LM to Australia – Hand over the money
It looks like the big bad Australian government is being accused of not supporting the F-35 program.
This is a surprise as it is so proven and everything.
The articles trots out a lot tired assumptions. For instance that the aircraft can be acquired for $16 billion for 100 jets. At this time no one has a shred of proof on the aircraft cost. The next assumption brought out and held high is that there is up to $9 billion in potential home industry work-share. Just about all F-35 partner nations have gotten that kind of blue-sky marketing dream brief in the dog and pony shows. Just as ridiculous is the global buy will be “more than 3000 aircraft”. Again, unproven.
With so little flight test discovery done, the only thing that is being produced at the moment are a bunch of mistake jets.
Lockmart will be sending over more bishops to tell the unwashed that the pope isn’t happy.
Is it good to be concerned about the not getting enough home work-workshare for this effort? Yes, within reason.
This is about having government hand over cash to various industries. This is hard to do in the economic melt down. And yes other industries get money from governement. Australian government has pitched in billions to plug up holes in the economic dyke.
So the taxpayer will had over “$16 billion” to pay for jet acquisition and then billions more to prop up industries that build the jet. Maybe we need more PowerPoint slides Mr. Burbage.
Aussiedave, 
FtD, 
Chopper and 5 others are discussing. 
solomon 10:39 pm on July 5, 2009 Permalink |
You always use the term unproven, but thats a strawman argument. The only way any of those things would be proven is after they occur. Its called a business plan. Business plans always operate off assumptions and have a margin of risk built in. Its just the way business is done. Australia is a partner in the program, they’re required to fund their part of the development costs. They don’t want to participate then explain to those middle class workers supporting this airplane in Australia that their government pulled out of the program and now they’re out of luck. I would hate to be the politician delivering that message.
SpudmanWP 11:01 pm on July 5, 2009 Permalink |
LM has to line up the manufacturing early or there will be delays when the buys start rolling in…. it’s called planning ahead.
LM was not the ones asking for money… it was AUS companies that wanted help from their local Gov to prepare for the contracts (see quote below).
“This work is sole sourced to Australia, it is not a global competition but unless there is a decision in the next few weeks it will go elsewhere,” an industry source said. Several state governments have expressed interest, but none has committed funds to support their companies.
Bern 11:56 am on July 6, 2009 Permalink |
@solomon: oh, so it’s blackmail now, is it? “buy our jets, or we’ll pull our business from your companies and cost you *votes*…”
Personally, I think JSF isn’t the right aircraft for Australia purely because of the distance issues. The combat radius barely reaches from one airbase to the next… (but then, there aren’t many top-line fighters that do much better).
I think JSF will end up being a very capable aircraft, and some of the technology being developed to improve manufacturing & reduce maintenance will be very valuable. I also think it’ll cost about what a Raptor does now (if you exclude the sunk development costs).
As to being “unproven” – I hope we never have the opportunity to find out the answer to that one, because it’ll mean a lot of families getting bad news on the losing side, whoever that may be.
RSF 3:36 pm on July 6, 2009 Permalink |
Oh, yes its all part of the plan for the JSF. The same plan that involves a schedule that has been revised so many times that its hard to remember what schedule its supposed to be following now!
Solomon: Its certainly business alright, sell a unproven and untested fighter to the entire world on dubious PowerPoint presentations. And that exactly what it is, a unproven and untested, PERIOD. Your comments about the use of Catbird demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what real flight testing is still needed. I don’t feel the need to rewrite that same proven and tested methodology that has been used since the Wright Brothers to test aircraft. Punching holes in the sky is exactly what is needed for the F-35 and it has yet to happen.
Spudman WP: Lets just call a spade a spade, your comments seem to mirror the blue sky marketing from LM. I have yet to hear you say anything objective about the F-35 that differs from the party line.
SpudmanWP 4:34 pm on July 6, 2009 Permalink |
ok.. let’s see….
Things I don’t like about the F-35 program:
1. Should not have been a A model, just B & C. The USAF could just fly C models w/o folding wing tips.
2. Should not have removed the gun on B & C
3. Too conservative it the flight test program
4. They should allow LM to market an export F-22
5. The whole weight reduction delay pissed me off. They should have paid a $$$ penalty for that.
6. They should have had an internal AIM-9X at IOC
7. They should have had a two person version
Matt 9:45 pm on July 6, 2009 Permalink |
“3. Too conservative it the flight test program”
What are you smoking? They can’t even meet the current flight test program. You are saying you wished they had missed more flight tests already?
SpudmanWP 10:16 pm on July 6, 2009 Permalink |
No, I am saying that I wish they would have been more aggressive in the amount of tests and number of airframes.
That is what we will see later this year and especially 2010.
I just wish it would have happened sooner.
Chopper 10:43 pm on July 6, 2009 Permalink |
Only proves yet again that the view looking out is totally different from the view looking in. I’m sure that LM and the US Govt are very aware of a potetnial betrayal of trust that has been built into the F35 program design. Having ignored all the red flags along the way and elevating blind faith to a new level, unfortunately they have no choice now but to proceed. The business of the F35 is bad business, it’s arrogant and self serving and is no way to treat your friends and allies.
FtD 3:25 am on July 7, 2009 Permalink |
since now the senate arms committee asked for a study for F22 export version, Australia should grab that opportunity because Japan & Oz are @ the forefront of arms proliferation of Russian fast jets. a falcon is no match to an eagle, same as F35 cannot outclass SU3X family… so Japan & Aust need F22 export version to balance the SU heavy countries. I believe 60 F22 will be more lethal than 100 F35
Aussiedave 11:42 am on July 15, 2009 Permalink |
Please sell us the F-22.