Internationale fighter ontwikkelingen

[Sparkplug]

Lockheed's long-running F-16 line in Fort Worth going cold

By James Drew, Washington DC | 18 March 2016

On the 45th anniversary of the F-16 lightweight fighter's first flight, Lockheed Martin faces the very real prospect of turning off "Fighting Falcon" production as prospective customers like Pakistan struggle to clear the US government's regulatory and funding processes.

After assembling more than 4,500 F-16s in almost 140 different configurations, the Fort Worth, Texas production line is thawing from hot to lukewarm and could go cold by "about the end of 2017" after Lockheed delivers the remaining seven of 36 Iraqi F-16IQs.


Iraqi F-16IQ
US Air Force

Lockheed's F-16 programme chief Susan Ouzts said this week that several countries have expressed a strong preference for the F-16 to the US government but the nearest opportunity is an almost $700 million deal with Pakistan for eight Block 52 jets powered by Pratt &Whitney F100-229s.

It recently cleared a 30-day notification period in Congress after being approved by the US State Department in February, but concerns about the "foreign military financing" of the arms package means Pakistan may need to come up with the money on its own.

"We are working hour by hour, day by day with the US government to try and get through the political wickets," says Ouzts. "There's still a hoop of what's affordable from a Pakistan-fully funded programme perspective. We're anticipating that before the end of May we will have a positive indication back from Pakistan that they are buying some quantity of jets that we hope is eight."


General Dynamics YF-16 over Edwards AFB, California in 1974
US Air Force

Lockheed has already begun procuring vital long-lead components in the hope of securing another contract, but without locking in new customers soon, production will be turned off next year.

"If we started a contract tomorrow there would still be a few months of gap," says Ouzts. Asked if Lockheed would consider funding a handful of new aircraft itself as Boeing did before its C-17 line closed, Ouzts says "we haven't gone that far" yet.

"There would always be a consideration of that depending on the opportunity in the future for us," she says. "We are certainly making sure any really long-lead or any items that would be a high risk of obtaining, that we're staying in close contact with those subcontractors or are procuring parts."

Lockheed finds itself at a crossroads with the F-16 as it seeks to extend production indefinitely while also push investment in its fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II, which is currently being procured in far smaller quantities than the company expected due to its high cost and development delays.

At peak production in 1987, under the stewardship of General Dynamics, which sold its aircraft manufacturing business to Lockheed in 1993, Fort Worth was pumping out one aircraft per day. Last year, Lockheed delivered just 11 aircraft, down 35% from the 17 delivered in 2014.


F-16V features a modern cockpit and new AESA fire control radar. It first flew in October 2015 and is offered as an upgrade option or new-build
Lockheed Martin

The latest "Viper" variant, the F-16V, which first flew in October, will become only an upgrade option if Lockheed can't find a buyer quickly.

"There will be some amount of loss for us, of ungained opportunity," says Ouzts. "We still believe the F-16 is incredibly relevant."

She notes that some fighter customers simply can't afford the F-35 or don't need its advanced stealth fighting capabilities. The US government has also promised not to export the Lightning II to any nation in the Middle East except Israel.

"The [F-16] quantities could be fairly significant; it just depends on getting it started and getting the ball rolling," she says.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheeds-long-running-f-16-line-in-fort-worth-goin-423293/

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Saving Money on the F-22 Fighter Jet May Cost America a Hell of a Lot

By Ryan Faith

March 18, 2016 | 4:17 pm

The United States Air Force is not in great shape. For starters, officials estimate it has 500 fewer pilots than it should ideally have. Plus, many of the planes those pilots would be flying aren't in great shape. The newest jet, the F-35, is continually hammered for schedule, cost, and technological issues. The slightly older F-22 is considered the best fighter jet in the world, but it was purchased in relatively small numbers. And the aging F-16 and F-15 counterparts will need a lot of expensive upgrades to remain relevant.

What the Air Force lacks in performance, it won't be making up for in quantity. Today it has only enough money to keep 55 combat-coded fighter squadrons operational (as opposed to the 134 squadrons they had back in 1991). Only half of those 55 are considered ready to go toe-to-toe with a peer opponent like Russia or China. According to a recent report from the RAND Corporation, the US hasn't had the capability to achieve 24/7 air dominance over China in a potential Taiwan Straits conflict since 2010 — something the US has been able to do in every conflict it has fought in the last quarter century.

