The agreement covers 470 new F-35 jets over three separate contracts, known as Lots 12-14.
The agreement, once finalised, will represent the largest F-35 production contract and the lowest aircraft prices in programme history.
The final contract will cover all Lot 12 aircraft, with priced options for Lots 13 and 14, say Lockheed Martin.
The unit price for all three F-35 variants was reduced on average 15% from Lot 11 to 14, and the agreement includes an F-35A unit cost below $80 million in Lot 13.
“This is a truly historic milestone for the F-35 Enterprise. The F-35 Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin team have come to agreement on this landmark three-lot deal that achieves an average ~15% unit cost reduction and results in a less than $80M F35A in Lot 13 – one year earlier than planned,” said Vice Admiral Mathias Winter, F-35 Program Executive Officer.
“This ~$34B agreement marks the largest procurement in the history of the Department and provides a best value for our warfighter and taxpayer, incentivizes industry to continuously improve their performance and achieves the lowest F-35 unit prices per aircraft to date.”
“With smart acquisition strategies and a relentless focus on cost reduction, the F-35 enterprise has successfully reduced procurement costs of the 5th Generation F-35 to equal or less than 4th Generation legacy aircraft,” said Greg Ulmer, Lockheed Martin’s vice president and general manager of the F-35 program.
“Beating our long-stated goal and delivering an F-35A below $80 million in Lot 13 is a testament to our joint government and industry team – and we look forward to working with the Joint Program Office to finalize the agreement.”
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/the-pentagon-is-battling-the-clock-to-fix-serious-unreported-f-35-problems/
Heads need to roll. This is the most expensive program to date, and saying they won’t fix the supersonic issue is unacceptable. If you pay top dollar you should get top quality.
Really reafirms my belief that a naval typhoon was the best choice. Also would have focused efforts in moderninizing the typhoon. Still no aesa radar in 2019!!!
You beat me to the punch posting this by 4 seconds Gandalf! Personally I’m a fan of the F-35 and I think long term it’ll be an astounding asset…. but not if the comment that the potential structural issues beyond 1.2mach “will not be fixed, as they are considered to have extremely low probability of occurring during operations” – thats exceedingly worrying and needs addressing
before any further orders are placed.
A very interesting post in relation to potential future costs.
“Substantial additional costs for foreign partners.
Because of the way the program is structured, the six foreign partners can expect to pay hefty additional costs for the C2D2 upgrade.
Winter said development costs will be shared with U.S. allies, leaving the Department of Defense on the hook for $7.2 billion, Flight International reported March 8, meaning that partner nations will have to cough up an additional $3.8 billion.
In a Dec. 19 report, the House of Commons Defence Committee wrote (p. 23) that “Lockheed Martin also informed the Committee that following the completion of the SDD phase, the partner nations in the programme “are committed to developing enhancements to in-service aircraft through ‘Continuous Capability Development and Delivery (C2/D2)”. According to Lockheed Martin, they expect the UK to “pay approximately 4.5% of the total cost to develop and integrate new capabilities into the F-35”.”
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/191396/cost-of-f_35-block-4-upgrade-quadruples-but-may-not-suffice.html
The whole way this contract is structured with countries having to “buy in” at a rate of several billion dollars before they can then buy units at the supposed list price is all smoke and mirrors to separate out the programme development costs and on going modernisation costs. Most other aircraft the headline unit price includes recuperation of the development costs and will gradually fall on follow on orders after the R&D is amortised over the first few hundred units.
@Nigel Collins – You always reproduce this when the F-35 is mentioned and label it as a catastrophic sum of money. So I had a look at the numbers in that report. And forgive me if I don’t take the inflated numbers by unnamed ‘experts’ so lets take the $11 Bn (£8.5 Bn) mentioned by the House Armed Services (HASC). We then have the House of Commons Defence Committee figures testified by LM for UK liability @ 4.5% of that figure. Or $495 Mn (£380 Mn) spread out to 2024. Or $99 Mn (£76 Mn) a year.
