Archief van de 'Global F35 News' Categorie

Apr 24 2014

Kongsberg Norway: new US$ 26 million parts contract F-35 JSF

Gepubliceerd door JSFNieuws.nl onder Global F35 News

Norwegian company Kongsberg signed a contract for delivery of parts to the Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter project, worth NOK 160 million (US$ 26,7 million, € 19,2 million).

The contract is a continuation of deliveries from the five previous production lots (LRIP 3-7) and supports the continued business relationship between Kongsberg and Lockheed Martin. The contract includes deliveries to about 40 aircraft.

We are pleased that we reached an agreement for additional vertical tail leading edges and rudder components for the F-35 Lightning II and it is a testament to the continuing long-term international cooperation between Lockheed Martin and Kongsberg,” said Susan Ouzts, Lockheed Martin vice president, F-35 International Programs. “Kongsberg continues to demonstrate the high levels of technical and manufacturing sophistication that are required to compete for work on the F-35, and we expect more F-35 industrial participation for Norway as we continue to move through the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) phases.

This contract demonstrates Kongsberg’s continued competitiveness of high end manufacturing and represents a new significant milestone for our aerostructures business. We are pleased to be a supplier of quality products to the F-35 program, supporting the continuation of our long term cooperation with Lockheed Martin”, said Terje Bråthen, Executive Vice President Aerostructures, Kongsberg Defence Systems.

Source:
Press Release Kongsberg Gruppen

Nog geen reacties op dit bericht. Vragen of opmerkingen zijn welkom!

Apr 24 2014

New F-35 Claim: Lower O&S Offsets Higher Acquisition Cost

Gepubliceerd door JSFNieuws.nl onder Global F35 News

Washington - Last week the U.S. Defense Department released its new Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs) on its major weapon programs. These annual reports are the Pentagon’s effort at definitive cost analysis; they come in two forms: the summary data on all 77 of DOD’s Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) and separate reports on individual programs, such as the F-35—the latter put on-line without a pay wall by Breaking Defense.

As in recent years, the release of new data on the F-35 provoked press coverage, some of it quite thorough in summarizing much the new data and what the top F-35 defender, F-35 program manager Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, had to say about it all. However, there are some important points that did not get the attention they perhaps deserve, and one key point seems to have been generally missed.

F-35 Acquisition costs increased US$ 7.4 billion

As the SARs and Department of Defense’s summary of them made clear:
The cost to acquire the F-35 has gone up compared to last year’s estimate. Page 6 of DOD’s summary of its SAR states that F-35 airframe “costs increased +$3.1 billion (+1.0%) from $326.9 billion to $330.0 billion” and costs for the separately accounted engine “increased +$4.3 billion (+6.7%) from $64.3 billion to $68.6 billion.”

The $7.4 billion cost increase comes in the face of promises, made by F-35 program manager Lt. Gen Christopher Bogdan and DOD acquisition czar Frank Kendall to Congress, that costs are coming down and will do so in the future. Bogdan describes the new increases as due to higher than predicted actual labor costs and the decision of some buyers, including the US Navy, to delay their purchases—thereby delaying the onset of cost reductions from the so-called learning curve and economies of scale. Those developments should hardly have been a surprise, especially for someone as involved in the F-35 program as Lt. Gen. Bogdan.

Continued promise since 2007: “cost reduction as soon as new buyers commit to the F-35″

But all that now should be seen as stale history as Bogdan re-assures the press that new cost reductions will occur as soon as new buyers commit to the program—assuming they all do and that existing F-35 buyers do not balk even more than some have already.

In truth, the future of the F-35 program remains clouded, and most cloudy of all is the ultimate unit cost of the aircraft and the impact of that cost, as its reality unfolds, on existing and future buyers. As previously argued, there is good reason to think the real-world unit cost of F-35s, on average, will stay much closer to the $200 million level than it does to the dubious predictions of Lockheed and Lt. Gen. Bogdan, such as $75 million each. (Editor: 23-Apr2014, Australia announced to buy 58 “more” F-35As with a budgetted total acquisition amount of US$ 11.6 billion, or a unit price of US$ 198 million each).

Second, the F-35 acquisition cost increases revealed by the new SARs come as a major embarrassment to the Government Accountability Office that pronounced in a report released just last month that DOD SAR data showed F-35 acquisition costs coming down, not going up. As previously explained, GAO’s report used two year old data, thanks to the agency’s ponderous report writing process and the fact that the analysts and manager assigned to the report used a stunningly superficial analytical methodology. Not a single news article I read on the new SAR data recalled GAO’s miss-call of the acquisition cost vector.

Operating & Support Costs to be going down: yes or no?

Instead, the headline on many of the news articles on the new F-35 SAR data pushed the fact that DOD is now estimating the cost to operate and support the F-35 (O&S costs, which are quite separate from acquisition costs) to be going down. Beyond the increasing acquisition (research and production) expense, DOD announced that F-35 “operating and support costs decreased $96,8 billion (-8.7%) from $1.113,3 billion to $1.016,5 billion.”