Another report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies backs up the RAND report, arguing that in the Asia-Pacific region, the "balance of military power [is] shifting against the United States."

So how has the world's most lavishly funded air force gotten itself into such a pickle?

Way back in the day, when it was all about the US and Soviet Union battling over the fate of the human race, things in the high-tech killamajig industry followed a predictable pattern. One side would release a new piece of equipment, like a fighter or ship or whatever. Then the other side would learn about the new capabilities (real or imagined) of that equipment and come up with clever ways to beat it. Then they would incorporate those clever ways into their own next round of equipment, and the cycle would repeat.

The F-15 Eagle has been the US Air Force's fourth-generation fighter jet for the last few decades and was due to be replaced by the new fifth-generation F-22 Raptor. If things proceeded according to script, those several hundred F-22 aircraft would then be replaced by a fleet of brand-new sixth-generation fighter jets after a few decades, and so on.

Related:Do Israel's New Fighter Jets Mean Stealth Is Going Out of Style?

But instead of continuing to hold up its end in the battle for the future of humanity, the Soviet Union collapsed 25 years ago, ending the Cold War. Meanwhile, the US eventually found itself hip-deep in ugly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that carried with them approximately zero likelihood of slugging it out head-to-head with a top-flight Russian or Chinese fighter.

So, in 2009, after years of criticism directed at the F-22 for being a shockingly expensive aircraft suited to a Cold War threat that had disappeared decades ago, then–Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and newly elected President Barack Obama decided to cap production at 187 aircraft. In 2012, production was shut down.

Unfortunately, a mere two years after the last F-22 rolled off the line, Russia executed the Great Crimean Heist in Ukraine and basically rebooted the Cold War. Meanwhile, China tried shoplifting the majority of the South China Sea and threatened to shoot anyone who had a problem with it. All of a sudden, the Pentagon is looking around and wishing it had a lot more top-notch fighter jets.

The Air Force's newest jet, the F-35, is still being hammered in the press. The F-35 was never built or intended to be a pure air superiority fighter; it's a multi-role aircraft that can shoot down other planes, but it doesn't specialize in it.

This all raised a question — why not turn the F-22 production line back on and start making more? The answer is, because that's one of those ideas that sounds perfectly doable in theory, but really sucks in practice. When a production line for something like the F-22 is shut down, it's shut down for good. For instance, even though the US built five Space Shuttles, deciding later to build a new one would have meant starting from scratch because shutdown involved scrapping tools, shredding documentation, and letting go of highly skilled workers.

When production of the F-22 was put on hold, lawmakers did tell the Pentagon to save as much of the stuff as they could in case the US decided it wanted more of them, though there are reports that everything is not nearly as well preserved as advertised. Regardless, the idea that the line could be restarted isn't beyond the realm of the possible.

Watch VICE News' Troops and Tanks in Moscow: Russia's Victory Day

Lockheed Martin, the maker of the F-22, swears that it could get the production line up and running for a mere $200 million — though it doesn't say how much producing planes would cost. RAND suggests that restarting the line would cost about $560 million. That is a lot more. RAND also says that when you throw in the cost of 75 new aircraft, the total cost would be a cool $17 billion. That is really a lot more.

Roughly speaking, according to RAND, the first F-22 jets to come off the production line could run a bit shy of $200 million (in 2016 dollars) in "unit flyaway cost," which is basically the price of the plane itself and a portion of the tooling and machinery needed to make that plane. If production hadn't ever been shut down, however, those 75 jets would have cost roughly $150 million a pop, using the same measure.

Right now, the Air Force is saying that they're totally over the F-22 and want to focus on the new hotness, a sixth-generation replacement with the astonishingly bland name of Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter. It was concerns about cost that put the F-22 in hot water to begin with, and a newer jet with even fancier stuff is not likely to be cheaper. Nevertheless, engineer and scientist types are getting all excited about a host of new technologies that they hope to see in a sixth-generation Fighter Jet of Tomorrow. Hypersonic speed that makes it impossible for air defenses to intercept, on-board lasers to fry incoming missiles —really neat and probably enormously expensive stuff.

