5 ms·

The part I thought was interesting was how Israel “secured rights to modify” their F35 deliveries. Like… what kind of airplane that costs 100s of millions requi

The part I thought was interesting was how Israel “secured rights to modify” their F35 deliveries. Like… what kind of airplane that costs 100s of millions requires additional contracts for “replace component” rights? How insane is this contract? Its so unreasonable to assume that the value of the fighter to the manifacturers is only in the maintenance. Its like the BMW heater subscription, only for national defence.

nradov 2y ago
When you have the only working 5th-generation multirole fighter on the export market then you can drive a pretty hard bargain. That's how monopolies work.
- Teever 2y ago
  Wasn't the F-35 a collaborative project between many different countries? So why don't those countries get equal access to the thing that they all went in on creating?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - nradov 2y ago
    Some partners are more equal than others. There are 3+ program levels depending on how much funding they put into the initial development and how many units they committed to order. This impacts the level of access they get. The UK is the only Level 1 partner. Italy and Netherlands are at Level 2. Others are down at Level 3 (except Israel, which had sufficient political influence to negotiate a special deal despite a relatively small investment). I sympathize with the F-35 customers who are now feeling uneasy about their choice due to recent changes in US foreign policy. But that's the risk you take when you fail to adequately fund your military and try to get by on the cheap. Most of them had the option of joining at Level 1 at the time, and had they done so they would have much more leverage today.
    - SR2Z 2y ago
      > But that's the risk you take when you fail to adequately fund your military and try to get by on the cheap. Except it's nuts to pretend like this system hasn't been working out great for the US. Competent leaders have expanded it for a reason. > Most of them had the option of joining at Level 1 at the time, and had they done so they would have much more leverage today. I think that Trump/Vance have run their mouth about the UK in roughly the same ways that they have about Canada and Ukraine and your claim is far from obvious. We have leaders who are stupid and will trash a good thing without a second thought.
      - jhanschoo 2y ago
        I don't see how your point is relevant to the current topic which is narrowly about how investment (or not) into the F-35 program relates to input into the direction of the program.
        SR2Z 2y ago
        The UK is a Tier 1 partner. The administration seems like it's one Xanax-fueled dream away from saying the UK should be the 52nd state and suspending technical support in the exact same way the US has done to Ukraine. That's the relationship between the two. The problem is not that these nations weren't Tier 1 partners. The problem is that the current administration cannot be negotiated with in the most damning sense of "these people can't even be trusted to work for their own self-interest."
      - refulgentis 2y ago
        Well, no, unless they're also insisting on annexing the UK, and crippled UK military hardware while they're in an existential war. I haven't seen such reported.
    - Teever 2y ago
      I assume that the USA also a Level 1 Partner? As the UK is also a Level 1 partner if they were so inclined they could provide the resources necessary to allow lower level partners to operate and maintain their F-35s?
idontwantthis 2y ago
Israel heavily modifies all of their jets I think. Supposedly stuff like allowing the engines to run at a dangerous thrust level because of situations like “Get there now or you won’t have a home to land in”.
- throw310822 2y ago
  > Get there now or you won’t have a home to land in Really? A country that engages with neighbours that are barely able to send primitive missiles, while its last generation (US) jets drop bombs straight on their capital cities any time they want, with total impunity? And you still repeat this "poor existentially threatened country" propaganda?
  - kulahan 2y ago
    He is referring to highly specific types of situations, not speaking in a generic sense. It’s not about propaganda, it’s just a simple consequence of the region they’re in. As a side note, terrorists successfully attack highly developed economies all the time. Having good jets doesn’t magically negate that possibility.
  - addicted 2y ago
    Even to the extent this is true (which it isn’t entirely), it’s basically only been true overnight. Israel has only recently become as strong as it is. Until very recently it could very well lose, and has lost, wars with its neighbors.
    - throw310822 2y ago
      False. You can see this from the number of losses they suffered in their military campaigns: a tiny number of casualties compared to those inflicted to their enemies. Besides, it has been clear for many decades that the US would do absolutely anything to protect Israel, which means that the forces Israel can count on to defend itself in case of a real existential threat are basically those of the entire USA.
    - 2y ago
wrs 2y ago
I have read that the base price of a Boeing/Airbus jet is typically negotiated below zero, based on the decades of maintenance contracts and spare parts that will have to be purchased over its lifetime.
- ir77 2y ago
  the above is absolutely true on the commercial engine side, especially for government subsidized companies such as RR... there is a big contention against RR's practices but most mfgs still give the engines at a very large discount, not negative. i don't think it's true for the actual airframe, the numbers would be completely off and airframe does not have the same going back to the factory for refurb requirements.