Thus, there was a net “life cycle” (acquisition plus O&S) reduction in F-35 costs of $89.4 billion. The net figure gave Bogdan and Lockheed the pretext to say that, overall, F-35 costs were indeed coming down. However, that is not the acquisition price promise they have been making, and closer inspection of the reasons for the lower O&S cost estimate show that it too is a concocted estimate.

Closer analysis shows: lower O&S costs a false claim

DOD’s summary explanation says the lower O&S estimate is “due primarily to cost data updates including the application of historical cost escalation and an update to the Spare Parts Unit Database, revised labor rates, and updated technical inputs to include increased fuel efficiency.” But if you read the material buried at the end of DOD’s 97 page system-specific SAR on the F-35, some better insight creeps in.

Page 95 explains that “for the first time” the DOD cost estimators have “actual information on component reliabilities obtained from ongoing F-35 flight operations” including “actual reliability information on many F-35 components based on data collected during approximately 8,500 hours of flight operations.”
Based on that empirical data, the DOD cost estimators at the Cost Assessment and Performance Evaluation (CAPE) office are saying the costs to maintain and repair the F-35 are going up, not down, by $15 billion. This is “because component reliability information obtained from actual flight operations data is not consistent with expectations.” (Bogdan tried to discount this information by saying his office’s even lower O&S estimate uses more recent, more extensive flying hour data, but he also let slip that his office also adjusted the data with more of those unrealized future “expectations” that his office insists on projecting.)

Empircial - real world - cost increase confirmed by CAPE

The empirical—real world—cost increase that CAPE found to mean a small increase in F-35 O&S was declared to be offset by four factors cited in the SAR by CAPE:

- The military services will achieve savings by flying the F-35 less, which on page 96, and elsewhere, is declared to be “fuel efficiency.”

- An update to the “Spare Parts Unit Database” predicts fewer, not more, future spare parts and/or lower, not higher, costs for them but without any explanation.

- Inflation during the projected 30 year service life of F-35s—out to the year 2065—is declared to be lower, and

- The cost for labor by military, civilian and contractor personnel—also out to the year 2065—is “updated” to lesser numbers.

Uncertain prognosted- virtual world - cost down by creative calculations

Thus, the cost increases from empirically demonstrated maintenance and support data from recent history are more than offset by future prognostications out to 2065. It is precisely matters like fuel costs, inflation and labor rates that can be unpredictable just for months ahead, let alone years—to say nothing of decades. Estimating them with such precision out to 2065 is an easy plaything for manipulation.

We already know DOD manipulates its own inflation prognostications for both its own budget history and for short term future predictions in the five-year Future Year Defense Program (FYDP). It stretches credulity past the breaking point to assert that the cost of a weapon program will be some precise lesser amount 30 years from now because someone has readjusted inflation and labor cost predictions.

In fact, in past inflation predictions for specific on-coming fiscal years (those just months ahead) DOD has proven inaccurate not just in the amount inflation has grown or declined but whether it has grown or declined. If they cannot even get the vector right a few months ahead, what business do they have asserting they can know it precisely 30 years from now? It is quite preposterous.

And yet, here we are, asked to believe that the cost of F-35 O&S will be, as DOD tells us, “decreased $96.8 billion (-8.7%) from $1.113,3 billion to $1.016,5 billion” by the time the program is done in 2065.

Conclusion:
What they are saying is that data from the immediate past—based on known production costs, actual orders from buyers, and real world maintenance expenses—are more than offset by future—unsecured—purchase decisions and unknowable inflation and labor costs out to the year 2065.

How do you write “bridge for sale” in a Brooklyn accent??

Author:
Winslow Wheeler, Director, Straus Military Reform Project, CDI at POGO, POGO
Mr. Wheeler’s areas of expertise include Congress, the Defense Budget, National Security, Pentagon Reform and Weapons Systems

Nog geen reacties op dit bericht. Vragen of opmerkingen zijn welkom!

Apr 24 2014

Italian F-35 Order to be cut by half: only 45 remaining

Gepubliceerd door JSFNieuws.nl onder Global F35 News

Defenseworld.net publicized an article Wednesday, April 23, 2014 about the Italian proposal to decrease the number of JSF further from 90 to 45.

 

Some interesting details:

  • Italy’s number of aircraft are down from 131 initialy to 90 (decided in 2012) to 45 now.

  • Why the Italian report state’s that: the 45 remaining aircraft would be slightly less than the 131 that Italy initially planned” is rather strange. Since when is a decrease of 65,65% in numbers a slightly less ammount?

  • No change in 6 aircraft buy planned for this year (2014)

  • Reduction in the number of aircraft for the period 2015-2019 from 40 to 29, this will safe over 2 billion Euros.

  • Next order (presumably the 2015 order) will be reduced from 8 to 5 aircraft.

  • Although the Air Force back’s the acquisition of the JSF, Italian defense plans have no requirement for a stealthy strike fighter

  • The new defense white paper whose publication, originally expected by year-end, will now be brought forward to the summer.

  • The government wants to avoid (at least minimize) any cuts in production orders for the Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) facility in Cameri, in Northern Italy.

What will this downsizing mean for the FACO where also the Dutch proposed JSF would be assembled? Is such an enormous infrastructure build only for 31 (some of the 37 Dutch JSF will remain in the US)+ 45 Italian JSF (including F35A and B type)? Norway already said they want to have their aircraft assembled in the US.