It's reasonable to assume that all those new bells and whistles will probably cost a fortune and end up pushing deployment of a sixth-generation fighter closer to 2030. If that's the case, the only way the US will have enough aircraft to meet demands is by revamping the fleet of increasingly elderly fourth-generation aircraft like the F-15, which could be 60 years old by the time a new replacement hits the skies.

The Air Force is aware of this potential pitfall. During a modernization hearing held by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lieutenant General James M. Holmes responded to these concerns, stating that, along with brand-new designs, the Air Force would be looking at adapting existing jets and doesn't plan to include any major new technological developments in its next fighter. This return to evolutionary weapons development, rather than hunting for revolutionary breakthroughs, has already been seen in the Air Force's new bomber, the B-21, and the Navy's Virginia-class submarine.

Related: Industry Giant Northrop Grumman Wins Big, Fat Contract For Big, Fat US Air Force Bomber

Folks have learned a great deal about stealth and made vast improvements in electronics since the F-22 was being designed back in the 1990s. So, if the US is thinking about restarting F-22 production, it couldn't hurt to spend a couple years upgrading the electronics, avionics, and stealthy bits. (The precedent for this was Ronald Reagan's restart of production of the B-1 bomber as the upgraded B-1B.)

This all sounds like a pretty reasonable deal: Upgrade the plane using the benefit of experience and new technology, write off a lot of the previous costs of the airplane to drive down the new sticker price, and voila! A brand-new top-end fighter jet to counter advanced Russian and Chinese jets.

However, if the Air Force restarted F-22 production or went to an upgraded F-22, it would almost certainly suck all the available funding away from development of a true sixth-generation fighter. And the longer the sixth-generation jet takes to produce, the more time enemy counter-stealth technology will have to erode the F-22's stealth advantage.

So the Air Force has three options: It can keep its ancient F-15s in the air a while longer with some upgrades until a brand-new replacement jet comes online. It can restart production of the existing F-22 to fill the gap until the next plane is ready. Or it can start production of an upgraded F-22.

And all of those alternatives suck in their own special ways.

Restarting the F-22 production line or upgrading it will delay the next-generation fighter, and in a world where stealth will be a less and less dominant technology, delaying the sixth-generation fighter is a lousy idea. But trying to focus on getting a new sixth-generation fighter and putting the F-22 to bed means the US could find itself at a severe disadvantage, pitting revamped but still ancient F-15s against newer, more modern Russian and Chinese jets for the next two decades.

At the margins, there may be ways to combine capabilities of aircraft like the F-35 and F-15 to make the F-15 more effective and make up for some of the shortfalls against modern Russian and Chinese aircraft, but that's a Band-Aid, not a proper solution.

So the Air Force is faced not with solutions, but with varying degrees of disappointment. Perversely enough, it may turn out that the most expensive decision made in the F-22 program was the decision to stop spending money on it.

https://news.vice.com/article/f-22-fighter-jet-production-line-pentagon-saving-money

[Sparkplug]

Possible Delays Loom for Danish Fighter Buy

Gerard O'Dwyer, Defense News | march 17, 2016

HELSINKI — Unresolved issues over the funding of the Danish fighter replacement program (FRP), and uncertainty concerning the stability of Denmark's minority backed government, are raising fresh fears about further delays in the decision-making process.

.../...

Zie onderstaande link voor het complete artikel.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/europe/2016/03/17/possible-delays-loom-danish-fighter-buy/81939168/

[Sparkplug]

Air Force Clarifies A-10 Retirement Plans

Lara Seligman, Defense News | March 17, 2016

WASHINGTON — Amid some confusion over when the Air Force will retire the A-10 attack plane, top service officials this week clarified the plan to start drawing down Warthog squadrons in fiscal 2018.

.../...

Zie onderstaande link voor het complete artikel.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/03/17/air-force-clarifies--10-retirement-plans/81902954/

[Harald]

IAI took a surface-to-surface rocket and convert it into an airborne missile

Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) has a family of artillery rockets and it has now converted one of them into a air-to-surface missile for carriage on a wide range of fighter aircraft.

