nhamptonWell, most (i.e. Spain, UK, and Italy) are waiting on the F-35. As they have enough Typhoons for the Air Defense Role……:cool:
They would have all been better off stopping after the first batch and making them 100 percent effective. They could have then taken the money they saved, added an AESA, give them full A2G capability and speed Meteor into production.
The British, Italians and Spanish will all buy F-35s. If the British had any sense they would buy F-35Cs. The could be used to replace the Tornadoes as well as the Harrier if they fit a proper catapult to their carriers. I think the Italians plan on buying both A and B. I am not sure about Spain. The real question is what does Germany do to replace their Tornadoes?
nhamptonAdd to that a ‘link’ to the original article…..
Here is the link.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4384702&c=AIR&s=TOP
I don’t see why this does not deserve it’s own thread. Seems to me it was the Germans who where driving 3A. If it where up to the UK there would have not been a third batch of Tiffies so the fact that Germans are now talking about backing away from continued production for their Luftwaffe is noteworthy and worth speculating about. Don’t like it then don’t read the thread.
nhamptonDefenseNews
By THOMAS NEWDICK
Published: 19 Nov 2009BERLIN – Germany’s coalition government has confirmed that the Luftwaffe will not receive its final batch of Eurofighters. To date, Germany has firmly committed to 143 aircraft; now Tranche 3B, covering the final 37 jets originally planned for the Luftwaffe, will instead be made available for export.
Two Eurofighter Typhoons from Fighter Wing 73 of the German Air Force take off from Rostock-Laage Airbase, Germany. (EUROFIGHTER PHOTO) Faced with penalties for non-acceptance of the 37 remaining aircraft, the German government has decided to put these Eurofighters up for sale, under an agreement issued by the new coalition government. The decision may appease Eurofighter officials, since there will be no reduction in the original 180-aircraft German order.
Industry, however, will not be able to benefit from any additional work that would have been created by a new export order. The Luftwaffe, long committed to its planned 180 Eurofighters, is yet to comment.
Finding a customer for the Tranche 3B aircraft may not be easy. EADS is competing to sell Eurofighters in India’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft competition. Switzerland is also examining the Eurofighter to meet its requirement for an F-5E Tiger II replacement.
Greece, which has already selected the Eurofighter once before, prior to canceling its options, may be seen as an outside chance when it reopens its fighter competition.
The 15 Eurofighters already diverted from the Luftwaffe to Austria could also be factored into total numbers, meaning that Germany would need to offload just 22 Tranche 3B jets. A similar offset arrangement was adopted by the United Kingdom when it diverted 24 RAF Typhoons to Saudi Arabia, and later took these aircraft out of its full 232-aircraft commitment.
The implications for the Luftwaffe are unclear. Plans called for the establishment of five Eurofighter wings, two of which (including a training unit) are now flying the jet. With Tranche 3A deliveries yet to begin, the air arm has some time to decide whether to ax one of the planned wings, as some politicians have campaigned for.
Wow! That’s some development. Logical but not expected. The UK is not buying 3B, Germany is selling theirs. I know the Italians are not too fond of taking their last batch as well. I would not be surprised if they stop production at 3A altogether. What is Spain’s position on 3B? What happens if the other three countries want to pass on it will Spain agree so that there are no penalties.
The window of opportunity seems to be closing for Typhoon. By the time they get around to producing 3B the jet will probably be obsolete. Sure it would be good for a third rate air force but at the price they are fetching what third rate air force would be able to afford them?
nhamptonThe trouble for US is there are new competitors in market. Euro/Chino/etc… manufacturers, none or limited existent up until 10-15 years ago and today they arrive with very competitive models and are rapidly threatening US interests.
Tornado, Mirage 2000, Lightning all existed as competition for the F-teens.
So we have a situation not unlike that in the 1970s before the advent of the F-15. There was still the Phantom and even though it did not outright blow everything away in the air at the time it was still competitive and once air crew was properly trained it was more than adequate for the task.
There really is no trouble here for the US that I can see. Upgraded F-teens
are still more than a match for Euro canards in most real world situations. F-35 which will be coming in the next few years will restore the dominance the F-teens had in the 80s and 90s.
nhamptonMomentarily, Boeing is asking ~100m$ for a copy of its F-15 Silent Eagle. This puts F-35’s price of ~60m$ in a very dubious perspective. So if Boeing manages to sell its SE for 100m$, it will be very hard to convince LM to go 60m$, especially since the whole development needs to be payed and LM would have an opportunity to point at Boeing, as a price growth alibi.
