Moderadores: Lepanto, poliorcetes, Edu, Orel
(Source: Canadian Department of National Defence; issued Mar 16, 2012)
OTTAWA, Ontario --- The Honourable Julian Fantino, Associate Minister of National Defence, today highlighted the Government of Canada's successful ongoing efforts to renew the Canadian Forces in remarks to members of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI). In his speech, Minister Fantino highlighted Canada's ongoing participation in the multinational Joint Strike Fighter program.
"The multinational Joint Strike Fighter Program represents a new model for international cooperation and development," said Minister Fantino. "Our historic efforts to renew the Canadian Forces include participating with our allies to develop a new state-of-the-art aircraft for the 21st century."
The Government of Canada's decision to modernize its current CF-18 fleet ensures the Canadian Forces the necessary flexibility to transition to the replacement aircraft that will be required to protect our airspace beginning in the early 2020s. Our Government has set a budget for replacement aircraft and has been clear that we will operate within that budget. A contract for replacement aircraft has not yet been signed.
"The Royal Canadian Air Force plays a vital role in protecting our airspace and sovereignty, as well as defending our interests internationally," said Minister Fantino. "Our flexible plans ensure that our Air Force will continue to have the aircraft necessary to do the job we ask of them."
As a result of our decision to participate in the multinational Joint Strike Fighter program, skilled Canadian workers continue to benefit from hundreds of millions of dollars in additional work that otherwise would not have existed. Since 1997, our participation has already resulted in contracts worth $435 million to the Canadian aerospace industry that employs nearly 80,000 Canadian workers.
"Our Government is proud of its responsible approach to replacing our aging CF-18 aircraft," added Minister Fantino.
Lo que ya es más posible, es que las 65 unidades no les entren en el presupuesto, por eso andan mareando la perdiz...
...
The test team’s October 2011 report identified deficiencies with the helmet mounted display, night vision capability, aircraft handling characteristics, and shortfalls in maneuvering performance. The report also cited an inadequate logistics system for deployments, excessive time to repair and restore low observable features, low reliability, and poor maintainability performance. It also stated that the JSF will require substantial improvements in order to achieve sortie generation rates and life cycle cost requirements.
...
By: Craig Hoyle London
02:12 23 Mar 2012
Source: Flight International
Norway has reaffirmed its plans to buy the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, with its new defence White Paper also outlining a possible acceleration in first deliveries of the type.
Oslo in 2008 selected the conventional take-off and landing F-35A to replace its Lockheed F-16AM/BM fighters, and has already ordered an initial four to support its future training requirements. The first two of these could be delivered a year early, in 2015, according to the 23 March document.
"The ambition remains for a total acquisition of 52 aircraft, including four training aircraft, and despite changes made by other partner nations Norway finds that its previous and robust real-cost estimates remain accurate," says defence minister Espen Barth Eide. "We remain confident that the F-35 represents the best capability for the best value possible."
Norway has reaffirmed its plans to buy an eventual 52 F-35A strike fighters
With the F-35 acquisition to represent a major undertaking, the defence ministry's plan for the 2013 to 2016 period includes a "temporary strengthening" of its budget equating to a 7% increase in spending. Oslo also wants to bring forward and extend its planned expenditure on the combat aircraft to spread its costs.
"A new start date of 2017 is being considered, while the final procurement year may be extended to 2023 or 2024," Eide says. Each annual acquisition will require approval from the Norwegian parliament, as will a decision on whether to acquire the final six planned production examples.
Once fielded, the Royal Norwegian Air Force's F-35s will be operated from Ørland air base, in addition to providing quick reaction alert cover from Evenes in the north of the country.
Norway's continued confidence in the F-35 will come as welcome news to Lockheed, following widespread reports of concerns over cost and schedule delays among other future operators Australia, Canada and Japan. US Air Force secretary Michael Donley also said on 20 March that future problems with delivering the aircraft would "be paid for by tails" against the service's stated intention to buy 1,763 examples.
Also contained within Oslo's new White Paper is a plan to introduce the maritime version of NH Industries' NH90 utility helicopter to service in the 2013-16 period. Eight of the aircraft are already on order for the Royal Norwegian Navy.
(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued March 29, 2012)
WASHINGTON --- Estimated costs for the F-35 joint strike fighter have increased over the life of the program, but the Defense Department is working to contain cost growth and remains committed to the fifth-generation fighter, defense officials said today.