Dubbed SkySniper, the missile is able to neutralize enemy air defense sites from a range of 81nm. It has GPS/INS guidance and each fighter can carry up to 4 Skysnipers under wing pylons.

http://alert5.com/2016/03/17/iai-took-a-surface-to-surface-rocket-and-convert-it-into-an-airborne-missile/

Extra info :
http://www.iai.co.il/2013/34225-46386-en/Groups_SystemMissileandSpace_MLM_Products_PrecisionStrikingSystems.aspx

[Sparkplug]

USAF working on new defensive missile for fighters

By Stephen Trimble, Washington DC | 16 March 2016

US industry could be competing within three years to develop a new self-defence missile for fighters aimed at countering the latest generation of Russian- and Chinese-made air-to-air weapons, says a top Lockheed Martin executive.

For several years, the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) and several contractors, including Lockheed, Raytheon and Boeing, have been researching concepts and subsystems that could be used in a new kind of air-to-air weapon.

In Lockheed's concept, this miniature self-defence munition (MDSM) – about half the size of a 3.7m (12ft)-long Raytheon AIM-120D AMRAAM – would boast a limited capability to shoot down opposing aircraft in short-range engagements, says Frank St. John, vice-president of tactical missile and combat manoeuvre systems, speaking on 15 March at Lockheed's annual Media Day.

But the main purpose of the weapon, also known as the small advanced capabilities missile (SACM) would be to intercept and destroy incoming enemy missiles, such as the long-range, Chinese-made PL-12 and Russian-made Vympel RVV-BD.

"I know that MSDM and SACM and all of those things are responses to those threats in some way as a self defence capability for our aircraft," St. John says.

St. John estimates the air force could be ready to launch a competition in 18 to 30 months for the new weapon, which, if funded, would add to the internal-carriage arsenal of the F-22 and F-35.

Lockheed's concept is based on a hit-to-kill weapon that destroys a target with kinetic power alone. Powered by a small rocket motor, it would leverage technology developed for the upgraded PAC-3 missile segment enhancement (MSE) Patriot missile. Lockheed is continuing to study radar and imaging-based sensors for terminal guidance, St. John says.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-working-on-new-defensive-missile-for-fighters-423185/

[StrataNL]

Morgenochtend 8.30 - 9.30 is het jaarlijkse Gripen seminar online te volgen waarin ook de laatste stand van zaken van de Gripen E aan bod zal komen.

http://saab.com/gripenseminar

[Sparkplug]

Light F-35 Helmet Tests Begin, DOD Aims To Fix Escape System This Year

Lara Seligman, Defense News | March 14, 2016

WASHINGTON — The F-35 joint program office will begin testing the first prototype of the new, lightweight Generation III helmet later this month, with the hope of resolving by November issues with the jet's escape system that have kept some pilots grounded.

.../...

Zie onderstaande link voor het complete artikel.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/03/14/light-f-35-helmet-tests-begin-dod-aims-fix-escape-system-year/81646430/

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Pentagon Mad Scientists Have Made the F-16 Even More Lethal

David Axe / March 11, 2016

In the middle of June 2015, a U.S. Air Force F-16 fighter took off from an air base in Alaska and flew over a military training range at 430 miles per hour. On command, something burst from the fighter's flare dispenser—a drone roughly the size of a soda can and weighing just one pound.

The tiny, orange- and black-colored robot fluttered toward the ground trailing a parachute. After a few seconds, the chute separated from the drone, the robot's wings—which had folded into the body for compactness—extended outward. An inch-wide propeller began spinning, propelling the diminutive machine forward.

The drone is called "Perdix." It's the latest product of the Strategic Capabilities Office, a secretive Pentagon organization, formed in 2012, whose job is to find new ways to deploy existing weapons.

One of the office's ideas is to transform F-16s and other fast jets into high-speed launchers for swarms of small drones that could confuse enemy defenses or perform surveillance.

"Just imagine an airplane going in against an [integrated air defense] system and dropping thirty of these out that form into a network and do crazy things," Bob Work, the deputy defense secretary, told trade publication Breaking Defense. "We've tested this. We've tested it and it works."