 

 

 

Italy’s new government has decided to halve its procurement F-35 fighters, from 90 to 45, but will stretch out its implementation to limit any losses of related work for its aerospace industry, the Rome daily La Repubblica reported April 22.

According to the report, the 45 remaining aircraft would be slightly less than the 131 that Italy initially planned; a previous government had already cut 41 aircraft from its planned order in 2012.

In an April 18 decree, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi said that savings from the F-35 program would contribute to a 10-billion euro tax cut, and that the program would be “remodulate.” This year, the only change to the program is a reduction of 153 million euros, the decree stated.

According to La Repubblica, Renzi will not change the six-aircraft order planned for 2014, but will reduce the number of aircraft ordered by 2019 from 40 to 29. This will allow savings of over 2 billion euros, which the government finds irresistible.

 

 

Read the whole article on Defenseworld.net

Nog geen reacties op dit bericht. Vragen of opmerkingen zijn welkom!

Apr 23 2014

Australian MOD: “If costs blow out, we may leave the JSF program”

Gepubliceerd door Christiaan Meinen onder Global F35 News

In essence this is the same trick the JSF-lobby pulled out in the Netherlands in early 2010. The question was wether the Netherlands would buy into the IOT&E phase of the JSF Program. An act which we had to do, there was no other option possible according Dutch MoD. The situation was that the coalition of Christian Democrats (CDA) Labour party (PvdA) and Christian Union (CU) “had” to decide on buying the test aircraft to participate in the IOT&A phase. This was a subject of discussion because the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin didn’t deliver what they promised. And they couldn’t give answers to specific requirements of the Dutch Parliament. Like the fixed price for example. The dilemma was that CDA wanted to proceed with the buy of two test aircraft and IOT&E phase for an amount of almost € 450 million. PvdA was reluctant and didn’t want it without answers to these unknown criteria. After hours of discussion they agreed the following:

“ We pay them, but we do not. buy them” De Vries (under minister of Defense at that time)  wants to capture in a ’side letter’. 

The suggestion was that it would be as easy to go back to LM/Pentagon and turn in the receipt to get our money back. Yes it looks funny… but this is real Dutch politics.  Pvda agreed on this term!

The whole article below by Eric Palmer is equally the situation which describes best what actually happens in the Netherlands… and almost all partner countries, except maybe for Denmark.

Reposted opinion with permission from Eric Palmer blog! “Defenc(s)e analysis from my corner of the Internet.” (with thanks)

Australian Defence Minister Johnston was on a radio show to explain F-35 progress. (transcript below).

Not much of what he said is true. Either he is being poorly advised, or he is engaging in misleading the nation. As an aside, his history on Defence topics could be summed up by, “if it is expensive, it must be good.”. Fact free analysis. For example, he wants the P-8A and Triton surveillance aircraft but both are immature and expensive. The entrenched Defence bureaucracy has a large history of getting it wrong, leaving a very small population of tax payers, to fund multi-billion dollar mistakes.

Again and again. The Australian public is stuck on the wrong end of an abusive relationship.

Johnston claims that the F-35 is “fifth generation” and by this alone it will defeat anything. Not true.

He claims that 4000 F-35’s will be built. No proof.
He states that costs are coming down on the program. Fairy dust. Since the F-35 development is so immature and troubled, there are a forest of billion-dollar fixes waiting.
He claims that there are 19 million lines of software code for the F-35 and this is …. wait for it… an advantage.
He states all of the industry/workshare talking points…

From about the year 2002 when Australia foolishly signed up for the program.

“It will affordable because already there are 3,000 aircraft on the order books.”
—27 June 2002, Air Marshal Houston, Defence press announcement, Australia joins the F-35 program—


The billions in Australian work-share Johnston has claimed have turned into a loss leader.
This from 2010:

O’Donnell cited one family-owned business, Production Parts Pty in Australia, which made “a substantial investment because they expected production volumes to be twice what they are today.” Production Parts itself, he added, has enough other business to keep going, but others are not so well off.


Within 2 years, Production Parts went out of business. Why? Lack of F-35 orders. Why? Because no one wanted to buy lots of mistake jets.

Here is what we were told in 2003 about the F-35s’ future success. 

That is a lot of lost money because of hundreds of jet orders that didn’t happen.

Johnston states that if there are cost blow outs, that Australia can leave the program. I suggest that we are already there:

“It’s about $37 million for the CTOL aircraft, which is the air force variant.”
- Colonel Dwyer Dennis, U.S. JSF Program Office brief to Australian journalists, 2002-

“. . . US$40 million dollars . . ”
-Senate Estimates/Media Air Commodore John Harvey, AM Angus Houston, Mr Mick Roche, USDM, 2003-

” . . US$45 million in 2002 dollars . .”
-JSCFADT/Senate Estimates, Air Commodore John Harvey, Mr Mick Roche, USDM, 2003/2004-

“. . average unit recurring flyaway cost of the JSF will be around US$48 million, in 2002 dollars . . ”
-Senate Estimates/Press Club Briefing, Air Commodore John Harvey, 2006

“. . the JSF Price (for Australia) - US$55 million average for our aircraft . . in 2006 dollars . .”
-Senate Estimates/Media AVM John Harvey ACM Angus Houston, Nov. 2006-


Johnston’s radio show transcript below.

