Any military program will have proposed numbers to be built change.
For the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), it is approaching the time where it may enter the classic death spiral. That is, because it was over-sold and “front-loaded” to Congress years ago with all kinds of hopeful language, not much of that over-sell matches the reality of today. That reality is of a program that is behind and over-cost. There is the risk that less aircraft will be purchased as problems develop.
The United States Air Force (USAF) is the biggest proposed buyer of the F-35. They are planned to get 1763 of the airframes. Back in 2006, there were almost 10 years added to the final order date of the F-35; 2028 to 2035-37. The motivation for this was that the USAF is low on money for just about everything. Nothing has changed today. The USAF still has not figured out how to purchase more than 48 F-35s per year once full rate production kicks in on the scheduled 2014 date. Add to this, full-rate production might not happen until 1015 or 2016. All that is happening now is that a lot of “mistake jets” are being procured with little flight test knowledge to back up current production methods. Since no one can state what Congress will authorize 10-15 years from now, let alone 5 years, a plan that states that the USAF will buy X number of aircraft so many years into the future is so much vaporware. USAF has already stated that there may be less than those 1763, but certainly more than 1500. Any number slip means that costs will rise. USAF at this time will be lucky to see F-35s numbering in the hundreds.
All of this has a huge affect on the F-35 JSF partner nations. If the biggest buyer of the F-35 is having problems, it won’t be easy.
The chart below shows the JSF partner nations. I consider it very optimistic. Many partner nations already have their own F-35 death spiral in progress. The asterisk shows partner nations that have some kind of overly obvious risk with the program. For example Canada and Denmark are looking at competition and not just the F-35 to replace their ageing fighter aircraft. The JSF plan (PDF) is an estimate of what partner nations will buy. It is not an absolute. Norwegian defence has stated that they will go with the F-35. The problem is that the politicians have to approve the money. This will be difficult with a military that is hurting in other areas. The Netherlands is not a done deal. Even if it does become one, the rising price in the F-35 project means that they will never see anywhere near 85 F-35s. The U.K. is a dying patient. Turkey looks good right now as they have a lot of home industry. Australia? Hard to say at this time what the politicians will fund. If they authorize money to be spent buying F-35s, it will join a long line of other high risk military procurement programs. This is a national tradition.
Maybe 2010 will be a year that the F-35 program gets turned around and shows real progress. Lets hope so.
| F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Partner Nation Status |
||
| Country | Plan | Actual |
| Australia | 100 | 100 |
| Canada * | 80 | 65 |
| Denmark * | 48 | 30 |
| Italy | 131 | 131 |
| Netherlands * | 85 | 85 |
| Norway * | 48 | 48 |
| Turkey | 100 | 120 |
| United Kingdom * |
138 | 50 |
| Totals | 730 | 629 |
.
Australia has put itself in the position of not having many options. When the Boeing PowerPoint slides came across the various Canberra desks, it seems like there was a collective grin break out, and John Howard said “We’ll take a hundred. Anything to subsidise US defense spending for my mate George!”.
And so, with no oversight, a cancellation of the pre-existing AIR6000 project (which was already looking into future jets), and the announced cessation of the F-111 program, the decision was made.
When The Coalition was unceremoniously turfed out of office 18 months ago, the Labor government looked into the whole shebang, and came to the conclusion that a not-yet-delivered-and-probably late F-35 that has a combat range allowing it to barely attack Hobart from Melbourne maybe wasn’t such a good idea when compared to the F-111 with nearly four times the combat range, extensive personell experience, and copious spare parts. However, the F-111 decomissioning program was too far along, so that was that. We’re currently leasing F-18E’s to supplement our aging F/A-18A/Bs, which are rapidly wearing out their centrebarrels.
Apparently, the fact that Australia is surrounded by large bodies of water, necessitating an aircraft with a large combat range didn’t enter the heads of those making decisions (there was even talk of mounting A2A missiles on P3C Orions, fer christs sake, to “ensure there was no capability gap” between F-111 decom and F-35 arrival).