The Perdix drones are 3D-printed out of Kevlar and carbon-fiber. Powered by lithium-ion batteries—the same kind you'd find in a cell phone—the Perdixes launch from a standard flare dispenser, like on the F-16, F/A-18 and other warplanes.

Toughness was a key design requirement. A Perdix must survive forceful ejection from a high-speed launcher and right itself in turbulent winds.

The drones were originally developed by students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2011. The students tested the Perdixes from balloons and envisioned the small unmanned aerial vehicles supporting environmental monitoring.

But it was the military that was most interested in the tiny machines. The Virginia-based Strategic Capabilities Office—a twenty-six-person team led by William Roper, a physicist who previously worked for the military on missile defense—began experimenting with Perdix in 2014.

The Alaska sortie was the first in a rapid-fire series of flight tests. As part of the Northern Edge war game last June, fighters launched Perdix drones 72 times. After deploying, a swarm of potentially dozens of the Perdix robots connect via radio datalink—and pursue their objective.

"The specifics of what the mini-drones can do are classified, but they could be used to confuse enemy forces and carry out surveillance missions using equipment that costs much less than full-sized unmanned aircraft," the Washington Post reported.

Fighter-launched robotic decoys are not new, per se. The F-16 was one of the first U.S. military aircraft to carry the Miniature Air-Launched Decoy, a roughly 10-foot-long, radar-spoofing drone, starting in the late 1990s.

The difference is the swarm. While an F-16 might launch only a couple of MALDs, the same plane could deploy up thirty Perdixes—thirty is the flare capacity of the standard ALE-47 countermeasures dispenser—making the smaller drones much harder to destroy and potentially much more effective.

Not to mention cheaper. A single ADM-160B MALD costs more than $300,000. Two years of testing involving potentially hundreds of Perdixes has cost the government just $20 million, thanks in part to the initiative's heavy reliance on existing technology.

"We don't have to develop fundamentally new weapons," Roper told The Washington Post. "But we have to work the integration and the concept of operation. And then you have a completely new capability, but you don't have to wait long at all."

David Axe is a contributor to War is Boring, where this article first appeared.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/pentagon-mad-scientists-have-made-the-f-16-even-more-lethal-15470

[Sparkplug]

Dassault: French Sale of Rafales to India Still Being Negotiated

By Thierry Dubois | March 10, 2016


Egypt, the first export customer of the Dassault Rafale, has received six fighters, and production is ramping up. (Photo: Dassault Aviation)

The contract for the sale of 36 Rafale fighters to India has not yet been signed, manufacturer Dassault Aviation said March 10. Four weeks was thought to be enough time to conclude the transaction when the heads of state of France and India reached agreement on the sale in late January.

"We are getting closer; we are trying to finalize the price," CEO Eric Trappier said during Dassault's annual press conference, held at its Paris headquarters. The Indian government is "always wanting more" but "at some point, one has to make up his mind," Trappier added.

Referring to the Indian government's "Make in India" policy, Trappier said Dassault and its French partners are looking for local companies in India capable of manufacturing Rafales. Offsets are being devised to pave the way for a hoped-for 90-aircraft deal in the mid term. "It would not be worth it for them to gear up for 36 examples but it will be for 90," he said. 

Last year, two Mirage 2000s were upgraded and delivered in France to the Indian Air Force. The remaining upgrades will be performed by Hindustan Aeronautics in Bangalore, Trappier pointed out.

The other hot prospects for Rafale sales are Malaysia and UAE, but Trappier did not elaborate. In Switzerland, after a referendum thwarted a deal with Saab for 22 Gripens, talks have resumed there, he said. The need would be to replace two fighter types—the Boeing F/A-18 and the Northrop F-5. Dassault has also received a request for information from Belgium and has opened an office in Brussels.

Egypt, the first export customer of the Rafale, has received six fighters. The latest three were delivered in January. "All are fully operational, flown by Egyptian pilots," Trappier said. The next three will be delivered next year.

Qatar, the second export customer of the Rafale, paid a first deposit late last year. The first delivery is scheduled for 2018, a year that will see a sharp increase in deliveries. Production is now ramping up, approaching two Rafales per month. Deliveries, however, will be slow in 2016 and 2017, at nine and then four Rafales. This will include six and then one delivery to French forces.