I have to tell you that in UK Defence terms that is a round of drinks …..
I have used this as an example in the past Chris H, But not always. But like some people, I do have my concerns in relation to the F-35!
F35-A first flight 15 December 2006
F35-B first flight 11 June 2008
It will not be able to use its full complement of weapons including Meteor until 2024/26
https://www.defensenews.com/air/
@Nigel Collins – well you are right to be concerned and I share your concerns about the delays (and costs) but you have to understand that priority in the ‘B’ variant was given to the USMC as we a) had to spread the cost due to our economy in a near fatal condition in 2010, b) the further down the LRIP buy the less our costs and c) we are buying to match our carrier delivery dates. And as for Meteor I would point out that Typhoon is already fully capable on all weapons including Meteor and F-35B already has A2A defences.
Our delayed buying pattern was also to assist the USMC achieve IOC and why they have returned that favour and committed to support QE and PoW with established Squadrons.
Not ideal but given where we were in 2010 I am actually pretty impressed with where we are now and will be soon.
I’m pleased you share my concerns Chris H, as I believe them to be valid.
After all, Why waste money on purchasing 138 F-35 which will not be delivered until at least the 2030s, when we are already developing Tempest as our aircraft for the future?
It would make far more sense to develop a navalised version of Tempest from the start given EMALS will be fixed by the mid-twenties, and increase the number of Typhoons with future upgrades. The typhoon could also serve as a testbed for Tempests advanced hardware and software.
48F35-Bs should be the maximum amount purchased, offering some protection to the QE carriers in their current configuration until then.
“GAO Pushes Pentagon on F-35 Reliability and Maintainability, Block 4 Business Case”
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/April%202019/GAO-Pushes-Pentagon-on-F-35-Reliability-and-Maintainability-Block-4-Business-Case.aspx
As my comment above suggests a navalised version of Tempest, I see no reason why not.
“One of its manufacturers, BAE Systems, who also built the F-35B have outlined what key features will be in the Tempest.”
https://www.forces.net/news/tempest-what-will-future-fighter-give-raf
@Nigel Collins – I think I am on record as saying I doubt we will buy 138 F-35s of any description given we are committing to Tempest for delivery in the 2035 on timeframe. The interesting discussion then takes place between the UK and US Government about our workshare if we do not buy 138 and who gets the work BAE etc currently get. I think that is worth an article on its own!
However I should also repeat that I believe the F-35B we are buying is exactly the right aircraft at the right time especially given the benefit to our economy of being a Tier One Partner. We are basically (nett / nett) getting all our F-35s for free even if we do order 138! And I disagree on your 48 limit by the way. If we are serious about carrier strike then we need 30+ per carrier plus the extra aircraft to support that number (given maintenance, refits, training, non Naval needs etc).
“The interesting discussion then takes place between the UK and US Government about our workshare if we do not buy 138 and who gets the work BAE etc currently get.”
Could a possible answer be found here? Providing we can install EMALS earlier than 2030.
“Super Hornets find place in stealth fighter generation”
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-super-hornets-find-place-in-stealth-fighte-457459/
@Nigel Collins – Without too much thought I can see 4 main reasons not to buy the F-18 in any guise:
1. Its a 30 year old design and despite upgrades is still ‘old architecture’.
2. Buying the F-18 would not benefit any British companies, it would export jobs to the USA and fundamentally undermine British fighter manufacturing just when we need to be supporting it.
3. If we were able to procure a viable EMALS system some years before Tempest is available then we would buy F-35C as part of our 138 commitment.
4. Even if EMALS is viable and deliverable at acceptable cost in, say, 2030 that would be some 10 years before the QEs are due their mid life refits. So why would we take a major naval asset out of service for a long time to fit CATOBAR just to buy F-18s?
I believe the Tempest project fits really well into many timeframes – Typhoon retirements, QE refits and first generation F-35 replacement. The programme timing gives sufficient time to deliver exactly what we, the UK, needs and that will keep costs down as we can migrate improved Typhoon systems, sensors, weapons and engines developed in that time.