Will this happen or not I don’t know, but LM will have the opportunity and means (they didn’t commit to any fixed price that I’m aware of and provisional ones vary greatly, which is usually a sign that something is going on) to do what they want and judging by US financial market circus in the last couple of years, that can’t be good.So yes, there is a certain merit in numbers reduction claims and economy experts warn of possible F22’s dejavu (death-spiral) etc, but will the F35 cost 60m$ or 160m$ I can’t tell. I think LM will grab as much as it can, regardless of initial prognosis or production numbers.
You cannot compare the asking price of the SE to F-35. One is a single engine (right there you take out a lot of cost) jet with a production run of anywhere between 2 and 6 thousand. The other, a jets whose SE attributes have yet to be fully developed and will have to be payed for by a MUCH smaller customer base with a yearly production run of maybe 20-30 and a total run of maybe 225. There is no way you can compare the two.
LM does not set the price. The government does. All acquisition contracts are cost plus. Make the argument that LM has no incentive to lower costs but they do not set the price.
Even if the air force only buys 900, it’s total production run will be close to 2000 units making it by far the largest fighter plane contract of it’s day. Further the air force buy will be over a shorter period of time with greater numbers of planes built in that time. This is not F-22 where less than 200 are bought. The program will still benefit greatly from economies of scale and more efficient production methods even if 800 less units are built.
nhamptonSpeaking as a Brit, when we’ve just finished paying off lead lease loans to the US dating from WWII, loans which contributed to pulling the US out of the recession it got itself and the rest of the World into in the ’30’s; i find your hectoring and boorish display of wealth waving rather tiresome.
Do you actually understand who owns the US Treasury bills you have been issuing like water flowing over Niagra?
Am i right in thinking that you stated elsewhere that you are an ex Brit who now resides / is a citizen of the US?
Only a Brit can turn around something that contributed to their continued survival as a nation to helping pull the US out of recession. If it where not for lend leas and a whole host of American help you would be speaking German right now and your overseas posessions would have been split up between Germany and America. Peddle that crap off to the ignorant, not me.
Yup, I do know who buys T-Bills, individual investors like myself as well as foreign governments. You see it is sort of like a global tax. You buy T-bills at 1 percent interest and we get your money. Since your holdings are now in dollars you cannot redeem them without causing the value of the dollar to go down. Ah those clever Americans! Look they are paying even less for your money.
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/09/09/6_month_treasury_bills_fall_to_new_low/
While we are at it, I would ask if I where you why people and nations continue to keep buying US treasuries that pay such a terribly low rate of return? I would ask who is getting the better deal? Americans who get tangible goods and services from abroad or foreigners who get IOUs in return?
nhamptonJust saying that 2011 is mightly late already, if they want to go IOC 2012/13 (which I don’t believe – they can consider themselves happy to do it by 2015) and will then face a rather massive influx of planes that want more than one new pilot each. That calls for a massive investment in virtual training, I say.
I will take Bob Gates assessment over yours unless you have proof to the contrary.
nhamptonHowever, there’s one thing I do know.
If F-35 program goes as planned and manages to superimpose itself over other nations’ fighter programs, there will be no one standing in LM’s/US’ way to dictate prices as it sees fit.
This could prove be too much of a temptation to resist, even for a country with such strong democratic heritage like US are and I’d like for everybody’s sake, that US never even get into that kind of temptation, just to be on the safe side.
This is my opinion is the problem many otherwise rational people have with the program. Not it’s perceived shortcomings, not it’s possible failure. Its success is what irrationally scares otherwise rational people. I think it’s a ridiculous argument since the US already has a virtual monopoly on sea based air power, strategic bombing and space based weapons. If they where going to start using that power to the world’s detriment it would have happened a long time ago.
nhamptonI am pretty sure. Read “Acknowledgments”.
The emphasis of his assessment isn’t on any particular system, gadget or whatever, but the overall cost/effectiveness of the F-35. So, it doesn’t really matter how much missiles it can carry and what’s its radar range, if USAF decide to go with different (bomber) concept.
The fact the article has been released after he had theoretical access to F-35’s classified data, which is proven by acknowledgments section, puts Kopp’s comments into somewhat different perspective.
Kopp’s work here has been used in a “if you want to know more” context, since the author obviously wasn’t able to declassify critical info and used Kopp’s work, as a next best for comparison.
His assessment has nothing to do with the F-35 as a tactical fighter and everything to do with should the air force have 900 and use the money saved on the other 800 to buy bombers and other things or should the air force continue to buy F-35s in the later years of the program. He does not say buy some other fighter in place of the F-35, he says do an accelerated buy (good to keep costs down) of 900 or so F-35s and then stop buying them after 2020 or so. He also does not mention anything about reducing the Navy or Marine buy of F-35s. You still have a US only production run of over 1500 F-35s even if his ideas are adopted. Due to the accelerated buy and the large numbers of aircraft still involved unit cost should not increase by much.
