{"id":26329,"date":"2016-05-04T13:30:20","date_gmt":"2016-05-04T03:30:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=26329"},"modified":"2016-05-02T16:20:04","modified_gmt":"2016-05-02T06:20:04","slug":"2017-us-navy-budget-status-of-the-f-35b-and-f-35c","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/2017-us-navy-budget-status-of-the-f-35b-and-f-35c\/","title":{"rendered":"2017 US Navy Budget: status of the F-35B and F-35C"},"content":{"rendered":"
For the past few years, Andrew Davies has examined the annual USAF budget projections for the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (most recently<\/span> here<\/span><\/a>). The F-35A will be the most numerous of the three variants of the joint strike fighter, and it\u2019s the model Australia has<\/span> committed to acquiring<\/span><\/a>. The projected cost and production numbers of the A model have<\/span> continued to stabilise<\/span><\/a> since the 2012 program re-baselining, and we decided to see if the other two variants exhibited similar trends. The answer is yes, but the journey has been an interesting one.<\/span><\/p>\n The F-35B is the USMC variant, equipped with a vertical lift engine to allow deployment from amphibious ships. Italy and the UK are currently the only two foreign buyers of the F-35B, and USMC<\/span> declared initial operating capability<\/span><\/a> (IOC) last year. The F-35C has larger, foldable wings and is equipped for the stress of arrested landings on carriers. The USN is its only customer and is aiming for IOC<\/span> in 2018<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n The data on both those more specialised variants indicates a more turbulent history than that of the A model\u2014shedding some light on the pitfalls of<\/span> joint-service platform development<\/span><\/a>\u2014but has stabilised in recent years.<\/span><\/p>\n The three variants were originally intended to have<\/span> 70-80% hardware commonality<\/span><\/a>, and the USN budgets even costed the F-35B and C as a single line item until FY2010. Engineering and design changes through the life of the program have instead resulted in three essentially distinct aircraft, with only about<\/span> 20-25% commonality<\/span><\/a>. \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/span> Note: The change in gradient of the calculated learning curve reflects the very small production numbers early on<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n Likely as a result of the increasing difference, the F-35B was given its own<\/span> separate budget line<\/span><\/a> [pdf] in FY2011. In 2012, the program was<\/span> re-baselined<\/span><\/a> and production significantly deferred. The impact of these changes can be seen in the fluctuating cost estimates across this time period, possibly also reflecting attempts to spread program costs across multiple years. (See Figure 1)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The biggest success story from this data analysis is that the F-35B moved from such uncertain circumstances in the FY2013 budget to IOC in July 2015 (a little more than three years later). And the 2017 budget sees production accelerate for the first time since the program began, with eight aircraft being brought forward, bringing the cumulative total to 168 aircraft by FY2021. \u00a0(See Figure 2).<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n