Interestingly that article identifies what we here in the UK have already been doing with Typhoon and F-35B as it states the US Navy sees the F-18 / F-35 combination as the way forward rather than simply F-35. Which sort of takes away one of the arguments that supported the creation of F-35 as an all-in replacement for F-15, F-18, A-10 etc etc…
The author has only collated and rehashed all of the articles over the past 5 years on F-35 issues and re-dated it, for example a reduction in deficiencies was recorded as of 24 May 2018, whilst the sovereignty issue was brought up by Australia in 2017 and they have already instigated an interim fix, the ALIS issue is being finally resolved through the Top Hatter system. The heat issues for the skin of the ‘B’s and ‘C’s was originally identified in 2011 and resolved in Lot 8. All this is in the reports and linked articles!
Overall verdict: nothing new despite the sensationalism, a rehash of issues of which, many already been resolved.
I quite agree with you (and others). A lot of ignorant and prejudicial rubbish is said about this.
The more news that appears relating to this flying money pit the more I do wonder if we should have cut our losses and run, thrown the rest of the budget at Typhoon for now until our own next gen fighter Tempest is ready. Ive never had love for the F35 but this is now getting ridiculous.
@Gandalf – I guess you didn’t watch the video at the end of the article? Basically of the alleged 17 ‘issues’ none are ‘Cat 1A’ or lethal. 9 will be downgraded or eliminated by the time it gets to FRP. Of the remaining 8, 6 will be fully rectified and 2 are considered ‘unlikely’ to occur. For example the alleged coating issues on ‘B’ and ‘C’ versions at Mach 1.3? Only ever happened once each and then it was back in 2011. Different coatings are now used.
This aircraft is in final stages of development and while issues are identified they are being or have been fixed. After all its what testing is for surely?
Sorry but the coatings are mere band aid, and the person who made that comment in the article would not say how well this worked, or how long. He just made some banal statement about materials would improve in the future. Blah blah.
The reason this program gets criticized, fairly imo, it is decades behind schedule, budgets have ballooned and total ownership costs are still very sketchy. This is from GAO not from russian trolls.
This was supposed to be the best of the best and it has not delivered anything more than a low observable stealth bomber from the front! With advances in radar, 2-way link missiles, better tactics/asset deployment vs LO aircraft who knows how well this survive the test of time. Seems risky to me to bet the house on passive stealth at the detriment of so many other fundamental elements.
If this program was led by Russia or China you would probably be the first to berate it.
My 2 cents
Anyway for you aviation fans here is a cool online blog on the Tornado. Love to hear pilots share their experience. These guys do a great job and are so humble. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4Hs0Jm1ACY
@ Gandalf – Quote:
“If this program was led by Russia or China you would probably be the first to berate it.
My 2 cents”
That is presumption beyond your knowledge mate and I defy you or anyone else to show where I have ever slagged off any other military equipment. The costs of it or delays then yes but its not my style I’m afraid.
Now as it happens I agree with you on the delays to the F-35 project but then practically EVERY military project has delays and issues and cost increases. It goes with the territory (sadly). You want a hugely expensive but still an impressive aircraft? F-22.
As to costs well I address that elsewhere on here ….
As to those 17 ‘issues’? Well it appears we disagree about one. The rest of your comment seems to be your opinion to which you are fully entitled of course. As am I and therefore I think the ‘B’ version the UK is buying is exactly the right aircraft at exactly the right time.
The Uk will be crazy to take delivery of any more JSF until the above problems are fixed. This plane has been flying for over a decade and pilots training on it since 2012 and somehow these issues just come out ? The stealth is destroyed if the pilot operates above Mach 1.2 for a minute etc etc etc
No matter what we think of the radar , stealth and sensors it’s obviously a mess in terms of basic jet fighter performance and reliability.
“Really reafirms my belief that a naval typhoon was the best choice.”
Navalised Typhoon was never a goer. The undercarriage and centre fuselage would have needed a complete re-design. And at that point you may as well start again.