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    Probably not negative, but component maintenance is a huge longtail revenue stream for avionics. Pretty much every electronic and mechanical component has to be pulled periodically and tested, which costs, and replaced or refurbished. My first proper job, that's how they made the majority of their revenue. They lost money on the development effort, maybe broke even after initial sales, and profited off the fact that aircraft are kept around for decades and every 5 years their part had to be pulled and sent back to them for testing and replacement. The more Airbus or Boeing own inside the aircraft, the more they can play into this model. 787 is a great example of Boeing hurting themselves through their outsourcing, but greatly assisting their suppliers.
    - ir77 2y ago
      yes, what you're talking about is true for the supplier side, but it's still not accurate for A/C mfg. operators own the a/c and all the associated bits that would end up getting sent out for service, and they're the ones that are paying service fees to those OEM suppliers that supplied the A/C in the first place. these day's there's not many "parts" outside of fuselage and flight IP that someone like Boeing/EMB, etc. owns that wasn't outsourced:engines, air data system, actuations, cabin, flight controls, landing gear, etc.. THere's nothing really that the A/C mfg could "service" to ever make back a 300mil airframe. the A/C sell for the fixed cost, sometimes the operator gets to select their own engine, but othewise they buy it for cash, not for future services. boeing and other A/Cs would not survive on maintenance plans because there's very little they actually maintain.
ir77 2y ago
in past life i worked on the engine... during development and going into first flight, it was fairly open discussion that israel 'was' an original partner whom was funded by usa, and thus why israeli flag was not on the a/c during promo but israel and their tech companies had input into development. many times it was also discussed that israeli pilots would ask to have their engines deliver above spec thrust, sort of like tunning your turbo car... it created a whole logistical black hole but it certainly was technically possible. perhaps 15 years later someone finally figure out how to cater to that market.
parsimo2010 2y ago
Maintenance is extraordinarily important for the long term usefulness of a fighter jet. There is even an official metric tracked called "maintenance man-hours per flight hour." The F-35, which was even designed to try to minimize this (while still being stealthy and lethal), requires ~5 hours of maintenance for every hour the jet is in the air. If you get cut off from parts your Air Force will be almost unable to fly in a few months. Pretty much all modern fighters require replacement parts from the original manufacturer. There are not enough fighter jets to support an aftermarket parts manufacturer, especially one that could exist without getting sued by Lockheed, Northrop, and the like. The main technical issue is that you have to reverse engineer the parts if you don't have original drawings and didn't get a legal license to make your own. All the technical bits on an F-35 have anti-tamper features designed to make reverse engineering almost impossible (in case a jet gets shot down over enemy territory the USA doesn't want the enemies to have an easy time figuring out the weak points or finding bugs to exploit). If you want to see what fighter jets without legal repairability license turns into, look at Iran. The sanctions placed on Iran have meant that they've been stringing their inventory of jets along for decades without official parts. They cannibalize other jets, buy black market parts, and cobble together their own solutions to keep their Air Force going. Check out the Sedjil, which is a modified SAM, that they created to put on their F-14s because the USA stopped providing Phoenix missiles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedjil_(air-to-air_missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedjil_(air-to-air_missile). Trying to keep an Air Force going without official permission is really challenging. But Israel's case is a little different from the above discussion- negotiating for the rights to modify isn't really about replacement parts. They aren't that concerned that the USA will cut them off. Their negotiation is more because they want to put some of their own systems on the jet. In older 4th generation jets, integration of new systems could be straightforward; you can put it in an external pod with a standardized mounting pylon and standardized data bus. On the F-35 you obviously want to avoid hanging a bunch of extra pods off the jet, so you need to get engineering drawings and software details to figure out how to internally integrate your stuff. Because reverse engineering is hard, they pushed to get this technical information legally. The only time this effort is worth it is when you think your country's equipment outperforms what the original F-35 can do. You need a decent tech to beat the stock F-35 systems, but Israel probably has a few areas where they can do that. But even with the right to modify the F-35, Israel will be heavily reliant on original parts for maintenance. They do not have a big enough industrial base to make all the parts needed for the jet.
pyuser583 2y ago
Even the US government has to buy these sorts of rights. Technically, they don’t need permission, but if they want access to the documentation, that costs extra. And sometimes it’s not available at any cost.

nradov 2y ago

When you have the only working 5th-generation multirole fighter on the export market then you can drive a pretty hard bargain. That's how monopolies work.