Lets keep in mind that he is not writing for the DoD here, he is writing for a left leaning think tank. His is but one opinion and he is but one person who has the Air Force CoS ear. While I could not find the date of publication, I would think that this recent article with quotes from the Air Force CoS boss would seem to indicate that his thinking is not shared by the decision makers.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1644963320090916
Last, in regard to the report, I did not see where he says he is using classified sources to draw his conclusions. Perhaps I missed it but I do know that if he really did do that then the paper would either be classified or he would be in a world of trouble. It appears to me it’s all public domain data he is using.
nhamptonSo what if they differ as no one has said otherwise, your point remains.. pointless.
Why feed the trolls? Some of our “friends” across the Atlantic have this irrational hatred for the F-35. I guess I would too if I saw it being the death knell for the independent manufacture of tactical fighters in Europe as well. They have an almost maniacal sense of envy in the ability of the Pentagon to be able to spend an additional $500 million dollars as a sign of the major commitment to the development and production of the F-35.
No where in the article does it say anything about 500 million to overcome delays in testing but even if it does, so what? The point is despite the naysayers, the envious and the trolls, it looks like F-35 program is tracking pretty close to budget and time. That and the fact that the US is willing to add money to ensure that it stays that way just really bugs some of our “friends”.
nhamptonThere’s no mention of Carlo Kopp in the two paragraphs, I’ve pointed out, or directly related text?!
The thing is author’s overall assessment of F-35 given at page 62, which relates to overall F-35’s position and function in the USAF. The trouble with his assessment is that he thinks the plane has inherent shortcomings, being too expensive for low-profile wars and not enough of a performer for high-profile ones and you can’t redesign or adapt those.
Normally, everybody is entitled to his opinion, but the trouble is it seems he wrote this article, after being enlisted to Schwartz’s staff, so it has somewhat different weight…
I see where you are coming from but the point remains is that he is basing some of his claims by using some pretty dubious sources. Of course the F-35 lacks the ranger of a bomber. So what, it’s an $80 million tactical multi role fighter.
His argument is more bombers, tankers and UCAVs. Maybe he is right and maybe he is wrong but as a tactical fighter I don’t see how his perceived shortcomings of the F-35 have any merit. He would have been far better served if he had merely argued that given today’s fiscal reality the Air Force would be better served buying less F-35s and more of other things. Given the direction of KC-X I can see the Air Force moving toward the type of force he is talking about but as of now the bomber is dead.
nhamptonCheck this article, written by a Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and particularly page 16 about production cuts recommendation and page 62 about capability limits of F-35.
His argument boils down to the need for more bombers due to the distance involved in the Pacific. I guess he never heard of WWII. However did the AAC, Navy and Marines make do with all those fighters and so few bombers?
Second, what capability limits of the F-35? The fact that it has more range than just about any other fighter? The fact that it can carry 14 air to air missiles? The fact that it on day one it will carry four air to air missiles (historically more than enough for a sortie) or that it is possible to fit 6 AAM missiles internally if need be? What limitations, as an air to air fighter did he point out?
The best part is that he quotes Carlo Kopp:rolleyes:
Don’t get confused with a consultant preaching the need for more bombers with actual Air Force policy or thinking. It’s just another person’s opinion.
nhamptonWhen you do order a F-35 now, what will you have to pay, when the still to built hardware will be delivered in 2015?!
Are that fly-away prices for the US forces or for other buyers too?
As Rogerout did claim, will you get all features related to that?
You really should do some research. The average cost is for the entire production run for all nine partner nations. They are all getting the same standard plane with essentially the same features for the same price.
There is documentation out on the Internet that shows the features of the early block aircraft. It will have full A2G capability and the ability to carry four AMRAAM internally. Try here for pretty comprehensive list of links to JSF documentation:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-12237.html
nhamptonThe LM numbers are “the most recent comprehensive estimate”, & pre-date the publication date of the document by some time. They have consistently risen over the years.
Adjusting those 2002 prices to 2009 prices (using GDP deflator) –
F-35A: $45-50mn = $53.6-59.6mn.
F-35B: $65mn = $77.5mn
F-35C: $65mn = $77.5mnThese estimates are dependent on as yet unproven forecasts of very large reductions in production costs from LRIP costs, well over 50%. They are for bare aircraft: everyone will have to pay more to get operational aircraft.
BTW, I agree that the predictions of it costing more than F-22 are silly. As far as I can see, they all start by comparing F-35 programme cost with F-22 flyaway cost.
The prices are not for bare aircraft they are for fly away aircraft, add weapons, fuel and pilot. Roughly the same type cost as used for the unit production cost for Tiffy except the F-35 will already come with an AESA, a helmet mounted sight, weapons integration and an IRST which where just some of the costs that had to be added to Tiffy’s UPC.