The canards were also in the perfect spot to reduce the pilots visibility on landing to zero….which on a carrier is a very bad idea. BAE’s proposal’s were torn to shreds by the defence select committee. Technically it was impossible. So much so that BAE actually posited having RB.211’s on the stern of the carrier generating enough air circulation for the plane to land. Thats how bad it was….
How many UK aircraft are covered by Lots 11-14?
As usual we have the anti – F-35 crew on board again peddling their negatives without offering realistic alternatives. So lets get a reality check:
1. A Naval Typhoon was never ever going to happen. Any Naval airframe has to be designed to handle the explosive forces of a deck / CATOBAR landing. Typhoon was not so designed to add to its other capabilities. Had the French remained in the consortium it would have been. Such a Typhoon would also have required CATOBAR and the attendant EMALS / EMCATS systems. A costly negative
2. As a country we have developed vital systems and techniques for deploying STOVL fighters having developed the Harrier over many decades. F-35 was the cheapest way to procure such an asset. A very unique benefit
3. Having committed to the F-35B we were then able to build and deliver on time and on budget (after Government delays in 2008 / 09) 2 x state of the art 70,000 Ton carriers for 55% the cost of the latest US Carrier ($10 Bn vs $18 Bn). A very direct benefit
4. The UK participation in the F-35 programme gave UK industry hands on experience of advanced avionics (to which we contributed directly via VAAC and in later upgrades) and a unique introduction to 5th Gen airframes and materials. A benefit that will assist Tempest.
5. The fact that over 15% of EVERY F-35 built will be built here produces a massive revenue stream for the UK economy and industry. On ‘broad brush’ numbers produced by LM last year even if 3,000 were not procured the UK will earn more from the F-35 than it will spend buying 138 F-35B aircraft. And that was at 2018 prices. We are STILL in LRIP and have not even got to full production! A financial benefit while acquiring 5th Gen aircraft.
6. What cannot be quantified as yet is the value of 5th Gen manufacturing experience to future projects but what cannot be denied, given the only two companies (BAE and Leonardo) with 5th Gen experience in Europe are part of Team Tempest, is that it is way ahead of anything Airbus / Dassault can put together. They are still on the learning curve.
I am on record as saying (IMHO) that I do not think we have any need for the F-35A given the ability of Typhoon to be both an exemplary QRA fighter / interceptor way better than an ‘A’ as well as being a formidably capable GA or CAP aircraft again way better than an ‘A’. We have the ‘B’ and that is already integrating with Typhoon for advanced weapon delivery and targeting and the ‘A’ does not offer any further sensor capabilities.
The ‘C’ version is of no relevance to the UK at present. But I have always wondered why, given we designed and now produce the ‘C’ folding wingtips, we haven’t created a UK version with folding wings to make more use of hangar space and add wing lift.
In conclusion while I firmly believe the F-35 was the right programme at the right time for the UK to join and support I do not believe we will ever buy 138 aircraft and for two simple reasons: Tempest and the UK carrier mid life refits. Refits will be in 2040 or thereabouts. The earlier Typhoons will start being retired in that same 2035 – 2040 timeframe. Tempest will replace Typhoon and if EMALS / EMCATS is perfected, and given the QEs are passively engineered for CATOBAR, then to me its a no-brainer we convert to one airframe type for Naval, QRA and GA operations. Even the F-35s we are buying now will be heading for retirement in 2045 some 10 years after Tempest is scheduled to be in service. On just nominal numbers alone we have 138 F-35s and some 160 Typhoons let alone adding a specific Naval variant for two (or more?) carriers. That gives a very good basis (400+?) for UK manufacture let alone any added numbers from Italy which will have exactly the same replacement problems at exactly the same time.
I simply do not see the negatives portrayed….
We have 17 F35’s and @ 100 flying Typhoons.
@Hero – Forgive me being direct but why are you playing semantics and differentiating from overall numbers?
Do we or do we not have a military budget (as in forecast need) for 138 F-35B aircraft?
