# Head of F-35 programme fired by Pentagon



## Colin1 (Feb 2, 2010)

BBC News - Pentagon chief fires head of F-35 aircraft programme


----------



## parsifal (Feb 2, 2010)

It was in our papers a couple of days ago. Does not look good for an already troubled development program. I sure hope things work out with this bird. My country's national security is resting on it......


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 2, 2010)

The ever increasing cost of these manned aircraft is just another nail in the coffin for the roles they are expected to perform.

Drones and RPV's is the future, and the less we pay for manned AC, the better we will be.


----------



## Butters (Feb 2, 2010)

They're looking for a three star to take the place of the two-star (The original program head was a 1 star...)

They'll probably assign the job to a some hapless admiral. You know, the guys with a tradition of dutifully going down with their ship...

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 2, 2010)

All in a days work - the threat of withholding progress payments, typical of any new aircraft program.

Over 600 Mil is a lot of cash - Lockheed will pull it out


----------



## parsifal (Feb 2, 2010)

they did a bit of an editorial on the national broadcast news today. They got a defence analyst on the show, who basically said the latest developments were actually a good thing, will force the contractors to extract the digit. also said that for a project as complex as the JSF, this was quite normal and should be expected.

Whatever happens, Australia needs a replacement for its ageing F-18s, as well as the already retired F-111s. Up to 100 aircraft, each costing about $100 million are at stake. we have already invested moree than 5 billion into the development work. The government is still very confident, but doubt is starting to creep in. 

Our air superiority over our neighbours has been our ace since the end of WWII


----------



## Pong (Feb 3, 2010)

600 mil?! Damn, that is pretty expensive.

Well, at least the RAAF has F-18s, we only have prop-driven OV-10s and still use the old yet reliable UH-1. No advance weapons or anything. The last jet we used was the F-5 Freedom Fighter. 

-Arlo


----------



## Glider (Feb 3, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> All in a days work - the threat of withholding progress payments, typical of any new aircraft program.
> 
> Over 600 Mil is a lot of cash - Lockheed will pull it out



Looks like they are already trying. I understand that they are going to maintain the production rate even if the US reduce the number purchased to keep the unit costs down and encourage exports. 
Financially its a gutsy move.


----------



## Butters (Feb 3, 2010)

Glider said:


> Looks like they are already trying. I understand that they are going to maintain the production rate even if the US reduce the number purchased to keep the unit costs down and encourage exports.
> Financially its a gutsy move.



Yeah, that's a real gutsy move. Saying that you'll be giving away airplanes because you'll be spittin'em out faster than customers can take'em, when you can't even get half the planes you have built out of the hanger and off the ground. 

And speaking of finances, here's what those who haven't swallowed the Lockmart kool-aid think about that:

StreetInsider.com - Goldman Sachs Added Lockheed Martin (LMT) to its Conviction Sell List

JL


----------



## parsifal (Feb 3, 2010)

Pong said:


> Well, at least the RAAF has F-18s, we only have prop-driven OV-10s and still use the old yet reliable UH-1. No advance weapons or anything. The last jet we used was the F-5 Freedom Fighter.
> 
> -Arlo



Its the Indonesians and the Malays that are challenging us in the region. There is no chance of any conflict at the moment, but there is issues of force projection, influence and inherent capability at stake.

To give some perspective to this, the malaysians are now deploying SU-37s I believe


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 3, 2010)

Pong said:


> 600 mil?! Damn, that is pretty expensive.
> 
> Well, at least the RAAF has F-18s, we only have prop-driven OV-10s and still use the old yet reliable UH-1. No advance weapons or anything. The last jet we used was the F-5 Freedom Fighter.
> 
> -Arlo



You should get some F-16s, they still make them and they are fairly cheap (as these things go).


----------



## evangilder (Feb 3, 2010)

Butters said:


> Yeah, that's a real gutsy move. Saying that you'll be giving away airplanes because you'll be spittin'em out faster than customers can take'em, when you can't even get half the planes you have built out of the hanger and off the ground.
> 
> And speaking of finances, here's what those who haven't swallowed the Lockmart kool-aid think about that:
> 
> ...





> Gates also said that he thought the program was now on solid ground. "I would say there are no insurmountable problems, technological or otherwise, with the F-35," he said. "We are in a position to move forward with this program in a realistic way."



