--Block 1 aircraft, developed and tested during 2002-2008, will be 90% hardware complete and 70% software complete. This block will be flight qualified, and be capable of limited land attack and air-to-air missions (JDAM and AMRAAM only).
--Block 2 aircraft, developed and tested during 2005-2010, will be 100% hardware complete and 90% software complete. The capabilities to undertake close air support and Suppression of Enemy Air defences will be included. In addition to Block 1, stores would include JSOW, laser-guided bombs and Mk-82 iron bombs. The aircraft will also be given the ability to carry external fuel tanks.*
--Block 3 aircraft, developed and tested during 2007-2012, will be 100% hardware and software complete and capable of all Joint Operational Requirements Document (JORD) specified JSF missions. So, in addition to Block 1 and 2 above, the F-35 will be able use air-to-air weapons from the external stations, including Within Visual Range (WVR) air-to-air weapons.
Final low-rate-initial-production (LRIP) 6 in 2013 will be for 168 Block 3 aircraft.
Now the reality. This is what projected Block capability was toward the end of 2011; where Block 2B is considered a proposal and an "accelerated" one at that. Confidence!
(click on image to make larger)
Today, LRIP batches could be well over double the originally planned 6. Today, LRIP-6 is no where near 168 aircraft; nor even 50.
*=External tanks were removed as a capability in 2006 due to too much risk.
10 comments:
Seeing AU have clearly got nothing to show for its commitment JSF (except and invoice) and the program not even hitting the Block 1 hurdle, should AU walk away? re enter negotiations? or go to tender for AU airborne defence requirements.
LM/US might get upset, however, at the 'discussion table' AU could suggest it's happy to take delivery full US spec F22s with on going commitments (partial funding) to the modernisation program recently anounced "Increment 3.1, Increment 3.2A and Increment 3.2B including JHMCS"
Wow, yes please, Sign me up for that original business plan! The sky's the limit!!
Seriously though...
And back down to planet Earth, 2013.
What Eric has effectively done in this once again outstandingly well researched post, is to very effectively and convincingly lay the ground work as a future argument -- that there was unfortunately indeed, very arguably 'deceptive advertising' as part of the process from Program inception.
As such, if there is ever an actual day and time where one party or another might decide they are politically, strategically or financially required to back off the Program a little more, or bow out all together; well, deceptive advertising is a legit and credible defense to any potential pre-existing contractual 'commitments', eg, cancellation fees, etc.
No droptanks for the F-35?!
So much for reaching a range of over 1000 miles --- without droptanks, the F-35A has a range of only 850 miles.
The current design would never see 850. Doubtful about 750. Lucky to see 650.
Also, the fat design in a deceptive Norway brief (made after the DOD contract that cancelled drop tanks) shows only an 8pc gain in range prediction with tanks.
Wide, draggy and heavy, is wide and heavy.
Back on earth and in 2013. F 22 aside (as a would like/ but more probably needed) there is no F35 ready and unlikely to be one for many, many years - let alone a mission/quick response version that is capable to deter or defeat a potential agressors and or up coming airborne alternatives.
And as we tick over the months/years the F35 design and capabilities get furth away from not only AUs but many other countries requirements...the operational range is ridiculous for large continental defence and or strike requierments for 'distance challeneged' Countires.
Anonomous, So agree completely With you view and Eric's foundation argument in this post. However I ask again (directly) is there no option left for AU with the F35?. It seems you are suggesting that 'deceptive marketing' is the only avenue to allow re negotiation or outright rejection of the aircraft to allow consideration of other (appropriate) aircraft (or as mentioned going to tender to a simple EOI process).
Understand there will be certain caviats and development hurdle variables for the f35 program, but surely the program has varied so much from the original design capabilities and time frame...and cost, AU and other more leverage on the contract?
We are seeing the consequence here of support of mostly foreign-parented defence industry being the central plank of Australian defence policy, rather than maintaining continual adequate and credible military preparedness.
'Inducements' or to be nice, offset orders for industry influence the politicians in acquisition decisions that have resulted in multiple relatively unproven platforms, some arguably quite unsuitable for Australia's regional military needs. Associated industrial (job creation) benefits have inhibited flexibility to change direction due to getting locked into contracts not easily terminated.
Apart from huge waste of funding over the past couple of decades, capability gaps have emerged widely. For example; Helicopter Gunships - 9 years, AAR Tanker - 5 years, Caribou - 6 years, Utility Helicopters - 6 years. Replacement of those well-proven assets was just not necessary as modest cost enhancement options were available. Defence planners thus shot themselves in the foot by squandering funding that might have allowed better solutions for Australia's foreseeable strike/air combat requirements.
Historically, Australia has almost always succumbed to lobbying to be among launch customers for emerging platforms (like Wedgetail and KC-30) which is really just dumb and risky. Far better to decide acquisition well after there has been operational proving and all of the bugs sorted. Progressive optimization of types in service, where cost-effective, to maintain continual military preparedness and capitalize on initial taxpayer investment ought to be the first option, before contemplating replacement hardware.
There is no foreseeable threat to Australia's territorial integrity in the foreseeable future so what is needed now is some rational thinking to stretch in-service life of the F-18 Hornets (close down 1 or 2 squadrons) and await developments over the next couple of years. If cancelling F-35 involvement a bit downstream results in loss of some defence industry participation, then that is just a consequence of poor decision making initially.
Australia really needs to rethink its whole approach to defence planning as, hitherto, it has been dancing to the tune of the big arms manufacturer lobby.
Well, being here in OZ I can assure you, that although we have enough clearly intelligent persons around to realise its a bucket of SHITE the F35, that does not exactly mean the muppets inside Defence are the same. As you will know, politicians..well nuff said really.
I suspect that a real kicker might be Canada, if they were to pull out...all bets are off, I'm also Surprised that the BAE and who ever else are not really publicly marketing the tranche 3? Typhoon.
My stance, I'd be swinging hard for the fence that is the F22!
Forget the F-22, the ADF should just buy the Sukhoi T-50... which looks likely to become available well before the F-35 (assuming mission-critical and/or safety-critical corners aren't cut, in the name of being "firstest with the mostest", as with the Ford Pinto).
If not, the Silent Eagle or Su-30MKI are both quite nice. In addition to the obvious air defense boost, they also have the F-111C Raven's missions covered.
I totally agree with your explanation Blacktail.
Post a Comment