SintraBecause if you want an internal weapons load capability as volumous as that of the F-35 – using a larger single engine solution is much more efficient. Having two smaller turbofans in the EJ200 class and 2x2000lb Bombs + 2 BVRAAMs internally = considerably larger + heavier aircraft. It means less internal fuel capacity, added drag and increased weight – which translates to poorer kinematics – less range – higher procurement price and operating costs.
Lm
That has already been done in 1999. The BAE Replica was designed around two up rated EJ200 and a bloody big “bomb´s bay” between them (the objective was a “hole” big enough that it could carry one Storm Shadow!).
Cheers
SintraBecause if you want an internal weapons load capability as volumous as that of the F-35 – using a larger single engine solution is much more efficient. Having two smaller turbofans in the EJ200 class and 2x2000lb Bombs + 2 BVRAAMs internally = considerably larger + heavier aircraft. It means less internal fuel capacity, added drag and increased weight – which translates to poorer kinematics – less range – higher procurement price and operating costs.
Lm
That has already been done in 1999. The BAE Replica was designed around two up rated EJ200 and a bloody big “bomb´s bay” between them (the objective was a “hole” big enough that it could carry one Storm Shadow!).
Cheers
SintraI think the answer is no. What happens if the fleet is grounded due to a technical fault, as the case with the F-15s recently?
The simple fact is the F-35B could not perform the interception role as well as a Typhoon. It’s CAP time would be too short, in addition to it’s vertical acceleration time, which again would be too slow compared to the Typhoon.
The F-35B can not replace the GR4 either, due to range and weapon load.
Then again the Typhoon, could not perform all roles of the F-35B and GR4, for example – it does not have stealth, or the ability to operate from ships.
I think the future will be Typhoons and F-35Bs – they will be proably replace all frontline combat aircraft in the RAF, and FAA aircraft.
I would imagine though the Tornado will recieve a major upgrade in the near future, to extend it’s service life until the mid 2020s, possible upgrades will probably be various pods, advanced cockpit displays, intergration of AMRAAM for self protection with helmet mounted sight, JDAM maybe, improved data links, etc etc, but who knows what the idiots in the MOD will come up with.
What they really need is two squadrons of F-22s with RR engines, along with 4 squadrons of F-35Cs, two for the navy, two for the RAF – and ditch all the anglo-european 3rd and 4th gen crap 🙂
Get a couple of B-2s also and ‘resume long range bomber flights’ over Russia.
Why bother with Europe? When USA could give us everything we need?
Sweet Jesus
So, it´s a “grand idea” to dump something like fifteen FJ´s sqn for six sqn´s of LM fighter´s?!
Great, the entire RAF and FAA cut to 72 jet´s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And with RR engines?!
The F-22 Raptor it´s not expensive enough, let´s just double it´s cost by adding “British” engines!!!!!
Give?! When was the last time that the USA has “given” anything?!
You mean “paying to LM, Raytheon and Boeing for weapon´s while having the US Congress decide if her Majesty´s forces can use the dam things in anger”?!!
You mean, “let´s just kill BAE´s advanced studies dpt, trash the British Branch of Selex, delete MBDA, sunk BMT”…
Who needs BAE?! “Mantis”? What´s that? “Taranis”? Is that a Bernard Cornwell Book?
It´s called sovereignty…
Oh, i was forgetting something! You cant BUY the RAPTOR (and the B-2), that´s forbidden by the US Congress…
SintraI take you mean 6-AAM’s………………..Further, that is not to say the F-35 can’t compete with those numbers. Of course we are mainly discussing a close in WVR engagement here.
Basically, a Super Cruise out to 250 NM’s with a 30 minute reserve would be a more akin to a QRA intercept. (i.e. close to home):cool:
NO
I mean 8 AAM´s.
And those 250 NM was one of the ATF KPP´s…
The tipical mission discussed in these presentation´s his one and a half hour flight with 8 AAM´s and three external tank´s. The external tanks are ejected after the flight his vectored.
SintraNot seeing anything in there that says it can do it WITH PAYLOAD. 😉
8 AAM´s, Supercruise, 250 NMiles plus a 30 minute backup on internal fuel.
You can find those number´s in every official presentation that was made by EADS/BAE/ALENIA/EUROFIGHTER to every single airforce for the last two years.
SintraThe fly-away cost for F-35 quoted to Norway: 18 billion NOK for 48 a/c. Depending on what exchange rate you use that would be around 54 – 58million USD pr a/c.
The costs to get a fully operable system of has been estimated to around 50 billion NOK. TCO for 30 years has been estimated to 145 billion NOK, around 22 billion USD. Norwegian DoD claims that they cannot estimate TCO for Gripen but believes TCO of Gripen would be 20-30 billion NOK above. Now, one of the reasons why the Swedes were upset was that they calculate LCC(? but not TCO?) for Gripen to be 55 billion NOK. Contrast this to the 165-175 billion NOK TCO that Norwegian DoD has estimated for Gripen.
The Swedes in part does not understand why the difference is so big, and they also react to the fact that Norwegian DoD on the one hand can estimate very accurately all costs for F-35 (and those costs look quite low) but cannot do the same for Gripen.
Anyway, there is a meeting later today that probably will clear some of the misunderstandings. It will be interesting to read about the conclusion from that meeting…. A lot of the info will of course be classified, but I am sure we will learn enought to keep a lively debate for days (and weeks?) to come…
L
You have heard it the first time by EUROFIGHTER GMBH…
The Norwegian “contest” was NOT a RFP with a fixed cost contract.
Lockheed Martin has underplayed both the acquisition bill and the logistical cost on a massive scale. In 2013/2014 there will be some heart attacks on several NATO MOD´s when the bill his finally delivered.