When the ‘final’ cost of the F-35 is finally revealed, we’d have probably been better off skipping the F-18E’s (which are essentially a new aircraft anyway, so no inventory advantage) and going straight to buying, outright, a fleet of the venerable F-15E Strike Eagles.
I love well informed commentary. It’s so “relevant”…
There was NO talk of arming P-3′s with A2A missiles. There was talk of arming them with the follow-on standoff missile, the AGM-158 JASSM which mirrors the practice of the USN with it’s P-3/SLAM-ER combo.
ADF decided not to go down this path however, due to a poor return on investment given the relatively short remaining life of the P-3 in Australian service (less than 10 years) and retained the P-3/Harpoon missile combo, which will tide us over until P-8A and whichever missile is chosen to replace the Harpoon is brought into service.
The distance between Melbourne and Hobart is 601 kilometres, as the crow flies. The combat radius of the F-35A is 673nm on a typical strike mission (ie: 673nm each WAY with 5200lbs of internal stores). Perhaps you could do a bit of math, eh?
According to my math it could take off from Avalon, fly to Hobart strike it’s targets with a minimum of 30 minutes “on station”, conduct a post strike BDA mission and fly back to Avalon to prepare for it’s next mission, without being refuelled in the air and with plenty of margin before it reaches “bingo”.
Whilst the F-111 could do this too, what’s the point? So could a P-3 Orion or a B-737. If there is a fighter threat based in Hobart, the F-111 is worse than useless because no-one will risk flying the mission in the first place, without fighter escort.
So all you need to strike Hobart in the face of an actual threat with an F-111 is:
A). The F-111 capability. This includes the external jamming pod, sidewinder AAM and AGM-142 missile of which the Pig can only carry 2x missiles.
2). A fighter capability to escort the F-111 and engage the enemy fighters/GBAD systems that will KNOW the F-111 is coming thanks to it’s “barn door” radar cross section and hugely “visible” terrain following radar.
3). An air to air refueller aircraft to provide the fighters sufficient range to exploit the so-called advantage of the F-111 platform.
Yah, a very elegant and efficient way of achieving strike capability…
That was supposed to be A2G, not A2A. Sorry.
The logic of even the USN mounting standoff attack missiles on an Orion fails me. Equiping a slow, turboprop aircraft with the RCS of a battleship with weapons and sending it up against an enemy who will presumably have something like a modern Sukhoi stikes me as a good way to end up with a lot of shot-down Orions. Of course, maybe the USN was thinking of using the Orions as an attack platform in an uncontested airspace.
Using an Orion to go after shipping is one thing, going after land targets is quite another, in my book.
My comment wasn’t meant to be a hard-and-fast examination, but just a bit of hyperbole to illustrate the fact we’re replacing a strategic (for Australia, tactical for someone like the US) bomber with a short/medium-range ‘jack of all trades’.
By all means, the F-35 is a good replacement for the F/A-18′s, but not for the F-111, in my book at least. Perhaps the ADF is adopting a ‘let them come to us’ strategy of continental defense, and so extreme combat range isn’t such an issue.
Any reasonable (imo) appraisal of future threats to Australia would come to the conclusion that only Indonesia, China, India, and the US are credible threats. Indonesia seems to be too fractured to present a ‘full-scale’ threat, the US is an ally, India is preoccupied with China and Pakistan, and China hasn’t been historically expansionist. Thus, one could come to the conclusion that low-intensiy conflicts are the future for Australia, and that the requirement of fighter escorts for an F-111 strike package is perhaps less necessary. All of the above countries vastly out-populate Australia, and if it comes to a full scale fight, we’re probably toast, even if we had a fleet of FB-22′s, F-35A’s, and ‘stretched’ F-35′s at our disposal. In fact, I reckon China, India, and Indonesia wouldn’t have to even engage us militarily: just build a bunch of boats and send the civilian population over. It’s not like we’ll sink them.