Any time you have a technologically advanced aircraft, there are going to be issues. If every program got scrapped for technical problems, we'd probably still be flying biplanes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2010)

Butters said:


> Yeah, that's a real gutsy move. Saying that you'll be giving away airplanes because you'll be spittin'em out faster than customers can take'em, when you can't even get half the planes you have built out of the hanger and off the ground.
> 
> And speaking of finances, here's what those who haven't swallowed the Lockmart kool-aid think about that:
> 
> ...



And this is not the first time lockheed or any other major aircraft manufacturer been put in this situation. Do you relize that Lockheed was almost bankrupt in the early 70s even though it had tons of work? Stock fell to just over $2.00 a share. In 8 years with was back to $40 a share and I know many former employees who bought the stock and retired very happily.

Butter, untill you start seeing termantion noticices or out right cancellation of the program, you don't have a leg to sand on. In the mean time 

_Even as they faulted President Obama for not cutting deeply enough in the budget he sent to Congress this week, Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill laid the groundwork Tuesday for all-out fights to try to add back more spending on defense and domestic priorities — and the administration already is warning of vetoes if some lines are crossed

*"Republicans said Mr. Obama's proposed cuts to the C-17 transport aircraft and last year's decision to end the F-22 Raptor will have to be revisited in light of new threats and unmet defense needs"*_

Obama critics mobilize to restore spending cuts - Washington Times

and while this is happening the F-22's MC rate is rising into the 70s'. But at the same time...

*"only two thirds of the service’s aging fleet is available to go up in the air at any time. For the F-15s and F-16s, the mission-capable rate stands at only 74 and 76 percent respectively. "*

Gray Hairs: America’s Aging Air Force | Columns | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

Amd note the date of the article.....


----------



## red admiral (Feb 3, 2010)

$600m is pretty small cash for the Defence Industry. Compared to the 7bn euros that Airbus might get done over for the A400M... 



> we have already invested moree than 5 billion into the development work



Are you sure about that? A $5bn dollar investment from Australia would make them the largest partner on JSF by far, it's about twice the UK contribution, only I haven't seen much evidence of heavy Australian involvement.

There are still plenty of years before the IOC date for F-35 costs to increase further...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2010)

red admiral said:


> $600m is pretty small cash for the Defence Industry....


It is - but it's not for a specific program like the F-35. Program managers are responsible to ensure that progress payments based on performance arrive on time. I work on a DoD contract that awards and extra year on the contract based on the performance of the previous year. Be rest assured that if we were not awarded an add-on year based on poor performance from the previous year, myself along with my boss and the two other managers who run our contract would be terminated immediately.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 3, 2010)

This article spells it out perfectly on both sides...

gates-tries-to-get-f35-program-back-on-course: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

If the Pentagon didn't believe in this aircraft, they would cancell it in a heart beat.


----------



## Pong (Feb 4, 2010)

Clay_Allison said:


> You should get some F-16s, they still make them and they are fairly cheap (as these things go).



Our Government once received an offer for F-16s from Pakistan (Though they were missing some electronic parts), Israeli Kfirs, MiGs and several Chinese aircraft, and the PAF considered buying the F/A-18 but in today's flailing economy, orders for the Hornet are put on hold.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 4, 2010)

_Are you sure about that? A $5bn dollar investment from Australia would make them the largest partner on JSF by far, it's about twice the UK contribution, only I haven't seen much evidence of heavy Australian involvement.

There are still plenty of years before the IOC date for F-35 costs to increase further... _
I doubt the Australian share in the project is larger than britains, but we have invested heavily nevertheless. We are catergorised as a "level 3" partner, whatever that is. Several companies have won contracts for componentry manufacture, and there are several new plants under construction for the very purpose.

This is a recent newspaper article, which suggests a 3.2 Billion investment to date. However that is exclusive of the domestic infrastructure incentives being put up by the Australian taxpayer. 

We are by no means a major player in this venture, but our investment is nevertheless substantial 

Advance purchase could well put Defence out on a wing | The Australian


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2010)

I was told by a friend who works at Lockheed that when the 5th F-35 (3rd F-35B) flew on Feb 2nd, there were no squawks when the aircraft returned. Quite a feat for the 5th production aircraft to roll off the assembly line.

In the mean time Israel wants 75 of them.

Israel presses U.S. for F-35 deal - UPI.com


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 13, 2010)

It suprised me to read that due to weight issues, the F-35 was design as a 7g airframe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 13, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> It suprised me to read that due to weight issues, the F-35 was design as a 7g airframe.