It´s called a “Israeli surprise”.
Or i could be completely wrong and LM can build and sell a 12/13 ton stealth strike fighter equiped with an AESA radar for the same (or even less) acquisition and logistical costs of Viper Block 50/52+ (that´s on top of more than 4000 F-16´s built until now)…
SintraThe fly-away cost for F-35 quoted to Norway: 18 billion NOK for 48 a/c. Depending on what exchange rate you use that would be around 54 – 58million USD pr a/c.
The costs to get a fully operable system of has been estimated to around 50 billion NOK. TCO for 30 years has been estimated to 145 billion NOK, around 22 billion USD. Norwegian DoD claims that they cannot estimate TCO for Gripen but believes TCO of Gripen would be 20-30 billion NOK above. Now, one of the reasons why the Swedes were upset was that they calculate LCC(? but not TCO?) for Gripen to be 55 billion NOK. Contrast this to the 165-175 billion NOK TCO that Norwegian DoD has estimated for Gripen.
The Swedes in part does not understand why the difference is so big, and they also react to the fact that Norwegian DoD on the one hand can estimate very accurately all costs for F-35 (and those costs look quite low) but cannot do the same for Gripen.
Anyway, there is a meeting later today that probably will clear some of the misunderstandings. It will be interesting to read about the conclusion from that meeting…. A lot of the info will of course be classified, but I am sure we will learn enought to keep a lively debate for days (and weeks?) to come…
L
Now could someone explain why, just a few days ago, Tom Burbage finally acepted that the 2014 “Fly Away” cost for the F-35A will be $80 million? (And he´s being optimistic)
SintraNope, I don’t think so.
The quote reads:
“The price list used by lawmakers — with numbers supposedly coming from the Air Force and the F-35 Joint Program Office — shows F-22s in the FY ’09 budget costing $143 million each. In 2010, the cost of 20 Raptors, funded in three increments, will cost $153 million, $163 million and $170 million – $178 million.
In comparison, 16 F-35A/B/Cs in the 2009 budget will cost $237 million each. In 2010, 12 F-35A will cost $203.1 million each and 18 F-35B/Cs will cost $198.1 million apiece. For unit costs over the total program in then-year dollars, 1,763 F-35As will cost $96.8 million per aircraft, while the 680 F-35B/Cs come in at $122.6 million.”
The F-22 figures are plainly unit flyaway, so I’d suggest that the F-35 prices are likely to be, as well, though they represent a big increase over those in the Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book FY 2009 Budget Estimates.
But that was published in February, and it would be no surprise that Dave Fulghum has better, newer figures.
Jack
I am quite aware of the official cost estimations of the JSF released until now, that´s why i think that Dave Fulghum used the GAO “program costs” released a year ago (that´s “on top of my head”, i saved the GAO document on my lap top and then forget the dam thing 400 km´s north of my house two week´s ago). And yes the F-22 numbers were taken from the “2009 USAF Budget”.
On the other hand, if those number´s that Dave Fulghum used are indeed “Fly Away”… and if they appear next February in the “Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book FY 2010 Budget Estimates”… “There will be blood” (Including the N*******ian Defence Minister and a certain Jack De Vries).
Cheers
SintraScooter,
$80 m for a JSF would be cheap. But reasonable? For an affordable fighter? When a Tranche 2 Typhoon costs about $57 m, flyaway?
And we know that JSF won’t cost $80 m. Even ignoring the small batches of LRIP and early production aircraft, we know what JSF is going to cost.
The “1,763 F-35As will cost $96.8 million per aircraft, while the 680 F-35B/Cs come in at $122.6 million.”
$96.8 m each. OUCH. Nearly twice the flyaway cost of an admittedly expensive Typhoon. That’s not what I call ‘affordable’.
Jackonicko
Apples and Oranges.
The numbers you quoted for the F-35A/B/C are for “Program Cost” not “Fly Away”
Cheers
SintraGod
This thread seems to have been written somewhere around Vimeiro/Talavera/Buçaco/TorresVedras/Albuera/Barrosa/Vitoria/Waterloo (pick your choice) two centuries ago…
SintraWhat did the F-22 cost for its first batch of aircraft during its production run up………..Clearly, not todays $133 Million per copy!:eek: Yet, everybody believes production should be extented?:o
There was never a Raptor at $133 Million…
The first Batch (2003) cost $197.911 Million Unit Fly Away
Page 35: http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070223-110.pdf
Actual production.
2008 – $137.467 Million
2009 – $146.388 Million
Entire Production – $154.267 Million
Page 55: http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf
SintraMy dear Arthuro, still having some doughts about that.
If the only difference was the FADEC software, then the AdlA can anytime , upgrade the software, and exchange thrust with reliability, right?
Why pick the one options and not both?I really dont thing so. Do you have a link for that?
The 9 ton M88 was proposed to South Korea, and the proposed “RAFALE SK” air intakes had to be completely re-designed.
They were simply too small to acept the air influx needed for such an increase in thrust. That hasn´t changed, and no, it´s not a simple question of FADEC software.
SintraRick86
And, as C2, a GP (general purpose) FREMM could also work fine.
Yes it would, but if you substitute the EMPAR for a Sampson and the LM2500 by Rolls Royce WR-21 engines, you are going to get a “almost Daring” bill…
And there´s no way in hell that the RN his going to pay that kind of money for a “C2”.
SintraYes thats it, Romanian Lancer’s have done it as well.
Portuguese Vipers, Spanish Hornets, etc, etc…
Almost every airforce in NATO has already contributed.
SintraTyphoon´s for OZ…
When it snows in Ouagadougou 😉
Sign In