Teever 2y ago
Wasn't the F-35 a collaborative project between many different countries? So why don't those countries get equal access to the thing that they all went in on creating?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- nradov 2y ago
  Some partners are more equal than others. There are 3+ program levels depending on how much funding they put into the initial development and how many units they committed to order. This impacts the level of access they get. The UK is the only Level 1 partner. Italy and Netherlands are at Level 2. Others are down at Level 3 (except Israel, which had sufficient political influence to negotiate a special deal despite a relatively small investment). I sympathize with the F-35 customers who are now feeling uneasy about their choice due to recent changes in US foreign policy. But that's the risk you take when you fail to adequately fund your military and try to get by on the cheap. Most of them had the option of joining at Level 1 at the time, and had they done so they would have much more leverage today.
  - SR2Z 2y ago
    > But that's the risk you take when you fail to adequately fund your military and try to get by on the cheap. Except it's nuts to pretend like this system hasn't been working out great for the US. Competent leaders have expanded it for a reason. > Most of them had the option of joining at Level 1 at the time, and had they done so they would have much more leverage today. I think that Trump/Vance have run their mouth about the UK in roughly the same ways that they have about Canada and Ukraine and your claim is far from obvious. We have leaders who are stupid and will trash a good thing without a second thought.
    - jhanschoo 2y ago
      I don't see how your point is relevant to the current topic which is narrowly about how investment (or not) into the F-35 program relates to input into the direction of the program.
      - SR2Z 2y ago
        The UK is a Tier 1 partner. The administration seems like it's one Xanax-fueled dream away from saying the UK should be the 52nd state and suspending technical support in the exact same way the US has done to Ukraine. That's the relationship between the two. The problem is not that these nations weren't Tier 1 partners. The problem is that the current administration cannot be negotiated with in the most damning sense of "these people can't even be trusted to work for their own self-interest."
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      Well, no, unless they're also insisting on annexing the UK, and crippled UK military hardware while they're in an existential war. I haven't seen such reported.
  - Teever 2y ago
    I assume that the USA also a Level 1 Partner? As the UK is also a Level 1 partner if they were so inclined they could provide the resources necessary to allow lower level partners to operate and maintain their F-35s?

idontwantthis 2y ago

Israel heavily modifies all of their jets I think. Supposedly stuff like allowing the engines to run at a dangerous thrust level because of situations like “Get there now or you won’t have a home to land in”.

throw310822 2y ago
> Get there now or you won’t have a home to land in Really? A country that engages with neighbours that are barely able to send primitive missiles, while its last generation (US) jets drop bombs straight on their capital cities any time they want, with total impunity? And you still repeat this "poor existentially threatened country" propaganda?
- kulahan 2y ago
  He is referring to highly specific types of situations, not speaking in a generic sense. It’s not about propaganda, it’s just a simple consequence of the region they’re in. As a side note, terrorists successfully attack highly developed economies all the time. Having good jets doesn’t magically negate that possibility.
- addicted 2y ago
  Even to the extent this is true (which it isn’t entirely), it’s basically only been true overnight. Israel has only recently become as strong as it is. Until very recently it could very well lose, and has lost, wars with its neighbors.
  - throw310822 2y ago
    False. You can see this from the number of losses they suffered in their military campaigns: a tiny number of casualties compared to those inflicted to their enemies. Besides, it has been clear for many decades that the US would do absolutely anything to protect Israel, which means that the forces Israel can count on to defend itself in case of a real existential threat are basically those of the entire USA.
  - 2y ago

wrs 2y ago

I have read that the base price of a Boeing/Airbus jet is typically negotiated below zero, based on the decades of maintenance contracts and spare parts that will have to be purchased over its lifetime.