TRANSCRIPT

CHRIS UHLMANN: The plan to buy these jets has been in the pipeline for more than a decade and supported by Coalition and Labor Governments.

The man who will usher in the next phase is David Johnston, the Federal Defence Minister.

David Johnston, why does Australia need these jets?

DAVID JOHNSTON: Well, fifth-generation technology means that the aircraft have a specific sense of capability that puts them clearly above anything else in terms of air combat capability or other jet fighters, to use the common parlance.

Now, the aircraft has a whole host of technological advances that any potential adversary that we might face in the next 30 to 40 years I don’t think has any opportunity to match, particularly in the medium term.

So 19 million lines of computing power on each aircraft. A Collins Class submarine has six million lines of code. So we’re talking about a highly advanced technological stealth weapon that can sense an adversary at a long, long range off and provide Australia with cutting-edge capability in terms of national defence.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And what you talk about at this stage in some cases is experimental. So when will these planes be combat ready?

DAVID JOHNSTON: Well, they’re very, very close. Now 14 have been deployed to the Marines in Yuma in Arizona. There’s 93 aircraft currently flying and they’ve done more than 14,000 hours. They’ve successfully fired a number of ranges of weapons.

They’re landing on helicopter dock ships at the moment. So that’s the STOVL (short take-off/vertical landing) version and the United Kingdom is getting the STOVL version. So the aircraft - we’re getting the A version, which is the standard take-off/landing hard strip version - the aircraft is well advanced.

But it’s a totally different and new concept that is concurrently being developed with its deployment into service. Now, this has not happened before. And I think given the technical risks surrounding such a complex program, I think it is actually going very, very well.

CHRIS UHLMANN: There are technical risks. There are also cost risks. You’re billing this cost at $12.4 billion. Is it possible that cost might rise, particularly if other countries don’t take up their orders for planes?

DAVID JOHNSTON: Well, low rate of initial production six, which contains our aircraft and low-rate LRIP (low-rate initial production) seven has seen a 4 per cent reduction in costs so that the cost schedule equation in terms of a graph is headed in the right direction from Australia’s point of view.

And I’m very optimistic that we are seeing as these aircraft develop - and bear in mind we’re looking to see probably around 4,000 of them manufactured for the 11 countries that are participating in the program - I’m looking to see the price come down over time.

Now we will place an order hopefully this year for a further eight but we will have three combat-ready squadrons by 2023 and one training squadron stood up. We’ll have our first squadron standing up by 2020 and I expect the costs to be continuing to head in the right direction from an Australian perspective.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Well, you talked about 19 million lines of software code. That’s extraordinarily sophisticated and, as I said, experimental. What happens if the cost does blow out? Who pays for delays or mistakes: the contractor or Australia?

DAVID JOHNSTON: Well, the situation is this: if Australia decides that the costs have blown out to such an extent, we are not bound to continue. We are committed to the program. Every indicator at the moment indicates that the costs are headed in the right direction for us so I’m not anticipating any drama, but should there be a major turnaround in cost then, you know, the option is available for us to leave the program.

Now, I don’t want to do that because this aircraft is simply the best thing happening in air combat at the moment. I think, given the 11 countries that are committed to it, all of whom are our friends, I think the costs will continue to come down.

CHRIS UHLMANN: What about skills and technology transfer? Of course, this plane is being built in the United States at the moment, but what are the benefits for Australian defence industry?

DAVID JOHNSTON: Well, currently there are more than 30 companies in Australia that are benefiting from the Joint Strike Fighter program. Now, most of those companies are in Victoria. There is more than $330 million worth of work currently on the table.

I anticipate within the next little while, maybe the next three to four years, there’ll be more than $1.5 billion worth of work for Australian skills and technical manufacturers. We already manufacture the tailplane and a whole host of other accessories for the aircraft.

Now, there is a total up for grabs of more than $7.5 billion. I expect Australian companies to be getting a very significant slice of that action and I will certainly be working with Lockheed Martin and the United States government to see that this commitment rewards Australian industry who have had a bit of a rough time of it lately, defence industry. And we want to see a significant slice of the action coming to those companies.

Now, I want to say that I think this announcement gives them greater confidence, gives them a bit of a fillip as to the good work that they’ve done so far. And we want to see them continue to win more and more of this work.

CHRIS UHLMANN: The Defence Minister David Johnston.


Nog geen reacties op dit bericht. Vragen of opmerkingen zijn welkom!

Apr 23 2014

UPDATE - Australia will get less capability by replacing the F-18s with F-35s

Gepubliceerd door JSFNieuws.nl onder Global F35 News

Reposted opinion with permission from Eric Palmer blog! “Defenc(s)e analysis from my corner of the Internet.” (with thanks)

Defence wants to buy 58 more F-35s (approved). This is on top of a previous want for 14 (approved). Currently 2 are in the production line.

The goal is to replace 71 highly upgraded RAAF F-18A/Bs.