And why are you ignoring the total Typhoon fleet as ordered and separating out ‘flying’ aircraft? At any one time any Air Force will have operational aircraft, aircraft under maintenance, airframes under major refit and stored aircraft. The final Typhoons of that 160 aircraft order have yet to be delivered and the official tail count is currently 157. Of that some 16 of the 22 Two Seat Trainers are being scrapped to create a £50 Mn source of spares as they are Tranche 1 and cannot be upgraded to later specification and training now takes a different form anyway. Of course more may yet be ordered to restore the numbers but the RAF ordered 160 aircraft. And that is the number I used.
Christ Mate…… I’m only stating True Facts and Figures……….. What’s with the Condescending and somewhat Aggressive reply ? We will never have 138 F35’s or 160 Typhoons at any one time. Sorry If I have upset your Superior UKDJ Standing.
You Stated, “On just nominal numbers alone, we have 138 F35’s and 160 Typhoons” …….. Ermm sorry but You are Totally Wrong…… Might want to lose your attitude and say sorry ….. Doubt you will though.
@Hero – I see you conflate a robust answer (preceded with the words ‘please forgive me’ which most people would consider polite) with some sort of
“Condescending and somewhat Aggressive reply”
Blimey don’t ever join the Forces …
You then add:
“Sorry If I have upset your Superior UKDJ Standing”
I have the same standing here as you do. So your point was exactly?
And then:
“Might want to lose your attitude and say sorry
What ‘attitude’ is that then? I made a robust reply to your rather pedantic and picky comment where you seemed to deliberately miss the point of my comment for some reason.
Whatever …
So lets look at my full comment and get some context:
“On just nominal numbers alone we have 138 F-35s and some 160 Typhoons let alone adding a specific Naval variant for two (or more?) carriers. That gives a very good basis (400+?) for UK manufacture”
So the comment was establishing some UK market numbers for Tempest to emulate. It even added some Naval numbers. So it was not (and the clue is in the word ‘nominal’) a definitive statement about current numbers. And whether the numbers are global or transient is irrelevant as that is also how Tempest would be brought into use. Like for like …
I am happy to apologise if my direct reply caused offence. None intended. But then again you are happy to repeatedly dish out the personal stuff so there we go … Pot / Kettle / Black?
I apologise for bothering you with an unrelated question, but I wondered if you knew whether convoys were considered useful in modern warfare. It is true the UK does not have enough ships to escort convoys (be it military or civilian), but I used to imagine that we could contribute ships to US managed convoys if necessary (not that this might be necessary given the 1980s decision to concentrate assets in the GIUK gap to bottle up the soviets- a 1914-1917-esque offensive anti-submarine strategy backed with modern SOSUS).
Humph of the Thin Pinstriped Line seemed to blow the idea of modern convoy (even by the Americans) out the water with a post on modern ASW corvettes recently.
The problem is, the U.S may be experimenting with turning assault ships into escort carriers, implying a convoy role.
Now I’m probably totally wrong with that assessment. I’m an idiotic former fantasy fleeter (though let’s be robust about this, such worthless morons never truly stop being fantasy fleeters no matter how much I’d want it to be otherwise), and I am unpleasantly aware of my shortcomings, but I thought I should at least ask an expert for their opinion on this matter.
I hope it is ok to ask. Apologies if not.
@Geoffrey Hicking – While detecting a slight whiff of sarcasm I am more than happy to say I have absolutely no idea. You seem to have a far better handle on convoys than I do…
And as for fantasy fleet comments? Nowt wrong with some creative thinking IMHO.
I wasn’t meaning to be sarcastic. I just wanted to make clear upfront that I am aware of my severe shortcomings as an amateur with an interest in the military.
Nonetheless, thankyou for your response.
@Geoffrey Hicking – don’t be so hard on yourself. Creative thinking is always welcome and will often trigger interesting discussions. Just remember my friend there is no such thing as a daft question – just daft answers… Enjoy this site: Its well worth the effort of joining in…
Toys nicely packed back away in you pram, I see.