In any case, it seems the ‘fighter clique’ in Russell Hill has won the argument over the ‘bomber clique’. Perhaps all the development problems the F-35 has had means it’ll have got all of them out of the way, and will have none during operation.
One can hope. The F-111 had a troubled development and it turned out to be a great buy. In any case, the decision’s been made, and we all have to live with it. I’d be a lot more comfortable if the Coalition (read: Howard) had actually followed some sort of procedure rather than falling for some slick talk and fancy PowerPoint slides. If the F-35 turns out to be a great buy I’ll be more than happy, but the ADF/Government has made a lot of bad decisions in recent years, and it doesn’t fill me with confidence. 
Very hard hitting, but legit article, Eric.
Regarding the 2007 USAF assessment of a 48/yr max F-35 procurement plan… unfortunately, the long-term price estimates have gone up since then?? That is, in 2007 USAF/DoD planners were calculating an avg price of $80m (TY Unit Recurring Flyaway) CTOL variant or something? Avg price could be 50% greater than this? I mean… if the first 250 F-35A units are priced at an avg of $150m URF (TY).. to get an avg. $80m (TY) for the first 1,250 jets (for example); we’re talking perhaps $60m avg URF (TY) price for jet following LRIP? Or an avg in CY 2007 dollars of about $45-50m per URF??
I just have to say the AF/DoD estimates will have to be recalculated. My current guess would be a max of 40/yr AF units, for the best FRP buy year.
Another catastrophic prediction would be: FY12 order reduced from current 42 AF units to 30. This while DoD is currently calculating requirements for an acceleration!
A plan B is only way to address that! Check mate DoD/JPO, I’m sorry.
And the only reason I’m repeating such a public comment and will continue to… is to press the issue for US Congress to understand this imminent strategic airpower ‘recalculation’ before it’s too late to determine alternate recapitalization plans are necessary.
God speed..
Forget the number 85 for Holland!
Jack de Vries has in secret been planning for 52 jets for 3-4 yeras since the dutch MoD has realized that their money wont get them any more aircrafts….
Building on what Bellistner stated above, there are alternative US and European fighters that are flying that offer more performance in many areas.
The F-15SG, Tranche 3 Typhoon, and Rafale all offer AESA, IRST, and superior speed and range over the proposed F-35A which Australia intends to purchase.
While the F-35′s proposed capabilities certainly look good on paper, it remains to be seen at this point if LM can produce a functional plane that works as well as their numerous PowerPoint presentations indicate.
The jury will be out until we can see a fully equipped F-35A flying at Red Flag to see what it can really do, and its anyone’s guess when that will happen at the present glacial rate of JSF development.
Just to clarify some pricing issues. The average URF for the first 25 F-35As was $159.5 million and that is with only 10 in the 2010 budget. The 2011 budget is set to have 24 (plus whatever Gates wants to accelerate).
If you want to run the numbers yourself, the 2010 USAF budget is here(page 40):
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090511-090.pdf
If the 24 F-35A fighters in the 2011 are only 10% cheaper than the 2010 jets (btw, the 2010 jets were 19% cheaper than 2009), then the first 49 F-35s will have an average URF of $140 Million. Whomever came up with the calculation that the first 250 will have an average URF price of $150 million is just plain wrong. That being said, the path to URF $80 is even shorter.
The sad fact is that many do not do their own research on the true cost of fighter procurement and if they did, they would realize that the F-35 is not a relatively expensive system.
dear eric,
good findings. and also in dutch case, will cut the halve according to boeder who is dutchman.
Hey, Bellistner,
The point about the F-111 is that just like the P-3 it too can no longer operate without fighter escort in the face of a Sukhoi threat. Given the cost, that structure no longer provides the “bang for buck” we need.