Many problems
The legacy Hornet has more combat capability. It can fire high-off-bore-sight dogfight missiles like the AIM-132 ASRAAM. The F-35 can’t carry this class of missile internally. The enemy can fire this kind of highly capable missile, from a higher performance aircraft, which can find the F-35. The F-35 will have two 2 AIM-120 AMRAAMs. Which against high end threats that can jam, might have a probability of kill as bad as the Vietnam-era Sparrow (very low). It is likely that the F-35 will lose an air to air battle.

The only way to confirm this is the following:

Can the F-35 beat an F-22 in practice combat? Can the F-35 beat a Typhoon in practice combat? Important because those two aircraft approximate some of the capability of emerging air to air threats in the Pacific Rim over the alleged lifetime of the F-35.

The Hornet has a gun. The F-35A has a gun but can’t use it. The helmet cueing system does not work (source: DOD DOTE).

The F-35 is unlikely to perform strikes against heavily defended targets. The same goes for the Hornet.

Sort off.

The Hornet is cleared for the JASSM cruise missile. The F-35 is not.

The F-18 costs Defence $11,770 per flight hour.

The F-35? USAF figured $35,500 per flight hour. And that assumed a working jet with reliability metrics that met the Joint Operational Requirement Document.

The F-35 is yet to prove any useful mission reliability or mission systems capability.

For Australia–given an inept DMO–F-35 cost per flying hour could be $40,000 to $50,000. The F-35 maintenance system called the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which all of its alleged operational affordability was based on, does not work (source: DOD DOTE, F-35 JPO, GAO).

The Defence budget is a zero-sum game. The federal budget is deep in debt by hundreds of billions.

So, given today’s operational budget. RAAF could only afford to fly 30-40 F-35s a year.

Conclusion: The RAAF will fly a less capable aircraft than what was replaced. It will fly fewer of them. The replacement will be less reliable. There will be a decrease in useful combat capability.

The Prime Minister and the Defence Minister have been poorly advised. They are trying to buy an aircraft with no fly-before-you-by justification. Fly-before-you-buy does not work with under-developed, under-tested, non-finished, aircraft that are closer to prototype than final product.

The Defence Minister made several misleading statements today. Only one of many examples, he stated that “operational” aircraft were at places like Yuma. This is not true. Those aircraft are in no way close to operational trim. To date, no F-35 has passed a test to declare initial operating capability. That is still years off.

It is best to start a federal investigation now to find out how this happened. Waiting, will not improve the situation.

UPDATE: Adding a comment from one of our readers that was part of another post:

Johnno

Roughly 10% of the 12.4 bil is for facilities upgrades at Williamtown (NSW) and Tindal (NT). Both bases were last upgraded for the Hornet in the late 1980’s and currently wouldn’t meet security requirement to support the F-35. In fact Amberley (QLD) is the only base in Australia currently certified to handle stealth technologies (F-18F base).

Australian politicians are having their moment of glory right now but they haven’t actually ordered 58 F-35’s, they haven’t actually ordered the 12 that were ‘approved’ 3 years back. At the moment Australia has 2 F-3 5 on contract. The Aust government has previously stated that the aircraft will be purchased via the US FMS system so the aircraft will be purchased in annual increments in the same way as US production is approved.

The next step presumably will be to turn the 12 aircraft that have hung fire for the past 3 years into a firm order. What happens to those 12 will hopefully inform the government in regard to later purchases. In-short a few steps to go yet.

Interesting thing reported in the PM’s statement was that Australia seems to be making a play for the regional maintenance depot for the F-35, Wonder if anyone has told Japan, Korea or Singapore yet?

7:02 a.m., Wednesday April 23

Nog geen reacties op dit bericht. Vragen of opmerkingen zijn welkom!

Apr 23 2014

België : de vraag van zes miljard: nieuwe gevechtsvliegtuigen ja of nee?

Gepubliceerd door JSFNieuws.nl onder Global F35 News

De Belgische Vredesactie VZW heeft een analyse geplaatst op de website De Wereld Morgen.be. JSFNieuws.nl deelt de zienswijze van VZW niet volledig – JSFNieuws.nl en haar redacteuren zijn van mening dat:

1.    er een effectief en inzetbaar luchtwapen behouden dient te blijven ten behoeve van toekomstige onvoorziene inzet;

2.    Er na een, onafhankelijke kandidaten evaluatie, capabele alternatieve gevechtsvliegtuigen beschikbaar zullen zijn;

3.    De redactie van JSFNieuws.nl is verontrust over:

a.    het democratisch gehalte en gebrek aan openheid;

b.    veelvuldig gebruik van misleidende informatie in het Nederlandse JSF; dossier.

4.    transparantie het hart is van democratie en debat;

5.    Bezorgdheid om een  juiste besteding van beschikbare belastinggeld zeer terecht is:

6.    Bezorgdheid om onze nationale veiligheid en defensie terrecht is, dit blijkt uit alle strategische toekomstanalyses;

7.    De keuze VOOR de JSF, de volledige toekomst van de gehele krijgsmacht op het spel kan zetten. Vele broodnodige capaciteiten van de krijgsmacht zijn al geofferd tbv de JSF.

