irtusk2 months later and still haven’t determined root cause (narrowed down to 4 possibilties) plus we have the whole titanium supply chain issues that have halted deliveries
http://aviationweek.com/blog/fire-causes-friction-f-35-test-program
Yesterday, F-35 Joint Program Director USAF Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said that up to 45 days worth of testing has been missed due to the grounding and subsequent restricted flight regime on the three F-35 variants.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/pratt-whitney-offers-some-f135-explaining
At Pratt & Whitney, we work to minimize risk through extensive up-front analysis, aggressive ground testing and meaningful flight test. As expected in high-technology programs, we uncover problems in each of these phases, and some issues cannot be identified and addressed until these phases are completed.
Wait, wasn’t PW just arguing that their engine was ‘mature’ and thus there was no need for an alternate engine?
Oh, I see, it wasn’t ‘mature mature’ or ‘legitimate mature’
irtuskHello? GE? You remember when we said we would never ever ever want your engine and you had to shut down your program and we barred you from all test facilities? Well, that was all just a big practical joke, hahahahaha. We good?
irtuskwhat’s the little radiation sticker for?
(radiation, duh, but really)
irtuskOh look, they regret not having any competition for the F135. Who could have POSSIBLY seen that coming?
F-35 Cost Up $7.8B, Bogdan Fires on Pratt
“We had a price curve for these engines. We thought we knew how much it was going to cost … Pratt is not meeting their commitment. It is as simple as that … It is not good. Not good at all,” Bogdan told reporters April 17. “Some of their business base has dried up on other programs and projects … and what they are doing is they are spreading their overhead costs and they are spreading them right where they can. I don’t like that. [They] need to get back to the promise they originally made to us.”
. . .
Bogdan seems frustrated by the lack of leverage he has in dealing with a monopoly engine provider. “There is only one engine on the F-35. Period,” he said. “When you are in a sole source environment it is difficult to find the right leverage and motivation and drive the cost out of a program.”
and then there’s a comment from everyone’s favorite Bill
As someone remarked four years ago, when P&W’s campaign to kill the F136 was in full-bore mode, including the much repeated and entirely false claim that the F135 had been preferred in multiple competitions:
“Why is the F135 lobby so desperate? One possibility: they need to get the alternate engine dead and buried before they stick the Pentagon with the real bill for the engine.” – http://ow.ly/vVb5S
irtuskThere has to be a separate contract for those 63 units.
But it seems that that contract might be taken up right away.
Well certainly Dasssault would LIKE it to be taken up right away, but there’s no evidence of that being any more than wishful thinking on their part.
irtuskArgentina never wants the islands
They are far too valuable politically as a way to gin up support.
Once they have the islands and their policies are STILL failing, then what?
irtuskThe purchase of the 126 Indian jets is 10,4bn $. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/india-to-buy-126-rafale-jets-for–104-billion/225993-3.html The rest (10 bn$) is spares (apart from initial ones) and other additional costs for 30 years. I don’t know if they count the salaries and fuel, but they should be lower than the Canadian.
That article is outdated.
The truth is revealed in the first article you linked:
When the MMRCA selection process was initiated by MoD in mid-2007, the overall project cost was pegged at Rs 42,000 crore or $10.4 billion for 126 fighters. Since then, with inflation also being factored in, revised estimates indicate the figure will touch $20 billion, if not exceed it.
I will also throw out this quote:
The deciding factor that won the Rafale the competition was its lower cost. Even a cursory glance at the Rafale’s costing for the French Senate done in 2009 indicated a unit price 2.25 times of what the French quoted us, not factoring in inflation…. What can one expect from here? Four things: First, Dassault’s final submission will take much longer to materialise – possibly another year or so. Second, a stream of news reports that we’ve already heard a thousand times before will come out telling us how unprepared our institutions are to receive this technology. Third, when that document from Dassault does indeed materialise, expect a minimum 170 per cent jump in costs attributed to “time delay”, “unforeseen problems” and “supply chain variables”. Let’s not forget that, when this competition started out in 2007 the deal was meant to cost us $10.6 billion. Now the figure has already doubled to $20 billion, while any intelligent person who bothered studying the publicly available costs would have fixed the price at $27 billion as far back as 2009…. At some point, one needs to introspect very deeply
The Canadian 29bn$ includes more than the Indian and Swiss tenders, obviously. But when everything is included, like in the Swedish order I linked to
You keep conflating Switzerland and Sweden
irtuskIn India the life cycle + initial purchase cost for 126 Rafale would be 20bn$. And thats for 6’000 flight hours per airframe.
