wrightwingI saw that. I was just reiterating that fact though.
wrightwingThe F-35B has plenty of range for a Falklands conflict. For a major invasion, I’d suspect a coalition would be involved.
wrightwingI am trying to see a circumstance where the Royal Navy/Marines would be going it alone, in a high intensity fight. I’m sure you’ll come up with some examples, but they just don’t seem to be the likely situations they’d find themselves in.
wrightwingThe same reason you may see USAF, USN, and USMC aircraft flying in the same theater. Flexibility. I’m still having trouble seeing a small scale operation where the range of the F-35B is going to be an issue. If they’re not providing CAS, what’s the need to loiter for long periods?
wrightwingI understand what you’re saying, but I’m having a hard time picturing the military scenario where a lone carrier with no support would be operating in these situations. I’m guessing that the likelihood that a coalition of some type would be involved, which would mean that other support assets would be available. In something like a Falkland Islands campaign, you’d probably see reinforcements with Typhoons etc…
wrightwingAs I have expected.. Feel free to come with 800% nonsense but remember that F-35’s airframe struggles hard to even match the F-16, let alone to surpass it by 25%. Bye.
And comments like this sound equally as nonsensical. The only area the F-35 would struggle would be in top speed vs. a clean F-16.
wrightwingWell if you’re not referring to the latest model, then it’s not really a very pertinent comparison. I’m sure an F-16A would be even cheaper.:rolleyes:
You can take the statements of improved capabilities for what they’re worth, but even an F-35 with F-16 avionics, would be >25% improvement, just in terms of performance, survivability, range. That’s not even factoring in the huge situational awareness advantages that an F-35 will enjoy.
wrightwingThe JDRADM will use vectored thrust, so maneuverability shouldn’t be an issue.
wrightwing1. Does JDRAM bring have a HOBS capability? Yes
2. Will making the missile a bit heavier defeat the purpose of having 1 variant for A2A and A2G? No
3. How is a directional seeker head worth the cost? why not just have the missile blow up with the damaging rods like conventional missiles do? Even current missiles feature directional warhead, to increase lethality
4. Since the missile has a Anti-radar capability, will it also home on jamming? Yes
5. Does anyone know if it has a IR seeker? Yes
6. And finally is the the final solution for the F-35/F-22 if all the above are true? This would totally negate AIM9x[/QUOTE] It could, but there’s still utility in having a smaller missile too. The intent though was in replacing current AAMS as well as HARMs, with one missile.
wrightwingPrevious type (F-16)
Double the price of the latest model F-16? 25% more capability?:rolleyes:
I’d love to know what metric you’re using to arrive at that assessment.
wrightwingWW, I’ve seen most if not all your sources before, but you are missing the point. You must be able to admit that there is contradictory and incomplete information about the JSF / F-35 costs and pricing. What has yet to be seen is concrete data, presented in exactly the same metrics (there is more than one definition of URF for example) and format as used by Pentagon budgeteers use, about the price of the aircraft and what exactly is included in the price. Once we get there, we will know the price of the LRIP-4 F-35A’s. Nobody has seen this yet because the deal has not been finalized.
You’re correct- there is contradictory information out, and both the USAF and LM are saying that the information is incorrect. If you’ve got some compelling evidence that they’re wrong, by all means I’d be happy to look at it.
wrightwingLate and over budget strikes me as two pretty major less than good things.
Now as i’ve said before, which as with many things in this discussion you have decided to willfully ignore, that in itself is not a massive surprise for a aviation program, however in my book they are major issues when one of the stated key aims of the program was to produce a low cost affordable platform.
I’ve never said that it wasn’t late. How overbudget seems to be a matter of debate though. Those are fair critiques, however it would appear that the program is back on schedule pretty well as of late, so some periodic acknowledgement that everything isn’t gloom and doom, might be reassuring.
As for comparisons between aircraft, you’re right- many of the competitors are flying, so many of their capabilities/limitations are known. These are metrics that comparisons can be made against. LM isn’t discovering what the F-35’s capabilities are right now. They’re merely verifying them.
wrightwingJust one source says this: (talking about where/why JSF costs have increased)
“$8.6 billion goes to propulsion, which is not reflected in Lockheed Martin contracts. Some of this is influenced by the cost of the lift system for the F-35B: the Navy is on the hook for nearly one-third of the $8.6 billion even though only 330 STOVL aircraft are planned (out of over 2,000 planned American F-35 variants)…. And the LRIP contracts with Lockheed Martin are only part of the answer. They don’t include the engine… and none is fixed-price and none has been completed. (The LRIP-1 jets are due to be signed over in September…. all cost-plus and fixed-price incentive contracts, one way or another, split the “execution risk” between the contractor and the government, and Lockheed Martin people are not very specific on how this has been done on LRIP 1 through 3 or how it will be done on LRIP-4….”