Frank Kendall III said during confirmation testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that cost overruns for the stealth fighter are about $150 billion. Kendall is acting undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, and if confirmed will assume that position officially.
"We are doing everything we can to drive down the cost of the joint strike fighter,” Kendall told committee members.
He noted the program is still in testing, with about 20 percent of that process complete.
"We are finding design issues as we go through the test program that we have to correct,” he acknowledged. “So there are some cost adjustments associated with that."
Kendall outlined the department’s actions to rein in the program’s price tag.
"We are attacking the production costs by putting strong incentives on the contractor to control costs, to get the changes that have to be made cut in quickly,” he said. Concurrent engineering design is one issue that has raised costs, he told the panel. In that approach, which is intended to develop a finished product faster, a new system may simultaneously be in engineering, production and testing processes, he explained.
...
Little said in keeping with the Defense Department’s better buying power initiative, which requires tracking affordability targets and costs associated with acquisition programs, the memorandum sets the current outlook for F-35 final per-unit costs in 2019, when the fifth-generation fighter is scheduled to reach full production.
In today’s dollars, that cost is estimated at $81.4 million per aircraft, which when adjusted for inflation is estimated at $94.9 million in 2019 dollars, Little said.
Overall operating and support costs of the program are estimated at $1.1 trillion, up from last year’s estimate of $1 trillion, the press secretary added.
...
(Source: Lexington Institute; issued March 29, 2012)
(© Lexington Institute; reproduced by permission)
The Department of Defense has completed its latest wildly inaccurate estimate of how much it will cost to build and operate the F-35 fighter over fifty years. The F-35 is the Pentagon's biggest weapon program and it's the first military aircraft for which 50-year costs have been calculated, so the number is predictably huge: $1.45 trillion according to Reuters.
However, before everybody goes ape about the new price-tag, there's a few facts they ought to keep in mind. First, the estimate is stated in "then-year" dollars, meaning with inflation included. Since the department's assumptions about future inflation rates for labor, fuel and other inputs are unprovable and probably wrong, they shouldn't be taken seriously. If you take out the effects of inflation and express the 50-year cost in today's dollars, it's less than a trillion dollars.
Second, most of the recent cost increases in the program were caused by government management decisions rather than contractor actions. For instance, when the program began costs were estimated over a 30-year period for a plane deployed at 33 bases; now the costs are estimated over a 50-year period for a plane deployed at 49 bases, so of course the planes look pricier. The government has made so many changes to the scope and methods of its cost estimates that they account for three-quarters of all the recent increases in costs.
Third, some of the assumptions underpinning the cost estimates are really shaky. For example, a major component of F-35 future costs is capability upgrades that haven't even been invented yet. Pentagon analysts managed to come up with a number for how much those upgrades will cost, but how can anybody believe them? Maybe that's why such costs aren't even included in the estimates for other planes. Like the $60 billion increase in long-term support costs caused by the recent decision to slow production, the projected price of future upgrades is total fiction.
Perhaps what politicians and policymakers should be focusing on is the cost of losing a war because the Pentagon failed to modernize U.S. air power in a timely fashion. The Obama Administration seems to be in no rush to field the F-35 despite the increasingly decrepit state of U.S. air fleets, as if that poses no problem for future administrations. But losing a war for lack of adequate air power could cost taxpayers a lot more than the price-tag of the F-35, and the way the Pentagon calculates F-35 costs there's no reason to take the new estimates seriously anyway.
By Tony Capaccio - Mar 28, 2012 11:50 PM GMT+0200
...
The memo discloses that full-rate production, the program’s most profitable phase for Lockheed Martin, has been moved to 2019, a delay of seven years from the original goal that was set in October 2001 and two years later than the current schedule.
Kendall set target costs for the program’s three aircraft versions to meet before the Pentagon decides in 2019 to proceed.
The targets are expressed in a standard measure of aircraft costs -- “unit recurring flyaway,” which represents basic airframe production, in inflation-adjusted “then-year” dollars.
The Navy model’s target is $93.3 million. The latest comparable number is $210.6 million as negotiated in Lockheed Martin’s fourth production contract.
The Air Force’s version has a 2019 target cost goal of $83.4 million, down from $152.2 million.
The Marine Corps short-takeoff and vertical landing version’s 2019 target cost is $108.1 million, down from $172.4 million.
Usuarios navegando por este Foro: No hay usuarios registrados visitando el Foro y 0 invitados