Toch is het artikel nuttig omdat het duidelijk weergeeft hoe het politieke landschap er in België uitziet.

In aanloop naar de Global Day of Action on Military Spending (14 april) vroegen de vredesbewegingen de politieke partijen naar hun standpunt inzake de aankoop van nieuwe gevechtsvliegtuigen. Willen zij nieuwe gevechtsvliegtuigen? En hoe gaan we dat betalen? Bekijk de korte samenvatting op youtube, of lees hier de analyse.

Vredesactie vzw

CD&V en Open VLD zijn de meest uitgesproken voorstanders van nieuwe gevechtsvliegtuigen. Voor CD&V is die aankoop geen politieke keuze maar een noodzaak. Zonder gevechtsvliegtuigen is ons leger binnen de NAVO en de EU irrelevant, meent CD&V. “We hebben geen keuze,” zegt CD&V. En dus moeten we ons ook niet moe maken aan een politiek en publiek debat. Nochtans zijn er ook andere specialisaties mogelijk. Bovendien kan je je afvragen of ons veiligheidsbeleid door de NAVO gedicteerd moet worden.

Volgens Open VLD praten we zonder luchtgevechtscapaciteiten niet meer mee op Europees en NAVO-niveau. Nochtans gaat een buitenlands en veiligheidsbeleid over veel meer dan gevechtscapaciteiten. België zou ook kunnen investeren in niet-militaire middelen om internationaal een rol van betekenis te spelen.

N-VA blijft relatief vaag. Of we al dan niet gevechtsvliegtuigen moeten kopen, hangt af van de allianties waar we deel van uitmaken en de taakverdeling die daar wordt afgesproken. N-VA is voorstander van verregaande samenwerking met Nederland. Als Nederland en België samen hun huidige luchtgevechtscapaciteit willen behouden, zal België mee in gevechtsvliegtuigen moeten investeren. Uit N-VA-hoek komen gemengde geluiden: terwijl Kamerlid Karolien Grosemans onderstreept dat er vandaag veel sociale noden zijn waar we eerst naar moeten kijken, pleiten andere N-VA’ers voluit voor de aankoop van de JSF.

Groen is geen voorstander van nieuwe gevechtsvliegtuigen. Groen sluit de aankoop niet uit, maar vraagt eerst een politiek debat over de toekomst van het veiligheidsbeleid, ook op Europees niveau, zodat vervolgens de noden kunnen worden bepaald. De EU-landen moeten dan afspreken wie in welke taken specialiseert en welke capaciteiten daarvoor nodig zijn. Voor België zijn dat niet noodzakelijk gevechtsvliegtuigen, er is immers al overcapaciteit aan gevechtsvliegtuigen in Europa. 4 à 6 miljard is voor Groen hoe dan ook te veel, maar als de investering op Europees niveau wordt gedeeld, zou België daartoe kunnen bijdragen.

Ook SP-A wil eerst een strategisch plan op lange termijn. Ze ziet de toekomst van ons leger in verregaande Europese integratie. Nieuwe gevechtsvliegtuigen zijn “geen prioriteit”, een klein land als België heeft daarvoor het geld niet. Als in een Europees kader de kosten verdeeld worden, kan het eventueel wel, maar België heeft geen gevechtsvliegtuigen nodig om een solidaire bijdrage te leveren aan internationale operaties. Specialisatie in strategisch luchttransport of mijnenvegers zijn mogelijke alternatieven.

Als ze na 25 mei deelnemen aan regeringsonderhandelingen, beloven Groen en SP.A dwars te gaan liggen om deze miljardenuitgave tegen te houden. Het is de vraag hoeveel politiek gewicht ze hier aan kunnen en willen verbinden.

PVDA is ronduit tegen de aankoop van gevechtsvliegtuigen en pleit voor een eigen buitenlands beleid buiten de NAVO en de EU om. Die NAVO mag overigens afgeschaft worden.

Bekijk de korte samenvatting op youtube, lees hier de uitgebreide analyse.

Nog geen reacties op dit bericht. Vragen of opmerkingen zijn welkom!

Apr 23 2014

Australia Likely To Order More F-35s

Gepubliceerd door JSFNieuws.nl onder Global F35 News

Bradley Perrett wrote an article for Aviation Week & Space Technology and reported that:

·         Australia is likely to buy 58 more JSF;

·         Increasing their commitment to a total of 72 aircraft;

·         Increasing the current number of 24 F/A-18 Super Hornets with 12 additional Growlers;

·         Initial Operational Capability (IOC) for the JSF is set in 2020;

·         Analysts think this target IOC can be met if there will be no more delays in development;

·         IOC of the Growlers is set in 2018;

·         The Australian think tank analysis assumes a lower per unit price ($ 90 milj)  than the JPO price tag ($ 97) in 2019. They assume the programs estimates have been trending down.

·         They assume 50% for other acquisition costs (making a total unit price of US$ 198 million per F-35) and twice the acquisition costs for operations & sustainment.  

….

