Back to news

June 10, 2019 | International, Aerospace

Turkish suppliers to be eliminated from F-35 program in 2020

By:

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is preparing to transfer Turkey's industrial participation in the F-35 to other countries unless Ankara reverses course on its plans to buy the Russian S-400 air defense system.

The move — which in early 2020 would end contracts with major Turkish defense contractors such as Turkish Aerospace Industries, Roketsan and Tusas Engine Industries, among many others — is just one of many steps the U.S. Defense Department intends to take to strip Turkey from the F-35 program, according to a June 6 letter from acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan.

The training of Turkish F-35 pilots at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona and of Turkish maintainers at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, will also end, Shanahan wrote, and U.S. military exercises in Turkey are in jeopardy.

“If Turkey procures the S-400, as we discussed during our call on May 28, 2019, our two countries must develop a plan to discontinue Turkey's participation in the F-35 program,” Shanahan wrote in the letter, which was addressed to his counterpart, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar. “While we seek to maintain our valued relationship, Turkey will not receive the F-35 if Turkey takes delivery of the S-400.”

However, Ellen Lord, undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, noted that Turkish participation in the program would be allowed to continue if it drops its plan to buy the Russian air defense system. The delivery of the S-400 could occur as early as this month.

“Turkey still has the option to change course. If Turkey does not accept delivery of the S-400, we will enable Turkey to return to normal F-35 program activities,” she told reporters Friday. “Turkey is a close NATO ally and our military-to-military relationship is strong.”

Turkey, a partner in the F-35 program that helped fund the development of the jet, plans to buy 100 F-35As.

Its first jet was rolled out in June 2018 in a festive “delivery ceremony,” but although Turkey formally owns its jets, the United States has the power to keep the planes from moving to Turkish soil and intends to keep all four existing Turkish jets from leaving the United States.

Lord told reporters that the Pentagon is still deciding what it will do with Turkey's jets. One option would be to buy the aircraft and repurpose them for the U.S. Air Force, but no official decision has been made.

Turkish companies are responsible for 937 parts used to build the F-35, with 400 of those sole-sourced from Turkish firms, Lord said. Existing contracts would go through a “disciplined and graceful wind down” period in “early 2020,” Lord said.

“If we can work to our timelines with the Turks, we would have no major disruptions and very few delays,” she said.

Vice Adm. Mat Winter, the F-35's program executive, said in April that 50-75 aircraft could be delayed over a two-year period if Turkey is removed from the program, according to Breaking Defense. But Lord said those disruptions would occur only if the Pentagon terminated its supply chain agreements this summer.

Ultimately, prime contractors Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney will make the decisions on which subcontractors replace the Turkish vendors, but the Pentagon has identified new suppliers that could step up and make the parts currently sole-sourced by Turkey.

“They are predominantly U.S. sources. That's not to say that we won't continue to do what we always do with program management and look for other sources, because we would like to have second, third sources for most of the items,” she said.

The Defense Department has already stopped material deliveries to Turkey, halting the buildup of an engine overhaul facility that was planned to be built in and operated by Turkey.

“There are two other European MRO&Us [maintenance, repair, overhaul and upgrade facilities] that can absorb the volume with no issue whatsoever,” Lord said.

Despite Turkey's industrial role in the program, Lord said she was confident that all important technical information would stay secure.

"We control what is downloaded from our computers. We have shared what's appropriate. The Turks have no critical documentation that we're concerned about,” she said.

What's the impact on Turkish F-35 training?

The most immediate impact to Turkey, according to the letter from Shanahan, is that no new Turkish students will begin F-35 training at Luke Air Force Base. This defers the training of 20 students scheduled to begin training in June, as well as 14 students between July and November 2019.

“This training will not occur because we are suspending Turkey from the F-35 program; there are no longer requirements to gain proficiencies on the systems,” according to a document attached to the letter that spelled out the schedule for Turkey's removal from the program.

In addition, the country will not be allowed to attend the annual F-35 Chief Executive Officer roundtable on June 12 — depriving Turkey of the opportunity to give input on any changes to the program's governing documents.

Full article: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/07/turkish-suppliers-to-be-eliminated-from-f-35-program-in-2020/

On the same subject

  • Quand l'armée française vole au secours de l'aéronautique

    November 2, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    Quand l'armée française vole au secours de l'aéronautique

    HASSAN MEDDAH L'aéronautique militaire sera-t-elle la planche de salut des sous-traitants mis en grande difficulté par la crise du secteur aérien ? À l'occasion de la présentation du volet Défense du projet de loi de finances 2021, la ministre des Armées Florence Parly a annoncé de nouvelles commandes, soit 12 Rafale au profit de l'armée de l'air et 10 hélicoptères NH90 pour les forces spéciales. La commande des Rafale va apporter un ballon d'oxygène à l'ensemble du tissu industriel mobilisé pour l'appareil de combat tricolore, soit 7 000 salariés répartis dans 500 entreprises en France. L'achat des hélicoptères va soutenir l'activité d'Airbus, de Thales et de Safran et de leurs sous-traitants. Dès juin, Florence Parly avait endossé l'uniforme de bon soldat du plan de soutien à la filière aéronautique. "Soutenir l'industrie aéronautique, c'est épauler la remontée en puissance de l'économie française tout entière", avait-elle déclaré. Les armées avaient accéléré leurs achats pour un montant de 600 millions d'euros. De quoi sauvegarder plus de 1 200 emplois pendant trois ans sur l'ensemble du territoire. Faut-il y voir aussi un juste retour des choses ? L'effort de la nation pour ses armées est des plus significatifs. Après quatre années de forte augmentation, le budget de la Défense va culminer à 39,2 milliards d'euros en 2021, soit 7 milliards de plus qu'en 2017 ! https://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/quand-l-armee-francaise-vole-au-secours-de-l-aeronautique.N1015164