Yes, its true the US Navy wants to increase its available aviation assets by using the Marine assault carriers as light carriers. This has a lot to do with the current issues with USS Gerald R Ford, which can only currently launch F18s, not F35Cs from its EMALS catapults.
There are no plans to fit ramps to the ships bows, so they wil have a deficit in range/weapons compared to the QE class. But they are going to be using their V22s for aerial tankers.
It’s funny how the UK company developing EMCAT, an alternative to EMALS, was bought out by the Americans.
There is still a lot of merit in the convoy system, as it provides enhanced protection. Perhaps it does make for a juicier target, but for container ship or RORO carrying troops and equipment a protected convoy is still the best defence.
Apology accepted….. Not sure where you have received “Repeatedly dished out stuff ” from me though….. are you confused or just argumentative and naturally paranoid/schizophrenic by nature due to your PTS having served your time here as some sort of keyboard hero ….. Try losing the attitude mate, it’s OK to be wrong every now and then, you don’t have to be so sarcastic/defensive when someone corrects you on actual facts and figures.
@hero – My apology stands even if you are too far up your own arse to accept it in good grace and move on but rather preferred to use it to project even more abusive images. Whatever.
Given you have offered nothing BUT personal abuse and failed to address the discussion point other than a clickbait one liner I will let others reading this and seeing the stream of personally abusive projections from you judge who has the ‘attitude’ here. I fear you confuse me with someone who gives a rats arse what Trolls like you peddle.
You were right on one thing though. PTSD (you forgot the ‘D’) is a terrible thing many have to handle in their daily lives and not just those ex military. About 18 years ago I faced up to the reality that I was one. It was why I was MD’d out in ’85 although it wasn’t called that then. I just had to ‘man up’ and deal with it and did. Or rather I didn’t. But contrary to your rather crude projection I am neither paranoid or schizoid or in any way psychotic. Sorry to disappoint you.
PTSD manifests itself in many varied ways and for me its Depression. Or the ‘Fucking Black Dog Again (FBDA)’ as me and my mates call it.
Now I don’t give a flying FUCK how you respond as I am not writing this for your benefit. I am putting this out there for others who may not have had the courage to face the reality of PTSD, seek help and be able to move on. If my words help ONE person then all your stupid shit and crap will have been worth it.
Now in the words of a certain SAS Officer:
“Personally Sir I think you’re a fucking idiot”
Fucking crying here…
Some progress is at least being made with EMALS.
Seven years from now? I think the smart play will be investing in a Navallised version of Tempest from the start!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qahWEhrDfg
@Nigel Collins – I did touch on this elsewhere and you are of course right. We missed a trick with Typhoon thats for sure (we should have thieved the French work on Rafale M!) as had CATOBAR been engineered in from Day One the added costs would have been minimal and while all the airframes would have had to be of that (heavier) design what became the current undercarriage could still have been used for non Naval aircraft. I recognise I am simplifying a complex subject but I hope I make my point.
And I would be very surprised if Tempest doesn’t have carrier use engineered in from Day One as it is a zero cost at that stage. In some ways this is why I hope we keep the project to as few partners as possible because otherwise it becomes a compromise to everyone and no one gets the best.
It’s funny the A-10 and AH64 were both slated , hated ,criticised when they first appeared and suffered their fair share of issues in troubled starts however both are now accepted as being successful. The A-10 alone is credited with half the 1700 Iraqi tank kills from the air in gulf war 1 and the Apache is widely accepted as the premier de la premier tank killer of today. Even in 1976 there were dudes sitting on sofas in their living rooms telling anyone who would listen that A-10 is ? buy F-16’s instead……so I’ve no doubt the F-35 will mature into the superstar of air combat.
With all the problems with the F35C and the Ford class the QE class could easily become the worlds most powerful and capable aircraft carrier.
We just need to buy aircraft for it.
It’s also not surprising that Pilots are being asked to limit travelling above Mach 1.2 to protect stealth coatings. Given its primary role as a stealthy strike aircraft travelling above Mach 1 is something to be avoided anyway as sonic booms are easier to track than radar emissions.
