The contract covers long lead materials, parts, components and support necessary to maintain on-time production and delivery of 43 lot 15 F-35 aircraft.

The order us for non-Department of Defense buyers and Foreign Military Sales customers, the Pentagon said in a press release on Friday.

According to a contract notice:

“Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded a not-to-exceed $347,714,510 modification to a previously-awarded fixed-price-incentive-firm-target advance acquisition contract (N00019-20-C-0009).  This modification procures long lead materials, parts, components and support necessary to maintain on-time production and delivery of 43 lot 15 F-35 aircraft for non-Department of Defense (DoD) participants and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers. 

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (30%); El Segundo, California (25%); Warton, United Kingdom (20%); Orlando, Florida (10%); Nashua, New Hampshire (5%); Nagoya, Japan (5%); and Baltimore, Maryland (5%), and is expected to be completed in December 2023.  Non-DoD participant funds in the amount of $204,964,510; and FMS funds in the amount of $142,750,000, will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.”

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
50 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rooney
Rooney
7 months ago

only 29 F35Bs in lot 15, how many for UK?

J Rouleau
J Rouleau
7 months ago
Reply to  Rooney

Who else (non-US DOD) is committed to the B at this point? Italy, perhaps Japan?

Joe16
Joe16
7 months ago
Reply to  Rooney

No one’s saying yet, 47 of the total lot (all types) will be foreign military sales, but there’s no further breakdown.
This is the Lot we want to start properly buying from though; they’ll be block 4 programmed, with the new DAS and software configured for continuous upgrades. Makes them easier and cheaper to have extras like conformal fuel tanks and additional operator-specific weapons systems added on.

Rob Collinson
Rob Collinson
7 months ago
Reply to  Joe16

This from a previous post on UKDJ Numbers right now are exactly where they’re expected to be and inline with the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review. 2 F-35B in LRIP run 3, 1 F-35B in LRIP run 4, 1 F-35B in LRIP run 7, 4 F-35B in LRIP run 8, 6 F-35B in LRIP run 9, 3 F-35B in LRIP run 10, 2 F-35B in LRIP run 11, 2 F-35B in LRIP run 12 6 F-35B in LRIP run 13, 8 F-35B in LRIP run 14 and 7 F-35B in LRIP run 15. This brings us to 42 in… Read more »

Joe16
Joe16
7 months ago
Reply to  Rob Collinson

Thanks Rob, that’s handy! My understanding is that LRIP 15 has now been re-chategorised as the first of the main production runs, but it’s unlikely that the number we buy will change. Hopefully the ones that are currently in production on the previous LRIPs will have a chance to get updated quickly and relatively cheaply to the block 4 standard…

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
7 months ago
Reply to  Rooney
julian1
julian1
7 months ago

20% for UK, I thought 15% was UK input?

Rob Young
Rob Young
7 months ago
Reply to  julian1

That’s an average and suggests that a greater than average number of F-35Bs will be in this batch.

Julian1
Julian1
7 months ago
Reply to  Rob Young

Excellent reason

Geoff
Geoff
7 months ago
Reply to  Rob Young

Well we are supposed to get 3 in 2020 and 7 in 2021, so it makes sense…

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
7 months ago

Next SDSR has to commit to some key numerical orders to return some much needed mass and a small atritional reserve to UK armed forces. F35B order is key, HMG have to order at least another 48 of the B variants to give carrier strike and the RN in general its teeth back as well as vital CAP top cover, interception and strike missions.
Anything less than another 48 active F35Bs will be a failure and missed opportunity.

T.S
7 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

With Cummings in no.10 now, I don’t think carrier strike is a certainty anymore. I’m fully expecting some very large and controversial decisions soon. The noises from Whitehall and from the MOD are that government are looking at large cuts to major capabilities and refocusing to soft power and just buying off the shelf from the USA rather than designing and building here anymore. For those who voted in this shit shower of a government, this is the reality of that decision. And one that was all too predictable. Sounds like the decision has been made that we are not… Read more »

George
George
7 months ago
Reply to  T.S

Hi there,
Not too sure about major cuts, yes some savings will have to be made no doupt. However, from the news yesterday, it appears the new chancellor is going to borrow a trillion £’s, so hold back on the negativity for now please.

T.S
7 months ago
Reply to  George

Sorry, but can you please have a link to information on that? Not sure that could be accurate

Graham
Graham
7 months ago
Reply to  T.S

Perhaps it’s because all the experts at the treasury have been sacked by Cummings and replaced with his people. That’s why Javid quit, Rishi Sunak will borrow for big infrastructure projects, defence will get be much lower priority and likely they will chop some big capabilities.
As for F-35 those on order might be the last of the type.