Even Air Power Australia recognised this by requiring their AIR-6000 proposal to be a dual F-22/F-111 force. If our primary strike platform can only operate in an entirely sanitised air space, then what use is it in the force structure? It no longer provides the “big stick” that it is meant to, unless most or all threats to it have already been removed…
It should be apparent that ADF and Government have realised that moving to an all tactical fighter force supported by tankers does indeed seem insufficient to fully cater for long range strike needs and long ranged missile capabilities have now been authorised for ADF acquisition.
Much to Eric’s chagrin no doubt, AGM-158 JASSM will be in the ADF inventory in years to come, AGM-158 JASSM-ER will be added in years to come (JSOW-ER perhaps too) and a long ranged naval surface and perhaps sub-surface missile capability will be added to the ADF Orbat from the time the Air Warfare Destroyers are introduced into service and beyond for follow-on platforms.
In my opinion, a greater tanker fleet is what Australia truly needs to enhance it’s strike capability, with a minimum of 2x KC-30A tankers per fighter squadron being the necessary ratio for a credible capability.
But in the face of funding realities, F-35A, KC-30A, JASSM/JASSM-ER and naval missile strike capability will provide a more than credible strike capability in years to come and one that will be the envy of many nations within our region…
Just wait to hear the howls of fury that will erupt when ADF announces it’s Tactical Tomahawk Block IV acquisition from our neighbours if you don’t believe that…
They had a massive spit when JASSM was announced. Just wait until the formal announcement of a sub-launched 2000k ranged cruise missile capability to be introduced is released…
Jason brings up some good points.
Of interest is now that so many years have gone on, that the legacy Hornet is going to be at high risk if the F-35 doesn’t show up in 2017-18. That of course assumes all the bugs work out. That also assumes affordability which is yet to be proven.
The JASSM looked great on paper. Yet now with the unit cost being up to around 1.14 mil each U.S., as opposed to the original low-ball price, I don’t think you will see Australia buying too many of these silver bullets.
As for the tanker issue, Australia will never have enough tankers. The ratio of tankers to fighter aircraft depends greatly on the operation. Barcap is way different than deep strike (hello Operation: Eldorado Canyon). A set of JASSMs on a legacy or Super Hornet is draggy on an already short-legged airframe. The 4 degree toe-out of hardpoints on the Super means lots of tanker work. Also fuel offload to the F-35 or F-111 take a lot of gas. Range is not proven on the F-35 yet. (chilled fuel in testing and heat-sink issues have to pan out) So, again, the best that Australia can hope for with its new and very good tankers is enough to surge for Barcap or tanker drags on a deployment.
While there are all kinds of enemy scenarios, I don’t think Australia will be defenseless. Yet much of the justification on purchase of various kinds of weapons systems needs a lot more work.
With that, U.S. funding for PACAF exercise deployments should revolve around a package of F-22s, Strike Eagles, tankers and support, doing an annual exercise in Australia. Appearances do matter.
Hey Eric,
Australia has already ordered 260x AGM-158 JASSM weapons and as I’ve previously discussed makes “rolling” purchases of weapons. How many of those weapons have been delivered to date and how many will incorporate the new fixes will be the main questions to be answered, but JASSM has a big future in RAAF, there is little doubt about that.
Even at USD$1m (and I’m not convinced the individual price has risen that much) it’s costing the same as Harpoon Block II, which is apparently affordable for ADF…
As for regular US deployments, USMC, USN and USAF all make multiple trips per year for Ex’s Aces North, Arnhem Thunder etc… Very visible on a strategic level who our friends are…
Jason Simonds said:
I can think of a few missions where the loiter time of the F-111 would come in extremely useful. As a deep strike platform, you’re probably right in that it can’t do that anymore without an escort. In fact, I reckon that probably the only airfract that can do that these days are the B-1B, F-22, and perhaps the Tu-160 (and of course, the B-2). With the decom of the F-111, and the chance of us aquiring F-22′s somewhere around Kelvin, it leaves us in a bit of a pickle.
Jason Simonds said:
Eric Palmer said:
More tankers and more AEWCS!
Pingback: Indian Navy keen to buy newer generation aircraft - Page 7 - Defence Talk Forum