for first three F-35B Joint Strike Fighters
By Craig Hoyle

The UK has kept its commitment to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme despite massive pressure on its procurement budget, today signing for its first three production aircraft to support initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) of the fifth-generation fighter.

Signed during a visit to Washington DC by defence secretary John Hutton, the deal will see the UK take delivery of its first short take-off and vertical landing F-35Bs in 2011, with the aircraft to be drawn from the JSF programme's third low-rate initial production batch.



To be delivered in 2011-12, the UK aircraft will be assigned to a joint test team for the F-35 in the USA, with the Netherlands also expected to acquire two conventional take-off and landing F-35As to support IOT&E activities.

Describing the JSF as "an essential part of our Future Combat Air Capability", Hutton says: "Working alongside their US colleagues, our pilots will gain an unrivalled understanding of this awesome aircraft and its capabilities."

As the USA's lone Level 1 partner to the JSF programme, the UK expects to spend £2 billion ($2.79 billion) during the design's ongoing system development and demonstration phase. More than £1.1 billion of this total had been spent by 31 March 2008, according to the UK National Audit Office's Major Projects 2008 report.

The MoD declines to reveal the value of its 18 March contract, citing "commercial sensitivity", but confirms that the sum is in addition to its previously identified £2 billion investment in the programme.

To be acquired under its Joint Combat Aircraft project, the UK's future F-35Bs will replace its current BAE Systems Harrier GR7/9s, operated by the Royal Air Force/Royal Navy Joint Force Harrier organisation. Up to 138 of the aircraft are expected to be purchased.

Up to 32 of the aircraft will be deployed aboard each of the RN's two 65,000t Future Aircraft Carrier vessels, and today's IOT&E acquisition "will enable the MoD to move forward in developing the Carrier Strike capability", Hutton says.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-fighters.html

[Penguin]

Turkish F-35 Supplier to Northrop Grumman Delivers First Structural Assemblies


(Source: Northrop Grumman Corp.; issued March 18, 2009)



EL SEGUNDO, Calif. --- Turkish Aerospace Industries, Inc. (TAI), a major international supplier to Northrop Grumman Corporation on the F-35 Lightning II aircraft program, has produced and delivered its first structural assemblies for the jet.

The metallic assemblies, which contain more than 100 parts each, represent the next major step forward in TAI's evolving role as a second source supplier of complete F-35 center fuselages. The company delivered its first F-35 composite parts in late 2008.

The assemblies from TAI will be used in center fuselages for F-35 conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variants. Northrop Grumman, a principal member of the Lockheed Martin-led F-35 industry team, is currently assembling those CTOL center fuselages in Palmdale, Calif., as part of the second phase of F-35 low rate initial production.

“We are very encouraged by TAI's steady progress in maturing the production and assembly processes that will be required to eventually produce 400 center fuselages for the program,'' said Mark Tucker, vice president of tactical systems and F-35 program manager for Northrop Grumman's Aerospace Systems sector.

TAI is scheduled to produce this metallic structural assembly for all CTOL center fuselages currently planned for the F-35 program, added Tucker. All of the assemblies will be produced in TAI's manufacturing facility in Ankara, Turkey. Northrop Grumman previously produced the assembly in Palmdale.

Northrop Grumman is responsible for the design and production of center fuselages for all three variants of F-35 aircraft: CTOL; short take-off, vertical landing; and carrier-compatible. The F-35 Lightning II program expects to build more than 3,100 aircraft.

As a member of the F-35 global industry team, Northrop Grumman is central to the development, production and support of the F-35 Lightning II. The company designed and produces the aircraft's center fuselage, radar and other key avionics including electro-optical and communications subsystems; develops mission systems and mission-planning software; leads the team's development of pilot and maintenance training system courseware; and manages the team's use, support and maintenance of low-observable technologies.


Northrop Grumman Corporation is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide.

-ends-

[Penguin]

First Marine Pilots Joint Strike Fighter


(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued March 20, 2009)


The first Marine Joint Strike Fighter developmental test pilot took off from the flight line at the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics plant here March 19.

Maj. Joseph "O. D." Bachmann became the first Marine to pilot the F-35 Lightning II fighter jet, which is slated to become part of the Corps’ aviation arsenal by 2012.