If the government does buy 58 F-35s, then the RAAF will have a fast-jet force of 72 Lightnings, 24 Super Hornets and 12 Growlers, not counting BAE Systems Hawk lead-in fighter trainers. The total of 108 is about 10% higher than the 1980s levels that previous policy has consistently sought to maintain. Unlike other Western countries, Australia has not felt more secure since the end of the Cold War, and in general has not cut its forces. It has added important capabilities such as airborne early warning, in-flight refueling and over-the-horizon radar. Fast population growth and 23 years of unbroken economic expansion have helped, although defense spending has lately been a historically small fraction of GDP.

While recommending more F-35s, the think-tank says that replacing the Hornets with more Super Hornets, and perhaps backing out of the F-35 program completely, would produce an adequate force. “Super Hornets and the other enabling elements of air combat capability (air-to-air refuelers, airborne early warning and . . . over-the-horizon radar) would be likely to provide Australia with a sufficiently robust air combat capability for the next couple of decades,” it says. Further, the economy of consolidating on Super Hornets and Growlers might justify enlarging the force by a few aircraft.

“But in the strike-fighter role, the F-35 is a far more capable aircraft than the Super Hornet and would give greater capability against a more capable adversary, including the ability to penetrate sophisticated air defenses,” says the think-tank. The F-35 would also be more resistant to obsolescence. Moreover, backing out of the order would be harmful to Australia’s alliance with the U.S. and would take away business opportunities for Australian companies participating in the program.

Among the Australian suppliers to the F-35 program, engineering company Marand is building tail fins. The company delivered its first ship set on March 31. BAE Systems Australia, also involved in making the tail, said on April 1 it had commissioned a machine tool for making long spars and longerons. Composite-parts maker Quickstep has delivered more than 200 high-grade carbon-fiber components and is ramping up production with its out-of-autoclave process.

Read the entire article here.

Nog geen reacties op dit bericht. Vragen of opmerkingen zijn welkom!

Apr 23 2014

Liberal MP Dennis Jensen attacks Joint Strike Fighter order as a ‘dud’ decision

Gepubliceerd door JSFNieuws.nl onder Global F35 News

The Sydney Morning Herald; published an article with a reaction of Member of Parliament Dennis Jensen on 23th of april concerning the proposed Australian buy of additional 58 Lockheed F-35 combat jets.

MP Jensen: No full analysis of capabilities

Liberal MP Dennis Jensen has launched an extraordinary attack on the Abbott government’s multibillion-dollar purchase of fighter jets, suggesting his colleagues lacked the competency and the courage to stop the order:
It’s a dud decision,” said Dr Jensen, a former Defence Department analyst, on Wednesday after the Australian Abbott government revealed it had ordered 58 Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighters at a cost of A$ 12,4 billion (US$ 11,5 billion; € 8,3 billon; unitprice US$ 198 million).
Dennis Jensen: “No one has had the balls to call a halt to it or to even call for a full capability analysis against requirements.”

Prime Minister Tony Abbott confirmed on Wednesday 23-Apr-2014 that Australia would join the US and a select few other countries in adopting the so called fifth-generation stealth fighter as the backbone of its air combat power. On top of the two fighters that Australia has already paid for, and a further 12 that have been ordered, the large new purchase will deliver the Royal Australian Air Force three squadrons of the planes and cement its place as the dominant air power in the region.

“Significant problems……..”

But Dr Jensen, who has studied the Joint Strike Fighter for years, said the purchase of the planes had been a “bipartisan stuff up”, set in train by the Howard government, continued under Labor and completed under his own government.
Dr Jensen said: “The last couple of [US operational testing] reports … have shown very, very significant problems with this aircraft.” And: “Once you’ve made a decision like this, it takes more balls to actually say the emperor’s got no clothes than to continue pretending that the emperor in fact has clothes. We should be ensuring that this aircraft is defined as fit for purpose before we purchase it. We haven’t done that.

The West Australian MP said he had warned his colleagues about the Joint Strike Fighter purchase in the most recent party room meeting but lamented that Defence Minister David Johnston had said nothing. I wouldn’t be critical of the Defence Minister only,” Dr Jensen said. “It shows a lack of judgment on so many levels. Successive Australian defence ministers had lacked the “technical expertise” to cut through Lockheed Martin’s “extremely convincing” sales pitches, Dr Jensen said

“Defense officials acting as Lockheed salesmen”

He also blamed Defence Department officials, whom he said had been “acting as salesmen for the Joint Strike Fighter” rather than doing their jobs and being “critical buyers”. Responding to the criticisms, a spokesman for the Defence Minister said: “Obviously Mr Jensen’s views do not reflect those of the Coalition government.

The first Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II – when no new delays will occurs, will be delivered in 2018 and begin service with the RAAF in 2020. The purchase continues the direction set out by the previous Labor government’s 2013 Defence White Paper, which foreshadowed three operational squadrons beginning from 2020.

Labour MP’s also critical

But not everyone from Labor welcomed the purchase. West Australian senator Sue Lines tweeted on Wednesday: “12bl+ on fighter planes, PPL for the rich, paid for cuts to welfare, charge on Dr visits. Disgraceful!”
Acting Greens leader Adam Bandt agreed with Dr Jensen, saying the planes were wasteful spending “at a time of supposed budget restraint”. “Tony Abbott’s priority should be pensions not poorly performing planes,” Mr Bandt added.

