Article Defense News, avec le titre : Lockheed nabs F-35 sustainment contract worth up to $6.6B
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/09 ... up-to-66b/
The Pentagon on Monday awarded Lockheed Martin a contract worth up to $6.6 billion to sustain the F-35 joint strike fighter from fiscal 2021 to 2023, a deal that will reduce the cost of flying the aircraft by about 8 percent.
The agreement funds the sustainment of the F-35 air system for U.S. and international customers during FY21, with options for FY22 and FY23 that would bring the contract’s total value to $6.6 billion.
During that time, the average cost per flight hour for all F-35 variants will drop from $36,100 in 2020 to $33,400 in 2023, according to a Defense Department statement. For the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing model — the most prevalent variant of the aircraft, used by the U.S. Air Force and most international customers — the cost per flight hour will go from $33,600 in 2020 to $30,000 in 2023.
Lockheed’s share of the cost per flying hour would decrease by more than 30 percent from the 2020 contract, said Bridget Lauderdale, Lockheed’s vice president for the F-35 program.
The deal will also drive improvements in full mission capable rates and supply metrics, the department stated.
(...)
The contract covers “on-site support of day-to-day operations from LM field service representatives, engineers, and Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) administrators, along with global enterprise support for sustaining engineering, supply chain, repair and replenishment material, and training,” according to the program office.
However, it does not include the cost of sustaining the jet’s F135 engine, which is negotiated in a separate contract with manufacturer Pratt & Whitney.
Importantly, both the program office and Lockheed Martin stated that the deal “lays the groundwork” for a future performance-based logistics contract, which the company has sought over the past few years.
In 2019, Lockheed proposed a performance-based logistics contract it claimed would result in $1 billion in savings for the department, but the Pentagon rejected the offer. Fick in 2020 said the department was still working to “crisply articulate [its] desired role” in sustaining the jet and didn’t want to get locked into a deal that wouldn’t meet its requirements.
Lockheed presented a scaled-down version of the proposal to the Pentagon earlier this year. That offer centered around ensuring the availability of spare parts and accelerating repair times and would have run from 2022 to 2026.
However, some lawmakers are skeptical a performance-based logistics contract will produce the intended results.
The House Armed Services Committee’s version of the FY22 defense authorization bill includes language that would prohibit the Defense Department from entering into such a deal for the F-35 program unless the defense secretary certifies that the program meets cost reduction metrics and that sustainment costs would further decrease under the terms of the agreement.
Edit : article sur le même sujet par Air Force Mag, mais qui développe beaucoup plus à la partie réacteur :
New $6.6 Billion F-35 Sustainment Contract Paves Way for Performance-Based Logistics Deal
https://www.airforcemag.com/new-6-6-bil ... tics-deal/
(...)
Hanging over the contract is Congress’ recent move to introduce a new engine for the F-35 derived from the Adaptive Engine Technology Program. The House Armed Services Committee, in its version of the fiscal 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, directed that the JPO create a plan to introduce AETP engines by 2027. That move puts the “25 by 25” goal “in jeopardy,” a government official said.
Both Pratt & Whitney and GE Aviation, which have developed AETP engines, have said their new powerplants can only fit in the F-35A used by the Air Force. Getting the AETP to fit in the Navy’s F-35C version would require significant further development, and both companies have said flatly that their AETP engines “will not fit” in the Marine Corps F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing variant. Following the HASC direction would therefore mean maintaining at least two engine sustainment enterprises for the F-35, which would add to its operating price.
Directing a new engine would add “tremendous increased additional cost,” a government official familiar with the program said. “Adding requirements usually does, at least in the short term.” Hitting the “25 by 25” goal becomes problematic because it’s not known how much the new engines will cost to integrate, and “there are always teething troubles with new engines,” he said.
Another official said “it’s not clear to me that the AETP engine would be exportable. I’m not sure the [international] partners would be very enthusiastic about operating an engine in their F-35s that the U.S. government is, essentially, leaving behind.”
The JPO has said it does not have a requirement for a new engine, nor, in fact, does it have a master propulsion roadmap for the F-35. Establishing one is likely to be on the agenda at the next meeting of F-35 international partners.
“Competition is good,” a government official said, because it can drive better performance and price reductions, but introducing it in the F-35 “at this late stage” in the program will introduce development and multiple unique systems costs that could “easily wipe out whatever you save” in competition.
Pratt & Whitney has said it can make improvements to the F135 engine that now powers the fleet that will save $40 billion in cost avoidance over the life of the F-35, versus developing and fielding new engines for it.
Even if the new engines are developed for the F-35, “there’s still 600 F-35As that fly with the F135, and you have to keep a sustainment enterprise for them,” one official said.
“Trying to change a powerplant in … a fielded system is extremely complex,” said Brig. Gen. Dale R. White, Air Force PEO for fighters and advanced aircraft, in an August press conference, when asked about changing out the F135 engine. Although his portfolio doesn’t include the F-35, White observed that, “You have to think about what the return on investment might be.”
Fick is to meet with reporters Sept. 14 to discuss the way forward on the PBL and potential integration of new F-35 engines.
