F-X Fighter Decision Delay: English Language Troubles?

Yeah until a component breaks down prematurely in which case the mechanics does not know which black box had gone kaput, really helpful.
It also ties down the plane until the black box is sent back(if ever) from LM, again really helpful.

Naw, I rather have it completely built domestically under a license without any black boxes.

Arkhangelsk.

As a broader point, I am not automatically biased towards everything the contractor says. I think it needs to be tempered and corroborated with other sources, such as that provided by government sources. I've been doing that for F-35 program and other large-scale capital programs. Personally and professionally I feel obligated to be balanced in my view, which is what I'm trying to do here.

F-35's skin: There is quite a bit of evidence that the system is far more durable than the F-22's ram coatings. There is a GAO report on corrosion, media reports, and information from the USG/DoD about the reliability… all of them suggest the F-35 is much more reliable than its predecessor.

Firstly the F-35 skin is a woven carbon matt that is integral to the aircraft's skin. The physical properties are much more resilient with the carbon metallic infused paint used on the F-22 and the B-2 programs. Remember this is the system that must operate from the harsh environmental conditions on US Navy Carriers. Thus the JSF had to meet the Navy's much more demanding standards on corrosion and reliability. Furthermore the F-35 program must meet metrics on its sortie generation rates; this was not present on the F-22 program. These concerns meant the program was far more aware with skin durability and overall reliability than the F-22, and that has been reflected in the outcome. I think the fact that the USAF has already started to retrofit the F-35's skin onto the F-22 speaks volumes about which one they prefer. It might not be at the level of legacy systems like the F-16, but it won't be the $55,000 dollars per hour it costs to operate the F-22.

Black Boxes. PBL approaches to the F-35 maintenance meant that they designed the avionics to be modular and easily replaceable as LRUs. Consequently maintainers will not be responsible for any repairs in this area. Rather, the boxes will be removed and sent to the OEM for all repairs. I can understand the hesitance towards this sort of contract based on previous experience. However the PBL process won't be unique to Japan, rather they can pattern it according to how JSF Partner nations undertake their maintenance structures, almost all of which will be operated in a similar fashion. That also means there will be unheard of quantities of spares out there, because there should be 2000~2500 aircraft out there sharing the same avionics suite.

Also, there won't be licensed producing the avionics structure for two reasons. Everything I've seen suggests this is actually the area where LM is most concerned about proprietary technology… which is why there was no give on the issue with the UK and Turkey. It also doesn't make sense economically or operationally. License production means the Japanese will likely end up replacing parts for "efficiency" sake, reducing overall commonality (and the advantages of production scale) while increasing its upfront cost. Its the F-2 all over again. Regardless of whether the avionics are licensed or not, the Japanese will likely obtain some tech transfer (licitly or illicitly) and use it for the F-X. However license production will not help them along that road.

Your final point:
"The very CONCEPT of a line-replaceable unit and moving repairs back to depot level causes mixed feelings among line maintenance staff anyway. Every one of those means yet another part that has bloated in complexity so much that front line staff can no longer be expected to be able to repair it so it is shoved back. It might be more efficient, but less robust and to a military man the latter is far more important, especially since they’ll know when the more efficient system comes up short."

The reality is that combat aircraft ARE becoming increasingly complex… regardless if its the PAK-FA, J-20 or the F-35 and repair tasks increasingly require specialized skill sets beyond that possessed by frontline staff. Asking for less complexity is akin to spitting into the wind. Instead it is a more useful question to understand how you manage complexity.

That said, a PBL contract is not simply a zero-sum tradeoff between efficiency and robustness. Rather the client and provider agree on a level of mission availability, then negotiate a cost. They also divide up the maintenance tasks between the two parties (in the F-35's case, avionics are the complete responsibility of the contractor). Failure to meet the prescribed availability (such as part delays which you are worried about) then the provider pays a penalty. They have been shown to dramatically reduce maintenance costs (often as much as 30%), and are now a preferred strategy of the US Military. In most cases its cheaper to have a private civilian contractor repair units than trying to build and maintain the capability in house. Furthermore by creating defined life-cycles for parts and overhauls, it decreases unanticipated breakdowns, increasing the overall availability of an aircraft in the field.

By comparison a more traditional model is a real source of bloat, creating large inefficiencies to an equivalent level of participation. Military personnel cost more to keep and train, partly because there is significant turnover and the pension/medical costs are significantly higher.

That does not have to come at the detriment to robustness… it can even assist it. A frontline maintainer can focus his time on repairs that actually get the aircraft flying… leaving complex and time consuming repairs to the OEM. The Military can focus its training and force generation on the frontline individuals. Furthermore they can retain additional spares at times of crisis in order to keep repair times low. If the USMC (the force most concerned with deployability and operational sustainability) endorses PBLs as a way to reduce cost without damaging its force structure.

The Royal Canadian Air Force has been using PBL systems for the better part of a decade to manage its two most active assets: CF-188s and CC-130s. Its significantly cheaper and has allowed the RCAF to maintain very high availability rates despite an extremely active operational tempo (supporting operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Africa, Libya as well as NORAD commitments.) That experience runs counter to the claim that PBLs are not robust enough to support major combat operations. Furthermore the need for such robustness makes little sense when the JASDF has deployed a total of 0 aircraft in the past 50 years for combat operations.

I'm not saying that PBLs are perfect for all situations… they aren't. However in this case the F-35 was designed to operate using this model and its advantages are clear over those of its competitors.