In particular, note: “…. And the LRIP contracts with Lockheed Martin are only part of the answer. They don’t include the engine…”
What it all means is there are legitimate questions about what the pricing stated by LM actually means, and the need for all parties to use common metrics stating / analyzing cost (and other) data.
The company is projecting a unit recurring flyaway (URF) cost of “about $60 million” (in 2010 dollars) for the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A, including engine.
Lockheed’s assertion is based on contracted costs for the first three lots of low-rate initial production (LRIP), plus the negotiated price for the fourth lot — a “handshake agreement” which is expected within two weeks. O’Bryan says the aircraft price is 20% below the CAPE estimate for LRIP 3 and will be “at least 20%” below for LRIP 4.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/06/airforce_f35_budget_figures_061810w/
Lockheed Martin has said for months that the Pentagon’s initial offer for the latest batch of 32 low-rate initial production F-35s, known as LRIP-4, was 40 percent below the CAPE’s December 2009 cost estimate for the program, which at the time pegged the costs at roughly $76 million per plane in 2010 dollars.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2929031.htm
TONY JONES: During this protracted period of development the aircraft has pretty much doubled in price from $US70 million per unit to $US133 million now. Can you guarantee the price won’t go any higher than that?
TOM BURBAGE: I can guarantee the price won’t be that high. We are currently executing contracts to buy the aeroplane as opposed to a budgeting process that is trying to ensure that the budgets are adequate for the future. Those are two completely different processes.
Now we’re just about to sign a contract for our fourth production lot. It’s about 25 per cent below the budget that has been established for the program, so the contractor industry team is in fact very cost conscious and we are delivering aeroplanes to a cost projection curve that’s quite different than the budgeting process that’s been laid in place.
TONY JONES: So what is the cost per unit, that is per aircraft, that Australia will pay?
TOM BURBAGE: Well, Australia’s buying the airplane with 2014, 2015 deliveries and then on out for a number of years beyond that. So the aeroplanes will be bought on an annual basis initially so the cost in each year will be slightly different and will go down with time.
The version that the Australian Air Force is buying is the least expensive of the three and in today’s dollars it looks like it will be right around $60 million.
TONY JONES: Can you guarantee that the JSF will meet its original performance standards?
TOM BURBAGE: The JSF was conceived with a series of top level operational requirements. To operate in environments that you couldn’t fly today’s aeroplanes into. It’s a very, very difficult operational requirement and today we’re meeting, with margin in many cases, all of those requirements on the aeroplane.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRARCHIVE/Pages/default.aspx – June 18th
Lockheed Claims Gen 5 at Gen 4 Price: The F-35 will ultimately match the prices of F/A-18 Super Hornets or the most advanced version of the F-16, Lockheed Martin CEO Bob Stevens said Thursday. “If we are able to secure the production volume that is necessary to drive down the learning curves, . . . our expectation is that the acquisition cost of the F-35 will be approximately comparable to a similarly-equipped F-18 or F-16 Block 60 airplane,” Stevens said in a briefing in Arlington, Va. This would be around $60 million 2010 dollars, he added. Steve O’Bryan, company vice president, said the cost quote by Stevens is contingent on no further delays in production and orders of around 4,500 aircraft—roughly the same number as F-16s that have been produced. Lockheed officials are confident in those numbers because the F-35 will replace not only F-16s, but also A-10s, F-18s, AV-8Bs, and other aircraft. Moreover, the F-35 price includes all the mission gear usually “sold separately” on fourth generation fighters, such as AESA radars, infrared search and track systems, electronic warfare equipment, and weapons pylons, said O’Bryan.
wrightwingRiigghhhttt . . . . and you do that from day 1?
You’re not addressing the problem. You’re describing other scenarios.
BTW, the USMC will usually expect to have support from USN carriers, operating F-18Es with buddy tanker packs.
Not from day 1, but neither would the USMC in all likelihood. You’d gradually roll back their defenses. Then you could secure areas to do STOVL ops, on land, saving the flight time. I’m guessing the Royal Marines would be moving in and holding ground too, in support. Describe the scenario that you’re thinking about, and then we’ll be able to discuss it better.
wrightwingI am probably one of the more even-handed posters on this board. My points may not be what you want to hear, but they are fair assessments, and are intended to encourage those interested to examine and understand all the various information sources. I suggest that you carefully re-read what I posted, and not to draw conclusions about me or my postions from the facts I choose to present.
LM has specifically stated that $60m is a fully equipped A model cost including engine, so….when you start using phrases like depends on who you believe, misleading, etc…., it doesn’t sound even handed.
Sign In