Bachmann said the purpose of the flight was to acquire experience and become comfortable with the aircraft so he can to find any potential flaws or issues that may need correction, especially in the short take-off and vertical landing version of the aircraft.

"Mission: accomplished," said Bachmann after his first F-35 flight. "It was amazingly easy to fly. It was surreal. It was badass."

The F-35 is a single-engine, single-passenger, multi-role, stealth-capable, fifth generation supersonic strike fighter aircraft that was developed by Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter Program. Lockheed Martin is producing three variants of the aircraft.

Bachmann took off with the F-35A, the conventional take-off and landing variant. However, the Marine Corps is slated to field the F-35B, which is the short take-off and vertical landing variant of the fighter jet. Thus, the aircraft will become the Corps' primary aircraft fighter and will replace the Navy and Marine Corps' F/A-18 Hornet and the Corps' AV-8B Harrier II. It will also replace the Navy and Marine's EA-6B Prowler, an electronic warfare aircraft.

The F-35A variant is also slated to replace the Air Force's F-16 Fighting Falcon and A-10 Thunderbold II. The F-35C, the carrier variant, will go to the Navy.

Bachmann said the F-35 can do everything these three Marine Corps legacy fighter jets can do, "but better and cheaper."

One of the F-35's best of many capabilities is stealth, he added. This will be the first time the Corps will have a stealth aircraft, which according to Marine officials, will make the Marines adapt to new warfighting tactics.

The F-35B is the world's first supersonic and radar-evading stealth aircraft with short take-off and vertical landing capabilities. The aircraft can operate from a variety of ships, roads and austere bases.

"When the F-35 gets fielded, the rest of the world can't turn a blind eye to our force being stealth," said Bachmann, a native of Topeka, Kansas. "[The enemy] won't ever know we're coming. It's awesome."

Operation support cost is also reduced with the F-35. According to Lockheed Martin, the F-35B will provide unequaled multi-mission capability with a fraction of the support required by other fighter jets.

"This aircraft and its game-changing capabilities are going to offer Marine and joint force commanders on the front lines the most affordable and technologically-advanced fifth-generation aircraft in the world," said Marine Corps Deputy Commandant for Aviation Lt. Gen. George Trautman.

Bachmann said the F-35 is going to be easier to fly and easier to fix.

"It is more user-friendly to fix. So, the lance corporal whose job it is to fix the airplane will spend less time doing that," Bachmann added.

Bachmann and his fellow Marine and civilian test pilots will continue to fly, taxi and use the simulator version of the aircraft until they feel the aircraft is "perfect" and ready to be fielded. They are currently working side-by-side with the Lockheed Martin engineers to make the necessary adjustments as production continues.


"I better work really hard right now to make sure all things are done right so when it [goes out], it is perfect," Bachmann said. "Anything but perfect is failure. It needs to be perfect."

Doug Pearson, vice president of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Test Force, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, said fielding the new aircraft is a great way to take American industry and come out with equipment the warfighter needs.

The three F-35 variants were derived from a common design developed together. Using the same sustainment infrastructure worldwide, the F-35 will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially, making the aircraft the most cost-effective fighter program in history, according to a Lockheed Martin press release.

"It's just an amazing piece of machinery," Pearson said. "We are building an airplane that will last 8,000 flight hours.

"We're diligently working to keep our edge," continued Pearson. "God forbid we ever have a major conflict, but if we do, we need [this aircraft] and we need it to be swift."

Pearson continued to stress how the Marines operate all around the world in the ugliest situations and they need a "survival machine" to go into harm's way, survive and be effective. And that's what the F-35 is designed to do.

Bachmann sees the most important role of the aircraft is its benefit to the Marine walking point in a combat zone, when it's dark, scary and the enemy is near. There's a strike fighter that'll be in the air that's lethal, stealthy and it will kill the enemy before they know they're being watched, he illustrated.

"For the Marine that's out on the front all by himself, he's going to have a higher level of protection behind him," he said.

The whole point of the production of the aircraft was to protect the Marines on the ground - the grunts, said Staff Sgt. Ben Tchinski, an aviation ordinance technician and an F-35 basic maintainer with integrated test force out of Patuxent River, Md. Tchinski, a native of California, Pa., is one of the few Marines who are also learning side-by-side with engineers of the F-35 on how to properly fix and maintain the aircraft.

Tchinski also said the Marine Corps' new "Joint Strike Fighter" will "save more lives and kill more bad guys."