The Rafale's firm backlog now stands at 83 fighters. Dassault is developing the F3R version, equipped with the air-to-air Meteor missile, a new-generation laser targeting pod and a new refueling pod, aiming for operational capability in 2018.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-03-10/dassault-french-sale-rafales-india-still-being-negotiated

[Sparkplug]

In Queue for Perfection: Indonesia to Receive First Russian Su-35 in 2018

Sputnik news | 09 March 2016

Indonesia will not receive the first batch of Russian Su-35 multirole fighters earlier than in 2018 due to the overload of the aircraft's sole manufacturer with domestic and international orders, media reported Wednesday, citing a source in the Russian Defense Ministry.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Earlier in March, Indonesian Defense Minister Ryamizard Ryacudu announced Moscow and Jakarta would sign in April a contract for the delivery of 10 Russian Su-35 Flanker multirole fighter jets to replace Indonesia's fleet of F-5 Tigers.

The manufacturer had produced 14 Su-35, several Su-30МК2 aircraft for Vietnam and modernized Su-27 in 2015, the Russian Izvestia newspaper reported.

"Today, a full transition of the enterprise to the production of modern Su-35 is on the agenda. However, this will not affect the queue. The plant is due to produce 50 aircraft for Russia's Aerospace Forces within five years, and 24 for China. Indonesians could expect to receive two jets in 2018 in a best-case scenario," the source told the newspaper.

The Su-35S is a 4++ generation one-seater, an upgraded version of the Su-27 multirole fighter with features comparable to a 5-generation aircraft. It is characterized by supermaneuverability and is equipped with new avionics, a modern radar and advanced engines. It can accomplish incredible tricks without deceleration and can fly at a speed of 2400 kmph, outpacing all rivals in its class. The warplane is armed with 30mm guns, a huge number of missiles and rockets.

Four Su-35s have been deployed to Syria amid Moscow's counterterrorism campaign.

http://sputniknews.com/military/20160309/1035990763/indonesia-russia-su-35-jets.html#ixzz42RJNV3oy

[Sparkplug]

Pratt & Whitney heeft alweer goed de vinger in de pap bij de ontwikkeling van de Northrop Grumman B-21 bomber.

Gaan ze weer voor 1 leverancier voor de motoren ?

Blijkbaar wel. In onderstaande link wordt General Electric in ieder geval niet genoemd.
http://www.janes.com/article/58635/usaf-names-some-b-21-subcontractors-pratt-whitney-as-engine-maker

[Harald]

F-35 chief expects P&W's bomber work to reduce F135 cost

Pratt & Whitney heeft alweer goed de vinger in de pap bij de ontwikkeling van de Northrop Grumman B-21 bomber.

Gaan ze weer voor 1 leverancier voor de motoren ?

[Sparkplug]

F-35 chief expects P&W's bomber work to reduce F135 cost

By James Drew, Washington DC | 10 March 2016

The head of the multinational F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme expects Pratt & Whitney to significantly reduce the cost of the F135 now that it has been named as the propulsion system supplier for the Northrop Grumman B-21 bomber.

Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan would not confirm if the F135 engine core is common with the B-21 powerplant but says there are enough "benefits" to warrant price reductions for the F-35 programme.

The F-35 joint programme office (JPO) has already reached a "handshake" agreement for 167 of the high-thrust military turbofan engines under low-rate production lots nine and 10, but price reductions might come with production of 100 B-21 bombers ramps up in the 2020s. The air force has not said if the stealthy B-21 is powered by two or four engines.

"I think some things we learnt on the F-35 engine with Pratt & Whitney will greatly benefit the long-range strike airplane, and at the same time, I think Pratt & Whitney ought to be looking to drive the cost of the F-35 engine down now that they have that extra business," Bogdan said at a defence programmes forum in Washington DC on 10 March. "We expect them to."


US Air Force

The air force says P&W of East Hartford, Connecticut is one of seven top-tier suppliers for the B-21 programme. It did not confirm Pratt's exact role on the industry team.

