Tu22mDo you have anything concrete on the actual fly away cost of a production representative T-50? And also the operating cost? Has a fully representative T-50 even begun testing yet? With the new engine, all the avionics and other changes? From what i make the T-50 is not going to come out to be cheap, already Indians are looking to pay more and a delay of 2 years.
Flyaway cost is typically stated @50-100m$ for PAK FA/FGFA and a bit higher for the F35. These are also the numbers used by wikipedia currently.
When I look at operational costs i look for fuel because thats the only thing we know anything about. and the Pak FA will typically use less fuel per flight than the F35. For instance PAK FA is capable of carrying 10’300kg of fuel for an un refueled range of 4300km/2324nm or roughly a cruise radius close to 1100nm+. Historically the Flankers have flown with less than max fuel leading at least me to believe that the typical fuel load on the Pak FA will be lower than the typical fuel load on the F35 A/C.
I might be wrong but I think that the fuel spent will be less with the Pak FA despite the aircraft being larger, but its my own highly speculative conclusion. I havent even got any for of verification regarding the entry numbers…
But less fuel used –> less thrust produced –> less wear and tear on the machine on a typical flight. So if we are talking about pilots going for full mil and ab power doing sick maneuvering then it will take its toll on the aircraft.
Absolutely no way, PAK-FA has twice the thrust of F-35, and twice the engines to maintain, so thats twice the cost right there
It’s possible. But looking at janes report makes me wonder if the number of engines really is representative as a benchmark. The EF2000 has comparable thrust to the F35 and twice the engines, yet it is expected to cost less to operate.
Either way I don’t see the need for the F35 when they already have Rafale + Su30MKI + FGFA.
Tu22mWeighs less could mean having newer processor and materials that reduce weight. JF-17 and JAS-39 are about the same size, their radars should have similar dimensions. I noticed on page 1 JF-17 has much lower empty weight compared to JAS-39. Part of them is no doubt due to DSI. Could JF-17 also use a lot more composite materials than JAS-39 that reduce weight?
IMO JF-17 looks better in PAF painting. Chinese painting has never been top notch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPVVRcwcZ9Q
Are you just making stuff up as you go? PS-05 is pretty well known for being very lightweight. The ES-05 (or Raven 1000E) will weigh 215kg and its newer than both radars we mentioned beore.
Tu22mWhere do you get Thunder’s KLJ-7 radar is smaller than Griffin’s PS-05 radar?
The KLJ-7 radar weighs <120kg, PS05 weighs 153kg.
http://www.jf-17.com/avionics/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS-05/A
Tu22mIn numbers the JF 17, in money the Gripen. And the reasons are simple.
The JF17 is more like a modern F5. It has sub standard fighter radar (ie smaller than the Gripens), it has sub standard flight performance (compared to Gripen and F16), the weapons are not as good (SD10 vs Aim120 and Meteor for BVR) etc.
But will it get the job done? Yes, unless you expect A2A focus against capable adversaries.
Tu22mWhy would India bother getting the F35 when they have the Pak FA + Rafale + Su30MKI?
Based on information this far the Pak FA will be cheaper to buy and to operate (lower fuel consumption, lower flyaway costs and pretty good MTBF on the engines), India will get more hands on experience from the Pak FA project and the package will be more complete in Pak FA (it carries bigger loads and is more optimised in the A2A arena). (compared to the F35)
Rafale will most likely be good enough to take on the role of the “general purpose work horse”.
I think Brazil would be a better target for F35 sales.
Tu22mWhat about one of topspeed’s designs…
Not sure about aerodynamic stability in those. When i started the thread I actually thought of topspeed and MadRat 🙂
Tu22mSorry but you are mixing the first & second parts of the report. In the first part it was the planes as they were tested. In the second part the risk factor was added to take into account the fact that many capabilities were just paper capabilities.
Nic
Well, the Gripen C version was pretty irrelevant since it isnt the one offered to Switzerland. All we know is that the E version scores above 6 in all areas (based on the Gripen Demo in 2012). There is still a lot of work to be done meaning the score will continue to improve.
That said I still think the Rafale is an exceptional aircraft. It is larger and heavier (~40% heavier) so it should carry more and fly greater distances.
