irtuskCould anyone explain to me what the hell the X-35 was all about if they are encountering these (quite major) problems just now?!?!
they’re supposed to find everything before the test flight program even begins?
that is what the test flight program is for, to find problems
I think it is nothing short of disgraceful that prototyping problems were not ironed out after the prototype was flown and those lessons learned applied to the production model.
the XF-35 is VERY different from the F-35. The plane was practically completely redesigned to meet the weight saving goals. Thus the XF-35 has basically no relevance in validating the F-35 design.
The prototypes being built now are relevant. They will be tested and errors will be found and fixes will be incorporated into the production builds. That is how it is supposed to work.
Instead, the USAF are rewarding incompetence with further money :confused:
what are you talking about?
all this talk about cutting back the test program is precisely to avoid going to congress and asking for more money
in fact congress actually cut their money. Lockheed overbilled the government, they discovered the problem themselves and returned the money, but congress cut that amount again from their budget even though it had already been returned
irtusk# There will never be 24xx F-35 for the U.S. aerial forces. Said that before. My bet is at 1500 max.
we’ll see
# F-22 doesn’t fly off carriers. Love that topic! I say scrap the F-35B and develop a F-22N (in line with an evolved F-22B) with that money. And a stealthy belly-bubble for larger diameter weapons for A/G missions.
what would the point of that be? to balloon costs to the stratosphere? the developments of the F-35C has already been done and the unit costs will be lower than the standard F-22, forget the more expensive navalized version. So now you want to start a major new development program not to mention all the manufacturing startup costs? Such a program will easily end up costing 3x as much
# MCAir’s fixed wing capability is redundant if NavAir adapts a little bit.
are you suggesting the Navy buy some F-35B? because if has some unique capabilities that they will never be able to match otherwise no matter how much they ‘adapt’
# BUT: In case the F-35 is cancelled, the impact would be not so huge. More (evolved) F-22 versions, more (and autonomous) UAVs.
there will never be autonomous UAVs
sure they can be pre-programmed to hit fixed targets, but you will never see autonomous UAVs freely roaming the skies selecting targets of opportunity
For more conventional wars continue production of the KEF/A-18E/F/G, also for the USAF to replace F-16 attrition. Keeps Boeing happy.
the goal is to produce an effective airforce, not keep a company happy
The old generation is obsolete and too vulnerable to even the oldest and most common SAM sites. The USAF does not want anymore F-16s or F-15s.
[QUOTE=Distiller;1189481]# Remember, the hi-low mix was not planned, it was a financially driven decision. Btw, since such a setup would drastically reduce numbers of airframe in manned tactical aviation, TacAir and NavAir should be merged in lieu of the RAF/FAA joint units. And all manned tactical air assets should be made carrier capable. (Another of my favorite topics).
# The Europeans could do without F-35. New chance for Rafale.
did you see how much they were charging Morocco for the Rafale? it was even more than the F-35!
i saw that article and wasn’t impressed
it just covers what we already knew. After flight testing began they uncovered 3 problems:
1. some power lines were routed incorrectly, leading to arcing. They were rerouted. FIXED
2. not enough power generation for F-35C in certain extreme situations. a part was redesigned. FIXED
3. certain problems with the engine. I don’t have as much info on this, but seem to think they have this under control and I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. If not, well that’s why they have the alternate engine funded 😉
The delay has become serious, however, and rising costs for the JSF program seem to be certain.
Rising costs come in 4 parts:
1. one time costs: redesigning the part for the F-35C cost money, but it is not a recurring cost and in the grand scheme, doesn’t matter
2. inflation costs: one of the major drivers of the F-35’s expected cost growth is future inflation, which isn’t a real increase anyways
3. material costs: it is expected material costs will rise faster than inflation, but this will affect all planes, not just the F-35
4. recurring costs: the production is more expensive than anticipated because it takes more hours or there has to be new expensive components added. The F-35 has done an amazing job in regards to this last point, it is practically a model of how this should work. In fact the main driver of this cost has been congress slowing down and pushing out work.
Newer technologies will move along, including things like DEW or any other surprises. Example, if Russia somehow invents a radar that can weaponeer SAMs with VHF radar, that is going to make narrow-band stealth aircraft kind of naked.
1. long wavelengths are not accurate enough to guide a missile, at best they give you a general vicinity and tell you something is out there
2. even if they come out with some super stealth defeating radar now (which i consider very unlikely), it will take a long time for it to trickle down to everyone. We’re still facing SAMs that were built 40 years ago
irtuskUSAF has already cut 48 off of the plan due to cost growth and extended JSF buys out to…. 2040 or so. (hence all the talk about refirbing “golden eagles” and SLEPing the youngest F-16s out to 2025 or so)
UK in their current funding mode I would say is not stable.
Italy as I have mentioned has already moved deliveries “to the right”
Delays and extending the time raise cost.