No, that’s just the initial purchase price and does not include operating costs
The Swiss bought 22 Gripens for 3bn with everything they needed for 30 years (probably no missiles included).
Again that doesn’t include operating costs like salaries and fuel
Dassault sent in a last minute bid, or actually a too late bid, at 3bn$ for 18 jets (not fixed price) but in a similar package as SAAB.
Again, this doesn’t include operating costs
And Canada pays 25-29bn$ for 65 F35 for 20 years of operation per airframe.
This is the one estimate that does include operating costs.
irtuskMilitary Will Contract Out Air-to-Air Refuelling If Canada Goes with F-35 (excerpt)
The Canadian military has decided it will rely on the U.S., other allies and private companies for air-to-air refuelling if the government purchases the F-35 because the stealth fighters aren’t compatible with Canada’s current refuelling aircraft
1. equipping A’s with probes is possible
2. Canada can’t currently refuel their C-17s either
3. afaik Canada’s refuelling fleet consists of 5 C-130s and 2 converted A310s (CC-150). The A310s are upgradable to a boom (EADS has done it before)
It seems upgrading their A310s with booms would be the best solution as it avoids any issues with the F-35s plus it allows them to (finally) refuel their C-17s too.
irtuskBeesley on why your simplistic analysis of aerodynamic performance is wrong
irtuskIf @irtusks feverish dreams were true,
F-22 & 35 would have the shape of X-47 and be VLO.
I didn’t say aero performance was completely irrelevant, I said that within the narrow range of capabilities of modern fighters, it doesn’t make a substantial difference WVR.
So:
1. I was not talking about something ridiculous like the F-117, I was talking about something with at least reasonable performance for a fighter (which the F-35 clearly has)
2. I said it does make some difference, just not as large as you might think.
Reality is different, in the real world a fighter need to be fast & agile
Good thing the F-35 is fast and agile
http://www.sflorg.com/aviation/av092008_01.html
The conventional version of the F-35 has 9g capability and matches the turn rates of the F-16 and F/A-18. More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons carried internally, the F-35’s aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability.
irtuskDepends on how many drop tanks that are carried.
ding ding ding!
irtuskThe chart shows FA18C and FA18E with the exact same loadout at the exact same altitude with the same % of fuel and at the exact same speed. Its a comparison of flight characteristics with a specific loadout.
http://www.f-16.net/attachments/f18_turn_rate1_576.png
look at the pictures of the aircraft silhouettes. closely.
Serious question: Do you believe that the SH outmaneuvers the classic Hornet?
irtuskSo the F35 will be excellent at pointing its nose to at the enemy and fire away its 4 missiles. If the enemy survives it will most likely end bad for the F35, as concluded in the Australian inquiry.
1. Since the F-35 performs as well as a clean F-16, I think your doom-and-gloom is a bit overstated
2. You can look at real studies that say WVR is so random and missiles are so deadly, that even large differences in maneuverability have only marginal impacts on outcome.
In the real world:
– WVR – all fighters are equal
– BVR – F-35 slaughters all
irtuskHere are the links again:
F16 http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-5260-view-previous.html
F15 (this one correlates pretty ok but not exactly to my old chart) http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1599867&postcount=108
F18 http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-13383-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-30.html
Once again, you cannot combine charts from different sources that make different assumptions.
If you doubt that these assumptions make a huge difference, just look at the chart that ‘proves’ the SH has better handling than the Hornet, when that is clearly not the case.
Each chart represents a very specific scenario and unless you know all the assumptions that went into each chart, you cannot blindly combine them, you just cannot.
Sign In