All who are part of the production and fielding of the aircraft agree, and the Marines are very welcoming to their new fighter jet.

"The Marine Corps opted to wait more than ten years for this multi-role aircraft rather than invest billions of dollars in legacy upgrades that offer only marginal incremental improvement in operational performance at high cost," Trautman said. "We didn't want something 'a little better.' We wanted an aircraft that will allow us to leverage technologies that have improved tremendously over the past few years. The F-35 is an aircraft that can perform a wide variety of missions across the full range of military operations far better than any other aircraft flying anywhere today."

-ends-

[Anderson TR]

Pela demora, ele teria que ser melhor que tudo que existe hoje, alguem ai acredita que ele será tudo o que a imprensa e seus criadores afirmam ser???

Pessoalmente já perdi as esperanças de que ele chegará perto do F-22. Agora gostaria de saber de vocês. O F-35 conseguirá ser superior aos atuais caças de 4 geração??

Acho que só na questão furtividade ele faz a verdadeira diferença , assim mesmo não pendurando armamento nos pilones externos. Versões atualizadas dos quarta geração acho que equilibrarão a arena de guerra aérea do futuro com o Lightning II , nos demais quesitos . Salvo melhor juízo . E quanto à furtividade , novas técnicas de detecção de alvos aéreos devem anular essa vantagem , como o uso de radares com sensores de varredura espectral , combinados com leitores cinéticos geovetorizados , aproveitando a curvatura terrestre , enfim , toda a parafernália contida no projeto Octant...

Se toda essa parafernália de detecção for realmente desenvolvida o F-35 perde o seu grande trunfo, pois, não é um caça com uma preocupação tão grande assim com a Furtividade!!!

[Sintra]

Program Official Offers Cash Rebate on JSF


(Source: defense-aerospace.com; published March 24, 2009)



By Giovanni de Briganti

PARIS --- Pricing of the Joint Strike Fighter has always seemed to be firmly rooted in fantasy, and the outgoing head of the JSF Program Office has again demonstrated just how divorced this program is from reality.

The “official” unit price quoted by Lockheed Martin for the JSF remains pegged at about $65 million, although even Lockheed recently admitted that it won’t know the exact price until 2012.

JSF Program Office (JPO) director Major General Charles Davis now tells Jane’s Defence Review that the US and F-35 partner countries “could save as much as USD 13 billion” by buying “about 150 extra aircraft between 2010 and 2015,” he says.

Davis’ figures mean that each of the 150 extra aircraft he’s offering would save $86.6 million, far more than the $65 million that the JSF is supposed to cost.

Does this mean a cash rebate of $21.6 million for each additional JSF bought?

If so, it would explain why Norway, the Netherlands and the UK remain enthusiastic JSF backers, despite all the contrary evidence that has emerged in recent years regarding the program’s viability.

By the way, in its latest JSF report GAO calculated that buying an additional 169 aircraft between FY2010 and 2015 would cost “up to $33.4 billion in additional procurement funding,” although they are the same extra aircraft that Davis sees as the source of $13 billion savings.


Simple arithmetic shows that each of these 169 additional aircraft would cost $197.6 million each.

So, in a nutshell, Davis says that each extra aircraft would save $86.6 million, but GAO says they would cost $197.6 million each, but Lockheed says unit cost is $65 million.

Now that Madoff funds are no longer available, here’s an idea for a great investment: buy JSF aircraft at Lockheed’s price, pocket the cash rebate from the JPO, and sell the aircraft on to the Pentagon at the GAO price:

$197.6M - $65M = $132.6M + $21.6M cash rebate = $154.2M net profit per aircraft.

Don’t have any spare cash? Then forget the aircraft, just buy JSF options, and settle for the $21.6 million cash rebate. For a 12-aircraft squadron, net profit is $259.63 million.

If you’re Norway, you could run a profit of $1,036.8 million (that’s $1.03 billion) on 48 aircraft. And Dassault might even pay you to take near-new Mirage 2000 Mk 9s off the U.A.E.’s hands so they can buy Rafales.

So the JSF finally starts to make financial sense – just as long as you don’t buy any.

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... te%3F.html

[Immortal Horgh]

Isto está parecendo a Newegg, onde muitos produtos tem rebate



[ ]s

[eu sou eu]

f35 em ação

[Penguin]