Australia 100. Fat chance
Turkey is still thinking it is FMS time and needs an attitude adjustment.
sorry, i don’t see anything particularly troubling
sure certain cutbacks are to be expected, but it’s hardly disastrous
and as some cutback, others (again Israel) step forward
yes if every single partner bailed out (which is what you seem to think will happen), then that will be a problem
fortunately, that’s not going to happen 😉
Read the latest article from the Ft Star Telegram in my post above. $100 million each per jet not counting inflation etc there is no way Denmark and the Netherlands will keep the original number.
that’s the LRIP price and indicative of diddly squat
notice that’s from 2013 which is when production is just at the very front edge of a full ramp up
the price from 2015 will be much more interesting
also most of the real (non inflationary) projected cost increase is from price increase in raw materials which is going to affect ALL planes, so it’s not like its competitors are going to be any better off
They are also looking at other solutions and aren’t going to jump in blind.
no one does that (except Australia 😀 )
Norway is looking at Gripen and Typhoon also.
It’s called due diligence and posturing, they would be negligent if they didn’t
irtuskGood luck :dev2: 😀
I’m sorry. I forgot one other thing:
The results of the 2008 election. 😮 :confused:
?
Hillary is probably the biggest hawk of all . . .
the F-35 program is too politically protected (big projects in practically all states) for anything to happen to it unless it is catastrophically short of performance projections, which does not seem to be the case at all
irtuskNow with no non-U.S. orders, the business plan is going out the window.
whoa whoa whoa! way to get ahead of ourselves!
i wouldn’t expect many/any foreign orders AT THIS TIME
large scale production is still years away, costs and specs aren’t fully finalized, no one’s going to sign a huge contract at this point
looked at the other way, how many partners have backed out and said they aren’t buying? none. And then you have israel practically tripping over itself to pickup early copies
BTW: One of the first JSF program managers stated that cost wouldn’t start flattening out on the business plan until 1500 airframes.
Based on this current slap of reality:
2008 defense spending
Procurement: 12 planes, $2.65 billion
Research and development: $3.5 billion
Planned production
Lot 1, 2006-09: two planes
Lot 2, 2007-10: 12 planes
Lot 3, 2008-11: 16 planes
Lot 4, 2009-12: 32 planes
Lot 5, 2010-13: 47 planes
Lot 6, 2011-14: 118 planes
I don’t see costs going down any time soon. That’s a few shy of 1500.
i’m not sure what slap of reality you’re referring to
yes that is the plan and that has been the plan and nothing has changed
here’s a hint though, look at the years beyond that
2013: 132
2014: 205
2015: 230
2016: 231
2017: 230
2018: 219
2019: 181
2020: 159
2021: 150
2022: 143
2023: 132
2024: 139
2025: 093
2026: 093
2027: 091
2028-2035: 515
total: 3173 (2443 US, 138 UK, 131 Italy, 100 Australia, 100 Turkey, 85 Netherlands, 80 Canada, 48 Denmark, 48 Norway)
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8995.html
Marines have waffled back and forth along with Navy and they haven’t agreed yet on what the mix should be.
the Marines have been one of the staunchest F-35 supporters
in fact the Navy has accused them of trying to sabotage the SH with rumors
USAF is out of money like you wouldn’t believe.
they have money budgeted for this
UK – The news is always hopeful about their defense spending isn’t it?
well yes, they just signed for the 6th C-17 and i believe have placed orders for 2 CVFs
Norway is looking at three horses right now. JSF isn’t an absolute. Thats 48 F-35s lost if they pick something else now.
nothing new, but i dare say the the F-35 is still the frontrunner with the Gripen an outside shot
Canada . . .
Turkey? . . .
Australia . . .
Italy . . .
blah blah blah
basically saying no one has ordered yet and the future can change
of course it COULD, nothing will be firm till all the contracts are signed
but all the signs are very optimistic at this point
undoubtedly some orders will be lost and other scaled back, but on a 3000+ production run, even the loss of a couple hundred orders isn’t going to hurt that much
“A source says JSF programme partners the UK and Italy have “moved aircraft to the right”, making F-35s available for early delivery to FMS customers. Israel is expected to be the first FMS buyer for the F-35, with a requirement for 100 aircraft.”
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/11/219261/no-f-35s-for-israel-before-2014.html
Uh oh….
Uh oh? It’s saying that demand from partners is so high that there is no way there will be extra planes for non-partners (like Israel) till 2014.
I’m not sure how that’s a bad thing
irtuskif the F-22 now costs the same as a F-35 then why not get the more capable aircraft?
the end of production run (very cheap) raptors are about the same as the lrip (very expensive) lightnings
the first raptor cost almost $300 million, the last raptor cost about $100 million
the first lightning cost about $100 million, the last lightning is going to cost substantially less (in constant year dollars)
the raptor isn’t going to get any cheaper, the lightning will get substantially cheaper as production ramps up
when purchasing thousands of copies, those savings are needed
the lightning is a better A2G platform, which is the main need now anyways
plus the raptor doesn’t fly off carriers
irtuskThe SH is a fine aircraft
But the question is ‘Could a new wing make it even better for land-based applications such as what India is envisioning?’
since it wouldn’t have to make compromises for carrier operations and whatnot
irtusktheoretically Boeing offering India a redesigned wing for the SH
what kind of speed/range/payload advantages would you see?
how much would it cost?
any other issues?