ir77 2y ago
the above is absolutely true on the commercial engine side, especially for government subsidized companies such as RR... there is a big contention against RR's practices but most mfgs still give the engines at a very large discount, not negative. i don't think it's true for the actual airframe, the numbers would be completely off and airframe does not have the same going back to the factory for refurb requirements.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  Probably not negative, but component maintenance is a huge longtail revenue stream for avionics. Pretty much every electronic and mechanical component has to be pulled periodically and tested, which costs, and replaced or refurbished. My first proper job, that's how they made the majority of their revenue. They lost money on the development effort, maybe broke even after initial sales, and profited off the fact that aircraft are kept around for decades and every 5 years their part had to be pulled and sent back to them for testing and replacement. The more Airbus or Boeing own inside the aircraft, the more they can play into this model. 787 is a great example of Boeing hurting themselves through their outsourcing, but greatly assisting their suppliers.
  - ir77 2y ago
    yes, what you're talking about is true for the supplier side, but it's still not accurate for A/C mfg. operators own the a/c and all the associated bits that would end up getting sent out for service, and they're the ones that are paying service fees to those OEM suppliers that supplied the A/C in the first place. these day's there's not many "parts" outside of fuselage and flight IP that someone like Boeing/EMB, etc. owns that wasn't outsourced:engines, air data system, actuations, cabin, flight controls, landing gear, etc.. THere's nothing really that the A/C mfg could "service" to ever make back a 300mil airframe. the A/C sell for the fixed cost, sometimes the operator gets to select their own engine, but othewise they buy it for cash, not for future services. boeing and other A/Cs would not survive on maintenance plans because there's very little they actually maintain.

ir77 2y ago

in past life i worked on the engine... during development and going into first flight, it was fairly open discussion that israel 'was' an original partner whom was funded by usa, and thus why israeli flag was not on the a/c during promo but israel and their tech companies had input into development. many times it was also discussed that israeli pilots would ask to have their engines deliver above spec thrust, sort of like tunning your turbo car... it created a whole logistical black hole but it certainly was technically possible. perhaps 15 years later someone finally figure out how to cater to that market.

parsimo2010 2y ago

Maintenance is extraordinarily important for the long term usefulness of a fighter jet. There is even an official metric tracked called "maintenance man-hours per flight hour." The F-35, which was even designed to try to minimize this (while still being stealthy and lethal), requires ~5 hours of maintenance for every hour the jet is in the air. If you get cut off from parts your Air Force will be almost unable to fly in a few months. Pretty much all modern fighters require replacement parts from the original manufacturer. There are not enough fighter jets to support an aftermarket parts manufacturer, especially one that could exist without getting sued by Lockheed, Northrop, and the like. The main technical issue is that you have to reverse engineer the parts if you don't have original drawings and didn't get a legal license to make your own. All the technical bits on an F-35 have anti-tamper features designed to make reverse engineering almost impossible (in case a jet gets shot down over enemy territory the USA doesn't want the enemies to have an easy time figuring out the weak points or finding bugs to exploit). If you want to see what fighter jets without legal repairability license turns into, look at Iran. The sanctions placed on Iran have meant that they've been stringing their inventory of jets along for decades without official parts. They cannibalize other jets, buy black market parts, and cobble together their own solutions to keep their Air Force going. Check out the Sedjil, which is a modified SAM, that they created to put on their F-14s because the USA stopped providing Phoenix missiles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedjil_(air-to-air_missile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedjil_(air-to-air_missile). Trying to keep an Air Force going without official permission is really challenging. But Israel's case is a little different from the above discussion- negotiating for the rights to modify isn't really about replacement parts. They aren't that concerned that the USA will cut them off. Their negotiation is more because they want to put some of their own systems on the jet. In older 4th generation jets, integration of new systems could be straightforward; you can put it in an external pod with a standardized mounting pylon and standardized data bus. On the F-35 you obviously want to avoid hanging a bunch of extra pods off the jet, so you need to get engineering drawings and software details to figure out how to internally integrate your stuff. Because reverse engineering is hard, they pushed to get this technical information legally. The only time this effort is worth it is when you think your country's equipment outperforms what the original F-35 can do. You need a decent tech to beat the stock F-35 systems, but Israel probably has a few areas where they can do that. But even with the right to modify the F-35, Israel will be heavily reliant on original parts for maintenance. They do not have a big enough industrial base to make all the parts needed for the jet.

pyuser583 2y ago

Even the US government has to buy these sorts of rights. Technically, they don’t need permission, but if they want access to the documentation, that costs extra. And sometimes it’s not available at any cost.