I do know that during the X-35 program, everything was done to keep weight down. I'm wondering it that is still the same for the marine version of the aircraft. 7gs is still pretty hefty.


----------



## red admiral (Feb 13, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> It suprised me to read that due to weight issues, the F-35 was design as a 7g airframe.


 
CTOL is still at 9g, whilst STOVL is lower due to the weight issues, and CV is lower due to the larger wing. Is the lower g limit a particular problem? Not really, as if the fight progresses to WVR there are far more pressing problems for the F-35.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 13, 2010)

Perhaps not, but from what I have gleaned all the airframes are common and thus based upon STOVL version with lift fan compartment and mid-section engine. I am under the impression that they all are 7g airframes.


----------



## red admiral (Feb 14, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> Perhaps not, but from what I have gleaned all the airframes are common and thus based upon STOVL version with lift fan compartment and mid-section engine. I am under the impression that they all are 7g airframes.



Maybe, but I don't think so based on what numbers are available. I'm not quite sure how much commonality there actually is between the STOVL and CTOL, the fuselage is really quite different. It's especially evident from head on.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 14, 2010)

I wasn't referring to planform. Rather commonality with structural components. If CTOL is 9g airframe, great.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 15, 2010)

As I understand it, the centre section of the fuselage in the F-35A and C are common, the F-35B is entirely different and features a different canopy shape with reduced rear vision and a shorter internal weapons bay to accomodate the lift fan between them, this also means that, out of necessity, the structure is also very different in this area, the fusealge contours in this area are also wider and slightly draggier than the other two versions.

The A is a 9g fighter as it will be replacing the F-16, another 9g fighter, and it will compete with other 9g fighters like the Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale etc etc.

The other models are 7g, they are also quite a lot heavier.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 15, 2010)

.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 15, 2010)

Thanks Matt. That middle row showing structure seems to match what I was saying about the centre section, though there seems to be less commonality between the three models overall than I thought


----------



## Trebor (Feb 15, 2010)

I do hope this program pulls out. cos the F-22, I hear is starting to be phased out. and this bird has never seen combat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 15, 2010)

Trebor said:


> I do hope this program pulls out. cos the F-22, I hear is starting to be phased out. and this bird has never seen combat.



Errr, I don't know where you got that idea but the F-22 will be the real replacement for the F-15. They haven't finished the last batch of F-22s as we speak. The only thing that has gone down on the F-22 was the length of the program. The Obama Administration cut the total production numbers down by about 15 or 20 aircraft.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 15, 2010)

Trebor said:


> I do hope this program pulls out. cos the F-22, I hear is starting to be phased out. and this bird has never seen combat.



I think this post has been zapped back in time from the year 2047 by freak atmospheric conditions and it ius really referring to the USAF's autonomous unmanned and fully AI controlled F-48A Phantom III


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 15, 2010)

Waynos said:


> I think this post has been zapped back in time from the year 2047 by freak atmospheric conditions and it ius really referring to the USAF's autonomous unmanned and fully AI controlled F-48A Phantom III


----------



## Trebor (Feb 15, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Errr, I don't know where you got that idea but the F-22 will be the real replacement for the F-15. They haven't finished the last batch of F-22s as we speak. The only thing that has gone down on the F-22 was the length of the program. The Obama Administration cut the total production numbers down by about 15 or 20 aircraft.



I dunno, i just heard somewhere. lol I mean the aircraft's first flight was in 1990. about 20 years ago.


----------



## Waynos (Feb 15, 2010)

Thats the price of progress Trebor. I remember whining like a bitch that the Tornado was just entering service in 1982 when it had flown eight years earlier in 1974! Seems quite speedy by current standards


----------



## evangilder (Feb 15, 2010)

Trebor said:


> I dunno, i just heard somewhere. lol I mean the aircraft's first flight was in 1990. about 20 years ago.



The maiden flight was in 1990. The first flight by the USAF was not until 1997. It's not unusual for there to be quite a time frame between maiden flights and official military flights.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 15, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Thanks Matt. That middle row showing structure seems to match what I was saying about the centre section, though there seems to be less commonality between the three models overall than I thought




Yeah the wing spar structure seems to be mostly common for all airframes. The CTOL/CV has the unigue gun platform not included in the STOVL. But they all have the common mid-section mounted engine. That STOVL C-of-G requirement, I would think, would be limiting for the other airframes.

Having said that, it is amazing that without moving the engine further to the rear for CTOL/CV that they are able to get 2 to 2.5 times the range of existing F-16/F-18C airplanes.


----------