Read more: Sydney Morning Herald; 23-Apr-2014; Australian MP Jensen attacks JSF decision

Nog geen reacties op dit bericht. Vragen of opmerkingen zijn welkom!

Apr 23 2014

Does the Finnish Minister of Defence Carl Häglund prefer the JSF over Gripen?

Gepubliceerd door Christiaan Meinen onder Global F35 News

Today there was published an article on Helsinki times.fi, an English written newspaper from Finland. With the headline: Haglund advises against JAS fighter acquisition

After some reading we can conclude that this translation is incorrect… very incorrect even. The funny thing is that evevn Google Translate translate all words without interpretation.

The keyword here is IF.

I will compare the Google Translated article with the “official” English written article. (added comments to clear things out.) This is the article in question:

Carl Haglund (SFP), the Minister of Defence, has rejected the proposal by Eero Heinäluoma (SDP), the Speaker of the Parliament, to acquire JAS Gripen fighters from Sweden in a bid to promote Nordic co-operation.

“The Finnish Air Force must get the best equipment we can afford,” Haglund states. “Our possible collaboration with Sweden must entail rational projects. This is not a question of industrial policy but of defence policy.”

” Air Force have to buy the best equipment , we can afford . If we cooperate with Sweden , it must make sense of things. ’s Not industrial policy, but defense policy ,” Haglund line.(here it is translated slightly different. Cooperation with Sweden must make sense and should not only be for industrial benefits is the way I read it!)

“Although I advocate co-operation with Sweden, we should not acquire Swedish JAS fighters when we could acquire American F-35 stealth fighters for roughly the same price. Performance must take precedence in the investment,” emphasises Häglund.

“While I support the cooperation with Sweden , so it can not go so that we buy the Swedish Jas - fighter , if we can get about the same price of an American F-35 fighter - wisp . Investment performance needs to be solved . “ (I suppose this means that cooperation with Sweden doesn’t necessarily mean that they will buy the Gripen Fighter. At the same time it also doesn’t mean they WILL buy the JSF. Once again the word IF isn’t used in the English article. It rather says that if they can get the JSF for about the same price as the Gripen….. But also he emphasises on the relevance of performanceand problems to be solved!)

Jas Gripen acquisition proposed by the Speaker of Parliament Eero Heinäluoma (SDP). Heinäluoma justified its proposal for Nordic co-operation. (this fragment is missing in the English article.)

The current defence appropriations, he admits, will not suffice for the planned fighter acquisition. “There may be fewer aircraft than at present, but the price tag will be a minimum of five billion euros. A special funding is required.”

“It may be that the machines could be fewer, but the price tag is going to be at least five billion euros., It is not possible without a separate funding,” the minister said. (The rest of the article isn’t realy relevant to the JSF discussion, except for the fact that both the Army and Navy need funding to!)

Most important of this article is to learn that the translation, for what reason it may be, isn’t correct and that it all comes on the word “if”. Read the whole article here!

Follow this link to get a better understanding: http://www.janes.com/article/36919/finland-should-opt-for-f-35-over-gripen-if-the-price-is-right-minister-says

Nog geen reacties op dit bericht. Vragen of opmerkingen zijn welkom!

Apr 15 2014

Canada: F-35 decision back to politicians as Air Force completes options analysis

Gepubliceerd door JSFNieuws.nl onder Global F35 News

From Canada The Calgary Herald  reports:

OTTAWA – The countdown on a decision over the F-35 has begun now that air force officials have completed a highly anticipated study of the controversial stealth fighter and its competitors.

The Harper government accepted the “options analysis” report late last week, officially putting the issue back in their laps after more than a year-and-a-half with the Defence Department.

Officially, the government doesn’t have to rush on deciding what to do about the jet fighter; Canada has already missed its window to order F-35s this year. It will now have to wait until January 2015, at the earliest, if it does decide to go ahead with a purchase.

However, the schedule could be tighter if the government decides to hold an open competition – hoped for by the F-35?s competitors as well as opposition parties – since that could take years to conduct.

In either situation, delivery of the first new aircraft won’t happen until around three years after an order is placed.

Canada’s existing CF-18 fighter jets are set to be completely retired by 2020, unless the government decides to invest to keep them flying longer.

Complicating matters is next year’s federal election. The F-35 was an issue in the last election in 2011, although that was before Auditor General Michael Ferguson released a scathing report about the project and turned it into a true political hot potato. Any future decision will require cabinet approval and prompt widespread political attention, both in Canada and abroad.

Canada is one of nine international partners involved in developing and purchasing the F-35, and each partner’s decisions affect the price and schedule of the others.

The options analysis recently concluded by defence officials was actually the second review of the F-35 and its competitors.

Ferguson issued his report in April 2012. It identified serious flaws in an earlier study in which defence officials said the F-35 was the only aircraft capable of meeting Canada’s requirements.

Read more (source): http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/decision+back+government+court+force+completes+major+study/9734296/story.html

Nog geen reacties op dit bericht. Vragen of opmerkingen zijn welkom!

Volgende »