George
George
7 months ago
Reply to  T.S

Hi. There, the trillion was reported in the Independent Monday. So we have to waite and see if some extra will go to the MOD, but I’m sure many MP’s will resist any cuts to defence.

Graham
Graham
7 months ago
Reply to  George

That’s for infrastructure projects like HS2 and bridges between NI and Scotland. The defence budget will be slashed to help pay for it.
T.S. has hit the nail on the head, this shit shower of a government are going to sorely disappoint all those that thought Brexit/Boris and ‘global Britain’ were going to mean big increases in defence. It’s not, Cummings is the lunatic in charge of the asylum, 2020 SDSR is going to be brutal more like the 2010 SDSR.

Sean
Sean
7 months ago
Reply to  Graham

And if Corbyn had gotten in we wouldn’t have any armed forces period, so given the choice, Boris was the least worst option. Given the genius Cummings displayed in winning the Referendum and the General Election I doubt he’d be so foolish as to downgrade our defence capabilities. Diplomatically doing so wouldn’t play well given the USA would take a dim view of defence back-sliding. If we’re to get a good trade deal with them, in part to pile pressure on the EU, then we need to keep defence spending up. Politically defence cuts wouldn’t play well either. The most… Read more »

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
7 months ago
Reply to  Sean

And like clockwork….

Sean
Sean
7 months ago
Reply to  SoleSurvivor

“all it takes for stupidly to flourish is for wise men to stand back and say nothing”

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
7 months ago
Reply to  Sean

Doesn’t make any sense, unless you meant to put stupidity*?

Steve
Steve
7 months ago
Reply to  George

Increasing public borrowing is short termism at its worse and what resulted in the mess Greece etc are in. A trillion extra debt would be a significant increase in the debt level.

Steve
Steve
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve

Current debt is at 1.8t, increasing it by another 1t would bankrupt the country.

Sean
Sean
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve

Whose saying an extra trillion in borrowing?
Oh newspaper speculation…
Fiction then.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
7 months ago
Reply to  T.S

Lets see the out come of the defence review first before making wild speculation.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
7 months ago

PM launches biggest review of UK’s foreign, defence and security policy ‘since Cold War’

https://news.sky.com/story/pm-launches-biggest-review-of-uks-foreign-defence-and-security-policy-since-cold-war-11943213

Martin
Martin
7 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Given the America first policy and Britain’s desire to build global ties and reassert it self outside of Europe any sane government would boost the carrier program which given that we have already built two Super carriers and helped design an amazing hovering 5th generation aircraft should be a piece of piss. However no doubt a government staffed by misfits and weirdos will cancel the carriers because it’s a labour thing and spend more money on Norton Anti Virus so we can say that carriers are no longer needed and we are all about cyber space. The only way to… Read more »

RobW
RobW
7 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

I think there is a misunderstanding as to what the ‘Global Britain’ mantra really means. After leaving the EU we need to significantly increase our diplomatic presence in many areas of the world, which will include investment in people, infrastructure, and strategic inward investment in countries we want to increase trade with. It doesn’t necessarily mean an increase in defence spending, at least not on traditional priorities such as frigates, jets, SSNs etc. We may actually see funds diverted from those sort of projects to diplomacy, cyber defence, and intelligence. In terms of securing trade with friendly nations, those sorts… Read more »

Martin
Martin
7 months ago
Reply to  RobW

There’s a misunderstanding about what global Britain means primarily because the statement means nothing and was written by a group that lacks any form of ambition or strategic thinking. It goes up their with Briton being open for business and punching above its weight. All slogans from a Tory party that is bereft of any ideas and simply hopes to cut spending and try and get elected again while maybe getting a few free trade agreements along the way. The retreat if the USA and Europe from the world stage opened up a major opportunity for the UK but it’s… Read more »

RobW
RobW
7 months ago
Reply to  Martin

I hope you are wrong for all our sake. Over the next couple of years I really hope that Boris and co prove so many wrong, including myself, and actually put plans in motion to support a strategic vision, whatever that might be. Given so many lent their votes to the Tories it would seem rather daft to ignore that fact and let the north/south divide remain, then just hope you get in again in 5 years. Boris also knows that he needs the economy to work post Brexit or much of the blame will fall squarely on him. I… Read more »

Steve R
Steve R
7 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

I’d like to think that this might result in some additional funding for defence and not just an excuse to cut ships, aircraft etc and divert the same money to cyber defence, intelligence etc. While those are both vital, all the intelligence in the world won’t help if we see a threat coming but lack the combat capability to deal with it. I heard on the news this morning that they think defence spending might rise above 2%. I’d certainly hope so. We need a real investment in defence, not just the paltry billion here and there to stave off… Read more »

RobW
RobW
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve R

I hope you are right Steve, but I have yet to hear anyone in Government make such a statement.