irtusksince they’re getting the C-27J, i hope they somehow end up with the stretched version
33% more pallets and probably more compatibility with CH-47 loads
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw091007p1.xml
irtuskYou can dream about that one all day long, but alas that’s all it will ever be….a dream. 😉
is it time for a new thread arguing about the tanker?
hmm . . . maybe
it will be fun to see all the people arguing that we should get the C-27J because it is the more capable choice, arguing that the KC-767 is the better choice because it is smaller and less capable 😉
(cheap trashhaulers should be cheap and strategic assets should be capable while people here seem to think cheap trashhaulers should be overbuilt and strategic assets should meet the bare minimum requirements)
irtuskHoly Cow! If you all are this contentious over this small contract, it’s really gonna hit the fan when the KC-767 wins the tanker contract……;)
nah, they’re all just sort of humoring me
however when the KC-30 wins the tanker contract, then it’s REALLY going to hit the fan 😉
(my actual prediction is that the USAF will choose the KC-767, there will be a protest, a certain part will be recompeted and the KC-767 will win again. However imagine if the KC-30 did win, that would indeed make for some fun times in here :diablo: )
irtuskit’s hard to get directly comparable figures, but here’s as close as i got
C-295 fuel capacity is 2,034 gallons
http://www.c-295.ca/aircraft/index.htm
C-27J fuel capacity is 3,255 gallons + 402 gal optional fuel tank
http://c-27j.com/essential-facts
so the C-27J carries 1,221 to 1,623 more gallons which is 60-79% more fuel
C-27J ferry range – 3,200nm
C-295 ferry range – 2,300nm (http://www.c-295.ca/aircraft/able_specifications.htm)
so the C-27J goes 900nm or 39% further on 60-79% more fuel
with payload, this isn’t a direct comparison, but best i could do
C-27J – 2,300 NM with 13,277lbs of payload
C-295 – 2,300 NM with 10,000lbs of payload
so travelling the same distance the C-27J can carry 3,277 more lbs (or 33% more) using 60-79% more fuel
irtuskCould you provide a reliable link to that?
Eads is not reliable for this data. 54% less of fuel??? When? Which operating conditions?
Please if u want to continue is better if you provide something honest.
well the number came from turboshaft earlier in this thread, and i just realized i’ve been misquoting him all this time as he said 55%
The C-27J was typically 55% more thirsty than the C-295
here is what he claims about his position
Industry-related only; I had no influence whatsover over the process, I was simply in a fortunate position to ‘look over the shoulder’ of both teams. :diablo:
in the end, just some anonymous poster on the internet, yet i have no reason to believe he made up the numbers
anyways, whether it’s 55% or 40% does the point really change?
just looking at the situation, the C-295 is lighter and uses smaller engines, it should use a good deal less fuel
irtuskWho said huge expense? Who said bankrupt?
if it’s not a huge expense then it’s not going to overwhelm the fuel efficiency savings
if it is a huge expense then there is something wrong with the system
i don’t know which way it is (no one has provided any numbers), but i don’t think either way is an argument for the C-27J
(if it’s not a huge expense, then the savings aren’t enough to justify the C-27J. if it is a big enough expense, then we need to look at some more fundamental issues)
Those groundcrew: think about it. These aircraft will not be operating in & from rear-area, secure bases all the time. They will often be operating in penny packets, alongside C-130s, from forward bases, where the ability to fix both types will be an advantage.
if a unit deploys to a forward base, it will take it’s ground crew there.
if it is just visiting a forward base to deliver supplies, well most forward bases aren’t going to have qualified mechanics sitting around anyways
most maintenance is going to be performed at the ‘home’ base (however forward or rear that is) where it’s ground crew are
if it breaks down at some remote location where it’s delivering supplies, well that’s going to be a problem for either type
Improving efficiency is always worthwhile, but I thought that was what we were discussing: improving efficiency by simplifying. Why seek to do something more efficiently when you don’t have to do it at all? That’s inefficient!
the question of course is overall efficiency
if the C-295 saves 54% in fuel and the C-27J saves 5% in maintenance, how does that balance out?
i’m not sure anyone here can give a definitive answer, but just eyeballing it, it sure seems like the C-295 is going to be overall more efficient by a decent amount
irtuskIt isn’t a one-time cost. There’s an ongoing cost to carrying a wider variety of parts. Carrying enough parts stocks for 100 Fords & 100 Toyotas means twice as many storage locations to be maintained as carrying enough parts for 200 of either, & although the locations are smaller, they aren’t half the size.
i can see that there should be some additional warehouse space, but warehouse space shouldn’t be THAT expensive, and if it is, then we need to look at that and see what we’re doing wrong
the proper response would be to improve operational efficiency, not to adjust policy to work around it
wal-mart is able to add a gazillion new and different items all the time without undue expense. more to the point, autozone adds parts for new models of cars every year without going bankrupt
there is no reason for this to be a huge expense
ground crew training (an ongoing cost, not a one-off)
see this is the part i don’t understand. there are going to be enough of these that you are going to have ground crew completely dedicated to them. Whichever plane, they are going to have to be trained on it. Why would one be more expensive than the other to train for?
Sign In
