The simple graphics I have created below, give us an update on all of the lost F-35 orders over the years. This is real money for shareholders big and small; primes and SMEs.
Originally there were to be only 6 low rate production batchs. Until full rate production appears, and as long as Congress allows the program to live, low rate initial production batches could go past 12. Click images to make them larger.
(Note for the 2003 plan, the LRIP 7and 8 category would be full-rate production)
10 comments:
Looking more and more like the "probable production numbers curve" of the risk based assessment done by APA back in September 2011 as superimposed on that silly graphic from Tom Burbage & Co.
http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af168/Horde01/JSF%20Schedule%20and%20Production/LM_ProdSched_26Oct10_3_2.jpg
Truly, if USAF can procure even 25 F-35A annualy under FRP years, they will be fortunate.
Originally, and as late as 2007 at least, the assumption was that USAF would procure 1,300 F-35A by 2020.
In all reality... USAF will be fortunate to have even 90 combat coded F-35A in IOC by 2020.
That equates to a massive gap and hole.
God speed.
No wonder why Saab believe they will be able to sell 300 Gripens which is about 10% market share of the fighters the upcoming years.
Note, vs. the Lockheed fast facts... I gave them credit for the "funded" numbers for LRIP 6-8. LRIP 7 and 8 as their statement correctly shows ( I have the PDF, I may post it later), have only seen funding for long-lead. We will see what that turns out to be in the future. It could improve or stay flat. Assuming the program goes that far.
I have a serious question to ask.
If the F-35 is cancelled then what? No joke. If you can imagine the impossible happening then what would our fall back be?
Hi Sol,
That question is a real soul searcher. I would gather that you and I have a different opinion on F-35s worth. For the USMC, we already know that Harriers will be SLEP'd (service life enhancement program) out to 2030? That is enough years for the big green to get a better mouse trap established for their prime mission of killing in the littorals. Also, look at some the USMC fire support. You have wonderful Yankee and Zulus for lower threat VTOL. You have an insanely powerful long range GPS/INS rocket artillery that will remove whole locations right off the map. And of course existing artillery (some of it precision). With Navy help, I don't think Marines doing the hard yards on the ground will be short of killing fire support. I will do another Super/F-35 comparison that brings out the ugliness of the whole process. And again I say: The F-35 is too weak to take on emerging high end threats. For everything else, other systems can provide the needed fire support better cheaper. And getting back to non-core USMC jobs like Afghanistan. Imagine what could have been done there had USMC started using Super Tocanos by 2003. It would have been another nice tool in the bag. As you also know with our difference of opinion, I don't think STOVL jets define the USMC. Regards.
funny thing. the Super Tucano fits in the STOVL concept of operations. if the OV-10 could fly off an LHA then so can the Super Tucano. it could keep up with MV-22's too. you gave the first solid plan on what could be done if the plane is cancelled. i just don't personally like the Super Hornet. i'd rather see F-15E's and forgetting having carrier based air than to get Super Hornets. much to ponder.
Good question Sol, even being raised this late in the game. And you're on track there too, in my opinion, with the A-29.
My personal advocacy for USMC's alternative plan, for at least 2 yrs, has been for a split Super Tucano + F-18E/F acquisition.
As you said also, the Super T could very likely be modified for special mission requirements operating off an LHD/LHA. Back during the Libyan conflict eg, you could have operated perhaps 4x Super T's off an LHD (w/ 4-6 hrs on station), for the same operating cost as 1 single Harrier with 1 hr on station. Integrate a couple Brimstone class (or JAGM??) onto the Super T and it would be far more cost-effective and economical vs the F-35B.
A loitering Super T might even be a good forward controller for Super Hornet sorties.
The F-18E/F: Config the SH with the sleek CFT and a centerline tank and that will enable pretty darn good endurance - far superior to an F-35B. Add the next-gen Litening SE pod (hey, the pod view is better now thanks to the CFT replacing wing tanks!) and they'll have even superior optical-targeting situational awareness than w/ the F-35B's EOTS!
And key to remember also, reportedly, the USMC needs an affordable solution to it's 'geriatric' Hornets Now.
Re: USAF: the F-16V type and the available F-15E+ would seem to be feasible and logical alternatives for the short and medium-term stopgap solution. The F-15E+ (pretty much an F-15SA, but w/APG-82) would even enable some aspects of superior situational awareness than would the F-35, given the IRST + APG-82.
So it's not about what aircraft you don't like, or do like, it's about finding the optimal, sustainable and prudent solution given the overall circumstances. That would be the strategic approach at least.
It makes sense to can the F-35B model as the most expensive & least useful of the three versions. However, the Royal Navy is building carriers that will only support STOVL aircraft. Does anyone really think we could pull the rug out from under our Brit friends?
Let them fund it. All of it. Oh wait, the UK has lost interest in the military with massive cuts in favor of the nanny state. We can't play pick up for their bad mistakes. They shot down one lifeboat offered by killing the catapult/arresting wire solution. Also they can't be too concerned about having STOVL fast jets since they recently retired all of them with no viable replacement in sight.
Post a Comment