Steve R
Steve R
7 months ago
Reply to  RobW

Vote me in next election and I’ll double the defence budget! ;-p

Ryan Connelly
Ryan Connelly
7 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

I couldn’t help but chuckle because hasn’t that review been going on for a while, I remember the article on here about our failings on foreign policy, while saying that there is a review underway looking at reviewing all of it.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
7 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Thanks Nigel,

Interesting read. My impression is that there will be cuts to some capabilities but that Defence will see growth in budget overall… We’ll see.

Mike
Mike
7 months ago

Military spending must be and will be cut. The carriers are a waste and can easily be sold off. Money spent on military matters is an utter waste. Thanks to all those who vote Tory. In a backhanded way, you did so many a favour.

RobW
RobW
7 months ago
Reply to  Mike

I know you aren’t one for replying to most of the responses to your posts, but, could you just explain why you bother with the UKDJ as it and its readers clearly have a different agenda to you? Unless of course you enjoy it.

Pete
Pete
7 months ago
Reply to  Mike

Having been a brit east of Eden for @20 years i can tell you there are muliple despots who would rape and pilage the marine trade routes and engage in wide spread ethnic cleansing if it wasnt for the threat of robust intervention by a handful of players such as USA, UK, France, Singapore etc….. Never mind a very real growing threat of China.

Can spending be better managed and deliver more bang for buck… Absolutely… Same spending better outcomes should be goal IMHO

P

Lordtemplar
Lordtemplar
7 months ago
Reply to  Mike

Carriers are not a waste. UK has many oversees territories to protect.
If carriers were such a waste why are many countries in the process of building them or in the design process? (S. Korea, India, China, Russia, France)

Sean
Sean
7 months ago
Reply to  Mike

Troll.

Meirion X
Meirion X
7 months ago
Reply to  Sean

I agree, that Mike is A Troll who has the cheek to use A English name.

Harold
Harold
7 months ago

So why did the government spend £billions on 2 aircraft carries with initially no aircraft, and £billions more fitting them out with aircraft, which the Chinese said would make good target practice? Certainly seems a good time to reassess the UK’s foreign policy after disastrous involvements in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. Billions wasted and countless lives lost in foreign wars, not to mention the destruction caused. UK’s foreign policy failures too have massively contributed the refugee crisis, and, in particular, flows of ‘illegal’ migrants across Europe. Home defence not aggressive overseas involvement. And as one with family members in… Read more »

Richard
Richard
7 months ago
Reply to  Harold

I’ll take this. Britain needs access to the Atlantic for our supplies and Eire wants to remain neutral without armed forces. They are defended without any British bases on their soil and they can spend that tax revenue elsewhere. This is a good deal for both parties. Britain’s home survival depends on naval supplies and alliances, so we need a powerful navy and power projection. We bought the carriers without many aircraft because we have to restore this ability from scratch.Additionally, the F35b is in agile development and will have incremental improvements. It makes sense to buy the bulk of… Read more »

Sean
Sean
7 months ago
Reply to  Harold

Eire is still broke and can’t afford an Air Force, that’s why THEY ASKED the U.K. to provide air cover.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
7 months ago
Reply to  Harold

I guess you like terrorists then Harold 😉

Meirion X
Meirion X
7 months ago
Reply to  Harold

Neutrality is just the same as Burying Your Head in the sand!
Just like Harold does, and thinks one will harm Him that way!

Steve Martin
Steve Martin
7 months ago
Reply to  Harold

1. So why did the government spend £billions on 2 aircraft carries with initially no aircraft, and £billions more fitting them out with aircraft, which the Chinese said would make good target practice? Actually a pretty decent cost per carrier and we are far better waiting to buy block 4 F-35B’s with more mature software. As for the Chinese; well they would say that wouldn’t they. The fact they decided to comment at all is interesting. 2. Certainly seems a good time to reassess the UK’s foreign policy after disastrous involvements in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. Billions wasted and… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 months ago
Reply to  Steve Martin

All good answers Steve.

However, he rarely replies to sensible responses to encourage debate, just posts and hides.

Hopefully you won’t be shot down like I was recently for daring to offer a response.

Steve Martin
Steve Martin
7 months ago

If I am so be it, I’m a big boy 🙂

Meirion X
Meirion X
6 months ago
Reply to  Harold

Bury Your Head in the Sand, and think No One will harm You that way!!