P&W maintains two plants in Connecticut that produce its main civil and military engines, including a 140,000m² manufacturing space in Middletown and 74,000m² space in East Hartford. The company produces the F100 for legacy Boeing F-15 and Lockheed F-16 fighter jets, the PW4062 for Boeing's KC-46 Pegasus and recently wrapped up work on the F117 for the Boeing C-17.

Bogdan did not say if the B-21 would boost production of F135 engine cores. He did, though, confirm that overhead costs would at least be shared. "I would expect that prices for F135 to come down," he reiterated.

The bomber programme remains classified despite the air force naming the top seven suppliers and releasing the military designation and artist's impression of the bomber.

Lockheed and P&W have committed to reducing the price of the conventional F-35A from 100 million today to $85 million for orders placed in fiscal year 2019.

A spokesman for the engine manufacturer declined to comment on the B-21 or Bogdan's comments, referring all question to the air force. F135 assembly is scaling up as the F-35 fighter acquisition gathers pace, with output jumping 110% between lets eight and 10.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-chief-expects-pws-bomber-work-to-reduce-f135-423013/

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

F-35 Chief: Think Very, Very Hard Before Making Another Joint Fighter

12:03 AM ET By Marcus Weisgerber 

Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan has a bit of advice for Air Force and Navy leaders envisioning their next tactical aircraft.

Perhaps the only thing U.S. military leaders know about their next fighter jet is this: they want the program to go better than the F-35's did.

The sixth-generation fighter effort is still in its infancy; the aircraft it produces may not fly for decades. The Pentagon hasn't even decided whether to build separate planes for the Navy and Air Force. But the services' leaders are already cooperating to figure out how the futuristic fighter will fit into the battlefield of the future — and how they can avoid another tactical aircraft program that winds up so late, over budget, and short of its goals.

Ask the F-35 program's current director for advice, and you'll get this gentle warning: joint programs are hard.

"I'm not saying they're bad. I'm not saying they're good. I'm just saying they're hard," Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said Thursday. "[Y]ou ought to think really hard about what you really need out of the sixth-generation fighter and how much overlap is there between what the Navy and the Air Force really need."

When the F-35 was conceived in the 1990s, the goal was to buy a common plane for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and even America's allies. The Air Force version would fly from traditional runways, the Navy version would operate from aircraft carriers, and the Marine version would be built to take off from short runways and land vertically. The goal was to have all three have 70 percent of their parts in common, which was meant to save billions of dollars in development and logistics costs.

But engineering changes have produced three variants that have only 20 percent of their parts in common, Bogdan said at a conference sponsored by McAleese and Associates and Credit Suisse.

If Pentagon leaders do choose to build a multi-variant plane to serve multiple sets of requirements, he says, the services will have to embrace compromise to a greater degree than happened in the $400 billion F-35 program.

"Man, is [compromise] a hard thing to do when you're spending billions of dollars," he said, "You want what you want, [but] hopefully get what you need."

And indeed, some top military leaders are hinting that another joint, F-35-like project is not in the works.

"We will have some different requirements for what we need based on the different things we are expected to provide for the joint force," Lt. Gen. James "Mike" Holmes, Air Force deputy chief of staff for plans and requirements, told reporters last month. "We will use common technologies and maybe some common things, but at this point we think it will be a different enough mission that it won't be the same airplane."

Asked Thursday whether the Navy would work with the Air Force to buy a new sixth-generation aircraft, Adm. John Richardson, the chief of naval operations, said, "It's really too early to make a conclusive statement in that regard."

Richardson said the two services, which are already discussing the key capabilities of a fighter that might first see combat in the 2030s, will keep talking with one another.

"Even in the early stages, [the Navy is] committed to working with the Air Force on that so that we kind of learn from each other as effectively as we can," the admiral said at the conference.

For now, Richardson said, the Navy is more focused on figuring out how to fly drones alongside manned aircraft on its aircraft carriers. "There's just so much to learn about integrating unmanned aviation into the carrier air wing right now, but I just want to get started," he said.

In the meantime, defense firms have been pitching concepts of their own for nearly a decade: planes armed with lasers, special engines that don't give off heat, and more. Now if they can just come up with a way to help keep the program itself on track.

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/03/f-35-chief-think-very-very-hard-making-another-joint-fighter/126587/