The estimates of reductions are based on well known efficiencies derived from economies of scale. The expected price reductions will come as long as the production numbers and schedule are close to what is expected.
I am not so sure about your use of GDP deflator to calculate current projected prices. Not that it is inherently wrong as it is yet another way to look at it but in context here I do not think it is correct. The point here is that prices are tracking about 5% less than what was predicted the prices to be at this stage of the program. LM has always said for quite some time (after the weight reduction) that average fly away cost for ALL production units over the course of the program would be about $84 million then (2002) year dollars.
It now looks like according to the models that actual costs may be less than predicted. The big swings in price will come from numbers produced and schedule.
nhamptonThe thing about the next bomber project is that if it ends up being something more than an interdiction aircraft, let’s say they end up looking at something to finally put the B-52 to rest, and eventually supplant the B-2 (assuming the US want’s to maintain a viable nuclear triad). Then I’d suppose the obvious candidate for development work would be Northrop Grumman, and they might be more inclined to partner LM, depending on that company’s work load at the time of development, If it does end up being a large bomber then I’d suppose you’d be looking at a consortium of companies in any case… the problem being that consolidation of the market would perhaps make it harder than ever to produce two competing bids for such a large project (that is, only if they go for the top end of the spec sheet for the bomber).
Of the three Boeing has the most experience building large long range transports, and it could be argued that they have the most experience with large, stealthy UCAVs. That said the problem is that the US military industrial base has been allowed to shrink to too large a degree, hence no competition and over budget, and late projects. The US is being penny wise and pound foolish. What needs to happen is that the DoD go back to the days when there where Navy Ship yards, and Aresenals where systems where designed and built in competition with private yards and companies. Use that model to foster competition.
Like you I am massively impressed by the F-15’s venerability in the face of newer designs. McDD were a real powerhouse of aviation talent, and it was sad to lose that, personally I’m not so sure that Boeing have safegaurded that legacy as well they might.
How could they? Back in the day the government paid each company to come up with a new design adn then the competing designs would have a fly off to see who would get the production contract. Forty years ago that happened every few years. Design staffs stayed in practice and lessons learned where passed on. Now it’s more like once a career this happens.
I am at this point inclined to believe that the F-15’s flight performance is in fact supplanted by the euro-canards (or at least the EF at any rate), while the SE upgrade will certainly help reduce the RCS I think it will be an aircraft sold on it’s price tag as much as anything else. I have never been inclined to ascribe absolute performance of a machine as the be all and end all. take the silly F-22/EF comparisons, they are irrelevant – the EF designers went for an aircraft that would be superior to it’s likely opponents, which they believed would be Flankers and whatever suceeded them. they weren’t looking to top the fighter charts, they wanted something they could afford that would best any concievable threat (of which they believe an F-22 isn’t for political reasons).
Do not sell the SH short. The Navy positively loves it. It can do many things very well including A2A. It’s short coming in acceleration in some mission profiles has little relevance today. It’s avionics, radar and counter measures are second to none and it’s maneuverability is on par with the F-22. The F-15 also has a more than adequate performance coupled with a large airframe with room for lots of upgrades. Does Tiffy out perform both in some circumstances, well yes but not enough to really matter. It really comes down to who can see and shoot the other guy first. Giving the F-15 an AESA, link-16, a helmet mounted sight and AIM-120D makes it more than a match for Tiffy. Until Tiffy gets the AESA and Meteor it will be at risk to modern updated teen series fighters.
In short I agree F-22/Tiffy comparisons are irrelevant, they do not play in the same league. Tiffy should be compared to updated SU-30XX, F-15s Super Hornets and if they ever develop it further, Rafale.
Applying that logic to the F-15 and it’s upgrade paths. Is the EF a better performer in terms of it’s flight characteristics than the F-15, well I think it is by and large. Is it’s degree of superiority over a F-15SE so much as to make it worth the extra price tag given the probable lower production run of all the EFs vs all the eagles (at least the late model eagles that aren’t suffering airframe fatigue)…. definitely arguable and that is where the F-15SE becomes competitive in the market, it is good enough for a lot of customers and should come in at a reasonable price tag, especially for existing F-15 users (I am fascinated by the Japanese situation regarding it’s succesor aircraft, they seem to want the EF , but how much of that is aboutapplying pressure to the US).
The problem for Boeing of couse, is not the euro-canards, it’s the LM/BAE/NG F-35. If that comes in at a similar price tag, being run off in the thousands, promising maintenance requirements at a similar level and a promised quantum leap in performance…. then they might struggle to shift them.
Well I am not sure the F-15SE was ever really aimed at the F-35 market. I do think it is a dagger pointed at the heart of Eurofighter. I think it is being developed in response to the needs of Japan, Korea, and Saudi Arabia. All prime Tiffy prospects.
Sign In
