The McGraw-Hill Companies
Aviation Week
MEMBER CENTER
LOG IN | REGISTER | SUBSCRIBE
Blogs Forums Photos Videos My Aviationweek

Blog Search

Search all Aviation Week.com blog content

Bookmark and Share
Blog Image
A Defense Technology Blog
JSF Multi-Year Buy - Dead or Just Resting?
A plan for a five-year, eight-nation, 368-aircraft order for Joint Strike Fighters is dead, according to a senior Australian government official. According to Australian Financial Review (subscription site) Defence Management Organization chief executive Stephen Gumley has told Australia's parliament that a lack of interest among partners, plus US procurement rules, has killed the plan. (To "cruel" something, in Australia, means approximately the same as "kibosh" - its implication is terminal.)

Gumley also told AFR that, as a result, Australia may defer its main JSF orders by two years, to 2015 (with delivery in 2017) to avoid buying high-priced low-rate initial production aircraft.

Although Lockheed Martin says that the team is still working on the consortium buy, Gumley's statement - from a senior, pro-JSF customer representative - does not read like a negotiating position.

The idea of a consortium buy was mooted in early 2007. It was designed to address an emerging problem:  many of the industrial partners need most or all of their aircraft early. As a result, many of their aircraft would be ordered under the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) phase rather than from the much less expensive multi-year production (MYP) stage - which can't, under US law, begin until operational testing has finished.

The consortium buy would have leveled out the price over time, and would have given the international partners some reward for their contribution to stabilizing the early production program: unlike US buys, these would represent firm advance commitments for deliveries as much as seven years from the contract date.


blog post photo
2008 consortium buy plan

The plan would also have included penalties. Any customer canceling or delaying deliveries would have to compensate the other members of the consortium for the increased unit costs that would result from their backsliding.

The consortium buy plan has been through several iterations. An early plan foundered in May 2008 because partners did not like the idea that they were locked into penalty payments but the US was not. A revised plan that also locked US buys into place was scotched because Congress was unlikely to accept it. An August 2008 revision ran into the same problem.

If the consortium buy does not go ahead, the next question is what impact it will have on costs. Gumley predicts that customers will delay their orders - reducing production rates and increasing unit costs in the later LRIP years. Some governments, including the Netherlands and Norway, have also promised low, fixed prices to their parliaments and voters, based on the multi-nation buy. Ministers such as the Netherlands' Jack de Vries may have some explaining to do.
Tags: ar99jstaustralia
Email this post
User Image
I can't remember Jack de Vries ever promising a fixed price. He has said many times 'best plane for the best price'. Haven't been following the politics that close to be sure though. I'm more interested in technology than politics.
10/5/2009 9:33 AM CDT
User Image
tangoviking wrote:
I'm pretty sure Jack de Vries said he would not sign a contract until he had a fixed price in front of him. Or in other words a price that won't change over time except for agreed cost increases....
10/5/2009 11:42 AM CDT
User Image
Royce wrote:
It sounds like the way this plays out is that the Pentagon eats the cost of almost all the LRIP aircraft and the partner nations hold off on replacing legacy fighters until they get a better price. It's a workable solution, even if there will be a lot of gnashing of teeth and pulling out of the hair in public .
10/5/2009 12:29 PM CDT
User Image
andip wrote:
"Ministers such as the Netherlands' Jack de Vries may have some explaining to do."

He has a lot of explaining to do, he has been planning for 52 F-35s instead of 85 since 2005 when he realized that Holland could never afford to buy 85 jets, but to the public and the parliament he kept on saying that they could afford 85...

Also, when the F136 is cancelled, the dutch industrial package is reduced with about $1 billion. The dutch industry will probably be supporting the Gripen NG in a few months...



"An early plan foundered in May 2008 because partners did not like the idea that they were locked into penalty payments but the US was not. "

Yeah, that would have been great. USAF cutting their order with about 1000 jets, unit price sky-rocketing. Denmark, Norway & Holland paying $200 million a piece for 20 jets only since they could not afford to get out of the program...


Seriously, what do you get in return for being a european "partner" in this program (except for having your flag on the test aircrafts)???
10/5/2009 1:16 PM CDT
User Image
Solomon wrote:
production offsets. the Turks seem to be quite pleased. as are the British.
10/5/2009 2:44 PM CDT
User Image
Obamanite wrote:
Pining for the fjords???
10/5/2009 2:50 PM CDT
User Image
ELP wrote:
I wouldn't put too much hope on Australian Defence being able to give a clean picture to elected officials re: the F-35. http://tinyurl.com/y8h3l3r
10/6/2009 3:25 AM CDT
User Image
Geogen wrote:
Delivery postponed by 2 yrs, to 2017? While this is a rational option to study (and one which many have been estimating/deducing would be imminent), wouldn't it then be extrapolated from this date; that NACC IOC would be 2018 at earliest and possibly 2019 (compared to the current 2017 IOC schedule)?

Can RAAF F/A-18 A/B Hornet fleet maintain front line A2A superiority out to 2019-2020??

Perhaps at least another squadron of Super gap-fill will be necessary? Maybe something like: 2 squads of Supers, 1 squad block IV and 1 squad block V JSF??

And just something totally random, just noticed (looking at the graphic included above)... is that a Typhoon heading straight for the 'U.S. Buy' text (left hand side of chart)? Hmmmm.. lol.
10/6/2009 5:32 AM CDT
User Image
Talyn wrote:
Considering the naval F-35C is the most capable and manuverable model I don't know why anyone is paying attention to the Air Force F-35A version. With integration of the AIM-9X and helmet-mounted sight a 9g airframe isn't needed.
10/6/2009 7:53 PM CDT
User Image
Talyn wrote:
Plus consolidation of the production line to the B and C models would save money and fund the more capable F136 engine.
10/6/2009 7:56 PM CDT
1 2 >> Last
Most Recent Tags
Defense Industry News
Recent Photos
Industry Insight: Defense & Technology Insight by
Raytheon
Selected Videos