F-35 is the new F-16, not Gripen NG.

The F-35A is the spiritual sucessor of the latest batches (the heavy ones) of the Viper, pick a Sufa or a Desert Falcon stick stealth and two internal bays big enough to haul ATG ordnance and there you go, a “Dave”.

Calling a FASSMER derivate “HMS Warspite” is … Oo

[ATTACH=CONFIG]218705[/ATTACH]

The biggest failure in F35 program has been the the delays.

No, not even close, the biggest failure is cost. Everyone and is dog in NATO was looking for the follow on of the Viper in terms of costs, no one (untill recently) was expecting something in the evolved Eagle/Typhoon bracket, this coupled with a severe economic crisis will amount in the medium term to (big) cuts in numbers bought, less flying time and a lot less active sqn´s.
On the other hand if the multiple programs that are in place adressing the lack of bandwidth bear fruit, General Atomics will have a field day.

He will never admit erring.

On costs and development schedule he wont need to, on capability only time will tell.

Until that happens a lot is really up in the air…(that is if they do full on testing including all aspect RCS and Low observability etc etc)…The F-35 as a design has been undergoing testing for many many years, since the X-35 days, the F-18 Adv needs to be put into similar testing before capability comparisons can be made…

I have to disagree, the Super Hornet is a known quantity for a very long time, we are not talking of a new aircraft, we are talking of sticking CFT�s, a pod and a FLIR on a tested and tried aircraft, whatever testing must be done it wont be much (at least by comparison with an entirely new program). In terms of RCS, its probable that no one sensible believes that a “Silent Hornet” will be anything near the F-35C.

Interestingly the author (BS) does seem to be giving boeing the credit he doesnt to the F-35.

Well, if the JSF program had the same track record that the SH, there wouldnt any discussions around here, the Marine Corps would have IOC`d three years ago, there would be hundreds of Dave�s flying around and the unit cost would be somewhere south of Viper/Gripen costs…
On the other hand in the past he has been very vocal against severall programs, the JSF is just the last one, if i remember correctly Eurofighter threatned to sue him at a point. To be fair i think he likes the Gripen (well who doesnt?) and the Viper (well who doesnt II). And i have to say that he writes very well.

The F-35 C Seems the best option for the F-18 replacement, given it can trap, which would be known soon enough. Procure the F-35C and UCLASS now and replace the classic hornet. Invest appropriate money to extend the F-18SH life and continue to work internally and with DARPA on the 6th gen FA-XX that would eventually replace the SH around 2030 or 35.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]218255[/ATTACH]

I think that sums up the US Navy plan, a sensible one in my opinion, the “Silent” Hornet being the fall back option if “Dave C” keeps getting more expensive and having a plan “B” is also quite sensible.

Cheers

4th generation operating costs are relevant, but a lot has changed in the decades since those aircraft were designed.

Just look at the 787 versus the 767 it replaces. Sure they are both airliners and they both “burn the same fuel,” but that hasn’t prevented the 787 from offering dramatic improvements in maintainability and overall operating costs.

In the F-35’s case it is a heavier and more complex aircraft than those it is replacing and so an outright drop in costs may not be attainable, but that isn’t to say that 4th generation operating costs accurately predict those of the F-35.

Have to agree, making an estimation based on the Viper and Hornet fleets will be relevant but it wont accurately predict the costs for the F-35.
The costs in severall sub systems should be lower for the “35”, i am thinking of the radar (an AESA, the USAF Viper fleet uses MSA´s), the SFC for the engine should be lower than what we find in the F100/F110 and it has its own integrated LDP, on the other hand the stealth bit should add costs.
In the end i think its safe to presume that a 13+ ton stealth strike fighter equiped with the “biggest” engine ever is going to be more expensive to operate than the USAF Viper fleet, by how much? Only time will tell.

I did say in my post; they were pulled straight from the UK Governments website. http://www.parliment.co.uk

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101125w0001.htm

Expensive isn’t it.

Not particulary, just like halloweene mentioned it includes amortisation and depreciation (and costs of capital charge), something that you wont find in a Pentagon equivalent report. If those numbers were equivalent to the numbers used by the Pentagon,the RAF Harriers would be more expensive to operate than the USAF Raptors…
Its like trying to compare the “Program Unit Cost” of an aircraft with the “Fly Away Unit Cost” of another, typical mistake done around here.
Apples to apples…

“The MoD calculates the full cost of aircraft per flying hour; the current rates for our fast jets are shown below. These figures include forward and depth servicing, fuel costs, crew costs, training costs, cost of capital charge, depreciation and amortisation. The Typhoon cost per flying hour reflects the build-up of the fleet with small numbers of aircraft currently in service. This cost will comparatively reduce as the fleet builds and is expected to be similar to our other fast jet fleets when we reach a steady state position.”

Last year Stuart Atha mentioned that the direct cost for flying hour for the RAF is around 5200 pounds/hour, dont know what he was exactly refering to, but would imagine that this was fuel and servicing only.