An email Daily Report from Air Force Magazine has the latest on F-35 deliveries:
Lockheed Martin delivered the 36th and final F-35 strike fighter of the year on Dec. 22 to the Defense Department, according to a company release. The F-35C, known as CF-19, is the Marine Corps’ first carrier variant. It will be assigned to the Navy’s VA-101 Fighter Squadron at Eglin AFB, Fla., and will be used for pilot training, according to the release.
For a further breakdown that also gives an idea of how involved the acquisition process is, here's the details from
the Lockheed Martin press release:
"Meeting U.S. and International aircraft delivery goals is a stepping stone," said Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, F-35 Program Executive Officer. "It's a global undertaking to build and deliver F-35s. Thousands of men and women produced the 300,000 individual parts from 46 U.S. states and 10 other countries to make these stealth fighters, and they should be proud of their accomplishment."
The 36 F-35 deliveries include:
23 F-35A - U.S. Air Force
2 F-35A - Royal Australian Air Force (first two)
4 F-35B - U.S. Marine Corps
7 F-35C - U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps (first carrier variant)
emphasis added
More below the Orange Omnilepticon.
Lockheed Martin is a major defense contractor, with a web page dedicated to F-35 news here. The Program Executive Officer for the F-35 is Lieutenant General Christopher C. Bogdan. His resumé at the link is pretty impressive.
There has been a lot of discussion about the F-35 here (and elsewhere), with a lot of disagreement over how effective it will be, how well it flies, and how expensive it is. Major Kong had a diary several weeks ago with his take on the F-35 versus the A-10. As to the gist of his diary about the F-35,
The F-35 is over budget and has flaws. You can say the same for pretty much every fighter we've built in my memory. We said the same thing about the F-15 and F-16 back in the 70s and 80s. Both ended up being good airplanes. I'm speculating here, but with continued development the F-35 could probably do the same.
I don't know anyone who's actually flown the F-35. I am told by people in the know that its electronic suite is incredible. Aviation buffs tend to focus on the airframe and performance figures but I'm told by people in the F-22 community that the real magic today lies in the electronics.
Will the F-35 be vulnerable to modern air defenses? Yes, to a degree. "More survivable" does not mean "invincible". Contrary to popular misconception, stealth aircraft are not invisible to radar. They are hard to see and hard to engage. Being stealthy means you can't see them until they're very close and you don't get much time to take a shot at one. Used incorrectly they can still be shot down, as we found out when Serbia got an F-117 in 1999. Still, anything capable of getting a shot at an F-35 will eat A-10s for lunch.
So where does that leave us? It all comes down to funding. Faced with budget cuts the Air Force felt they had to either park the A-10 or make very deep cuts elsewhere. The bean counters estimated that they would have to park 360 F-16s to get the same cost savings as parking the A-10 fleet. There are savings multipliers associated with parking an entire fleet due to spare parts, training and such.
Designing a fighter aircraft for the modern battlefield isn't just a matter of higher - farther - faster these days (although those are good things to have.) It's also about the bigger picture - how well does it match up with the rest of the elements on that battlefield, both friendly and hostile? Other aircraft, other sensor platforms, forces on the ground, forces over the horizon, and so on. The complexity of the F-35 isn't just about flying; it's about the systems on board. This video from Lockheed Martin gives a taste of what all those systems are supposed to do and why the F-35 is an advance.
http://youtu.be/...
That kind of thinking extends to more mundane matters. One of the unexpected pleasures of the B-52 diary I put up the other day was the number of stories that came up in comments of what it takes to keep aircraft in the air. The F-35 program is keeping that in mind as well. While the airplane is expensive, it should be remembered that those costs should be considered over the expected life of the aircraft, how much it costs to operate it over that time, and the capabilities it delivers. This video promises at the very least that the F-35 is being designed and built with the idea that people will have to work on them to keep them flying - and facilitating that is a good idea.
http://youtu.be/...
I'm not going to get into a long discussion whether or not the F-35 should be built (that's what comments are for!) but I would like to make a few points.
We're going to need something, because the F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s aren't going to last forever, and they are becoming increasingly vulnerable as opposition counter measures improve. We don't have a lot of F-22s, not enough to cover all the missions currently being held down by F-15s and F-16s. And for those who say drones are the way of the future, I want to ask you which we're going to see first? Flying cars, practical fusion power, or drones that can replace manned aircraft in the fighter role? (Although Lockheed Martin claims they've got choice #2 covered...)
It takes years to design and build military aircraft. (Especially with the sclerotic acquisition system we have, where every Congress critter wants a piece of the action for their district, and the mutual back-scratching in the military/industrial complex.) The F-35 is in the pipeline now, and appears to be making progress. It should be noted that the cost per aircraft is a moving target because A) it depends on how long they'll be in use, B) how much it will take to operate them, C) how many we build, D) the rate we build them at, E) things we'll only learn by flying them (good and bad), and stuff we can't anticipate. If we kill it now, and start over, well that too is going to cost time and money. How much of either can we afford?
I can think of a couple of scenarios where the F-35 would be less controversial. One would be transforming the economy so that the .1% kick in a lot more to paying for the DOD that they use to protect their stuff and threaten other nations. The other is to work on transforming the world into a place where we don't need F-35s because we've matured as a species. (I suspect if we did #1, making #2 happen would suddenly get a lot easier. Just a hunch.)
I don't suspect this diary is going to change too many minds either way - but I figure it's worth putting up if only to keep track of how things are going. For a more detailed look, here's a report from Air Force Magazine on the official line about the Lightning II. There's quite a lot of detail in there, but here's one of the key sections.
Costs continue to fall. [Program Manager Lt. Gen. Christopher C.] Bogdan has predicted the fifth generation F-35's unit cost, by 2019, will be comparable to that of fourth generation fighters.
The F-35 project is enormous by any standard. It will produce at least 3,243 aircraft to meet the needs of three US military services and at least 11 foreign countries, with three variants replacing nearly a dozen other types. Besides the airplane itself, it involves a simulation and training system; depots and field maintenance; creation of a "global sustainment" enterprise with foreign companies and support facilities; tactics development; and more.
Since he took over as program manager two years ago, Bogdan said he's worked to ensure the myriad elements are "moving in the same direction" with a holistic approach—something not done early in the project. Consequently, progress has not been "as fast as we would really like," but "any time we try and fix one thing on the program, we've got to make sure all the other pieces and parts are moving together in a synchronized kind of way, so that when we do deliver a weapon system, it's all ready to go."
Bogdan has also pushed to balance the risk borne by contractors and the government. Contractors have stepped up to accept responsibility for deficiencies and bear the cost of correcting them, he said.
More than 100 F-35s are flying at eight locations—Edwards AFB, Calif.; Eglin; Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth, Texas, location; Luke AFB, Ariz.; MCAS Beaufort, S.C.; MCAS Yuma, Ariz.; NAS Patuxent River, Md.; and Nellis AFB, Nev.—with two depots established and a final assembly and checkout facility in Italy now active. There will be 22 or more operating locations within five years. Basic F-35 training has been underway at Eglin for more than two years. Marine and British pilot training for the F-35B is in progress at MCAS Beaufort. The international F-35A training center at Luke has received the first nine of an expected 144 aircraft.
emphasis added
Within the next year or so, the F-35 is scheduled to be declared ready for initial operational capability - meaning it will be going to work.
Stay tuned...