  • NATO Secretary General launches his Annual Report for 2023

    March 14, 2024 | International, Security

    NATO Secretary General launches his Annual Report for 2023

    NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg launched his annual report for 2023 on Thursday (14 March 2024), which covers all aspects of the Alliance’s work over the past year.

  • Is the Air Force’s Advanced Battle Management System program gearing up to be the next major acquisition failure?

    April 21, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    Is the Air Force’s Advanced Battle Management System program gearing up to be the next major acquisition failure?

    Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — Since Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein took over as the service's top general in 2016, the Air Force has made figuring out how to connect its weapons with those of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps its biggest priority. The Air Force is set to have spent $300 million on the Advanced Battle Management System through fiscal year 2021. However, the service is still struggling to define what ABMS needs to do and how much it will cost, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released April 16. "The Air Force has not established a plan or business case for ABMS that identifies its requirements, a plan to attain mature technologies when needed, a cost estimate, and an affordability analysis. ... To date, the Air Force has not identified a development schedule for ABMS, and it has not formally documented requirements,” it read. That could have significant consequences for the program down the road, GAO continued: “GAO's previous work has shown that weapon systems without a sound business case are at greater risk for schedule delays, cost growth, and integration issues.” The GAO made four recommendations: create a cost estimate and a plan laying out how to afford the program, formalize the decision-making authorities of those involved in ABMS, and develop a list of technologies that are expected to fit into the initial system. In a response to the report, Kevin Fahey, the assistant secretary of defense for acquisition, concurred with all four recommendations — a sign that, going forward, the Air Force may be required to solidify more of its ABMS plans. The Air Force has maintained that the program's unconventional structure and methodology is a feature, not a bug. It wants to use a series of experiments to help discover and mature new technologies that can be weaved in alongside legacy platforms. For instance, the first ABMS experiment connected SpaceX's Starlink constellation with an AC-130 gunship, and the next demo will employ a Kratos Valkyrie drone carrying communications gear that enables the F-22 and F-35 to securely share data while allowing them to maintain stealth. Air Force officials have said technologies that are proven to be successful and mature during the experiments could become programs of record inside the ABMS family of systems. However, the Air Force does not seem to have a firm plan for what technologies it needs and when to bring them online, the GAO said. The service has identified 28 development areas that includes a new cloud network, a new common radio, and apps that provide different ways of presenting and fusing data. However, none of those areas are linked to specific technical requirements, and the Air Force hasn't explained what organizations are responsible for the development of those products. In one damning section, GAO compared ABMS with several cancelled programs with similar aims, such as the Army's Future Combat Systems program that sought to field a family of manned and unmanned technologies and the Joint Tactical Radio System, which was intended to create a government-owned software defined radio. These programs publicly flamed out after millions of dollars were spent in development, in part because certain technologies were not mature enough and caused the schedule to unravel. The scope of ABMS will be far larger than those previous programs, the Pentagon's Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation told the GAO. But because the Air Force has not provided a detailed acquisition strategy, CAPE does not have confidence that the Air Force will be able succeed where those programs have failed. “Given the criticality of the battle management command and control mission and the planned retirement of legacy programs, the lack of an ABMS business case introduces uncertainty regarding whether the needed capabilities will be developed within required time frames,” the GAO said. Figuring out who has responsibility and decision-making authority for ABMS is also a messy proposition, the GAO said. The ABMS effort is led by a chief architect, Preston Dunlap, who is responsible for managing tradeoffs among the portfolio of technologies and guide experimentation efforts. However, existing programs that will be part of the ABMS family will retain their separate program office with their own independent management, and the Air Force has yet to clarify whether Dunlap will be able to redirect those program's funding to fall in line with ABMS objectives. For example, the Air Force's program office for space is currently working on a data integration project that could correspond with ABMS efforts to field a cloud network. But “although some ABMS funds have been obligated for this project, there is no documentation to support that the Chief Architect will be able to direct the PEO to change the project objectives or timeline to align with ABMS requirements once they are defined,” the GAO said. The role of the Air Force Warfighting Integration Capability or AFWIC, which was established in 2017 to help define how the service will fight wars in the future, is also unclear. An AFWIC senior official told the GAO that the organization began leading the service's multidomain command and control initiatives in 2019, but it is uncertain whether AFWIC also has the power to change the direction of the ABMS program. https://www.c4isrnet.com/c2-comms/2020/04/20/is-the-air-forces-advanced-battle-management-system-program-gearing-up-to-be-the-next-major-acquisition-failure/

All news