Sorry Martin, but you can detect radar a significantly further than a sonic boom, irrespective of the aircraft’s height. A sonic boom will travel through the atmosphere near to 650mph depending on temperature, humidity and altitude. A radio wave will travel near light speed, again depending on frequency and atmospherics. Therefore, in one second a radio wave would have travelled nearly 300,000Km whilst a sound wave would have travelled only 346 metres.
There are two types of radar generally fitted an aircraft primary and secondary. A primary radar like the Typhoon’s Captor requires the emitted wave to be reflected of a target for it to see it. As the target gets further away atmospheres will absorb more of the wave and more of the reflected wave is bounced away from the Typhoon. A secondary radar like Interrogation Friend or Foe does not use the targets reflection, but requires the target to respond using its own IFF. Therefore, the range it can operate over is nearly twice that of a primary radar.
Aircraft like the EC135 Airseeker/Rivet Joint have very sensitive radio/radar receivers that detect a signal even further away than the IFF’s capable of. This is because they have digital tuned antenna and mega expensive signal processing. For example, an aircraft flying up and down the Baltic flying off Estonia will be able to listen in on St.Petersberg no problem.
Reality Check. Here is Lockheed Martin’s response to the Defense News June 12 article on the F-35.
https://f35.com/news/detail/lockheed-martin-comments-on-defense-news-reporting
What else did you expect to hear from LM? Nothing to see here move along, so i will take LM’s reassurances with a grain of salt.
unfortunately the GAO does not agree with the assessment that all is fixed or soon to be, and this GAO report is from late april 2019. In fact GAO recommends that upgrade 4 not start until prior issues are actually resolved https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-341
Move along yourself. LM’s assurances have been approved by the PMO who knows a lot more about it than you, the GAO or some snowflake reporter who doesn’t know a flap from a rudder. The GAO can huff and puff all it wants but no one takes them seriously in DC except leftist journalists.
“F-35 jets: Chinese-owned company making parts for top-secret UK-US fighters”
“Describing its involvement in the aircraft programme, the MoD publication said: “Gloucestershire-based Exception PCB manufacture the circuit boards that control many of the F-35’s core capabilities.”
https://news.sky.com/story/f-35-jets-chinese-owned-company-making-parts-for-top-secret-uk-us-fighters-11741889
Interesting to see how the Defence Committee views our future air combat capability. I’m sure some will find it very interesting! Hopefully, Taranis will have the power to take off and land on the QE carriers?
I wonder what will change when the next government takes office?
“13. This DPOC OR is a possible contender for a move in the direction of UCAV. Work is being carried out by BAE Systems with the Strategic Unmanned Air Vehicles (Experiment) Integrated Project Team (SUAV(E) IPT) responsible for auditing and overseeing the “Taranis” project. However, this 18,000 lb (Hawk sized) £143 million development aircraft is due to fly in 2013 and is some way off providing the RAF with certain future stealth DPOC. In the interim, the cost of each F35B Lightning II is now officially acknowledged by the NAO to be circa £90 million, which has necessitated the UK reducing its buy from 138 to 48. The cost of acquiring, arguably limited “stealth” capability, absorbing large chunks of the defence budget affecting, as Congressman Forbes says in a US context, many other programmes.”
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmdfence/772/772vw14.htm
Another interesting piece on costings can be found via the link below under the section Hidden Costs.
“We understand that the Lot-by-Lot procurement process for the aircraft, allied with the separate processes for procuring parts and spares and logistical support, make it difficult to calculate the total cost whether on a per-aircraft or on a programme-as-a-whole basis. However, it is simply not acceptable for the Ministry of Defence to refuse to disclose to Parliament and the public its estimates for the total cost of the programme, and to suggest instead that we must wait until the mid-2030s (when all 138 F-35 have been procured) to be able to work out a full unit cost for each aircraft, once spares and upgrades are included.”
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/326/32610.htm#_idTextAnchor045
More can be found on the subject here.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/326/32607.htm#_idTextAnchor023