Tu22mThe swiss air force would disagree with you here. They rated the Rafale higher both in defensive counter air and offensive counter air, in the 2008 version and in the future planned version. The introduction of AESA & DDM NG, OSF IT only make things worse for the typhoon.
But such comment’s got to tell you how myth propagated by some “journalists” like Jon Lake or jackonicko are hard to eradicate.
You know those scores had a pretty severe risc factor included? The current Gripen Demo surpasses the minimum requirements in all areas meaning it currently is over 6 in all tests. And it is still in development. The Rafale was more mature and thus it got a score closer to the actual performance.
We see this in the different scores between 2008 and evaluaton phase II. The more mature the system was in 2008 the lower was the jump in phase II.
Tu22m@Tu22m i believe F-35 does exactly that, as is with Gripen NG, that is split flight controls from the rest
If so, then how can software be an issue for the delays? IIRC they have to fly complete testriggs with the latest FCS and avionics together to sort out bugs.
If it’s really two separate systems they should have tested the entire envelope by LRIP block 1 and only add more and more avionics and subsystems after that, but they don’t. They use software of a specific block and then they test it all in one part of the envelope, and then they make a new software block that is flight tested etc. (I can’t remember the name of the report where i read it, I think this brings it up http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/aerospace/military/f35-software-dod-operation-test-evaluation-director-not-impressed ).
So we are talking software blocks, not about “apps”… And that adds a layer of complexity.
Tu22mOn hindsight, i would have also been less ambitious with the program’s goal initially. However the main problem came from having a common designs for 3 different requirements that was the CHALLENGE of the JSF. Weight increases and delays because of that can be directly attributed to this. Weight was a challenge even for the F-22, and the JSF just made things very complicated when it had the B variant that had strict weight tolerance. Software should have been addressed early on, given the delays on the raptor’s, however the JSF’s does have many times more lines of codes than the raptor or any other fighter before it (4X more then the F-16, and more then double the lines compared to the F-22). I think DARPA and the services would be well advised to seek software development blueprints from the air defence initiative when the time comes for the next generation of fighters.
The B-version being based on the same design as the A&C is amongst the most retarded decisions I have ever seen. It’s a typical project that looks good in a powerpoint presentation or flow chart but is a nightmare in reality.
Regarding the software they should have done exactly what SAAB are doing for Gripen E. Split critical systems like FCS from the other avionics physically so you can have user apps that can be tested mid flight.
This way they can deliver a jet that, at IOC hopefully is fully tested throughout the flight envelope, has FLIR, radar capability and can use AIM120 + JDAM. In the next 5-year step it will have MAWS –> EODASS with 3D helmet integrated (thx to software patches that are done on site by the operators, only hardware is the helmet since the cameras initially can be used as MAWS). Same with the datalink, start with the same as in the F22 (but with more modern antennas) and then use software patches to add capabilities as time goes by.
Thats how it usually is done.
When it comes to the amount of code it’s just laughable. If that’s the code base at IOC… wtf will it be when it is matured? Feels like they could have installed Windows Vista from the beginning. How much of that code will actually be used? I read that most of it is for presentation in the cockpit, ie GUI/UI. Sounds like a plethora of information.
Tu22mIt’s not about who is responsible for delays and rising cost. Ultimately it is the team that builds it and the program that runs it that is responsible. So yes, LMA and its partners are to blame. However the problem is much more complex than that. The problem now is, how to get the costs down. The Program head and his team has been constantly beating down on the developers (LMA and P&W mostly) to be more aggressive in pricing for future blocks. What the price (to build) is going to be 2 years down the road, is just a projection, and cost savings over time come from the “learning curve” and both program, and industry initiatives to trim margins and reduce costs. This is where a reduced buy is going to hurt the developer, When you have a program with a order book of 2000+ Engine’s for example, and then reduce it by a fifth (Just a hypothetical), especially in the phase when the engine is going to cost you more to make (You are still in LRIP and getting a grip on your cost-control mechanisms) then it does diminish your capability to come out with a really “aggressive” low price when you sit at the negotiation tables the next time around. At a managerial level however, it is not all DOOM and GLOOM, for the folks (both that work for the contractors as well as the program) that can manage the program through this testing time, and get a grip on pricing despite of the reduced LRIP buy, will benefit greatly :)….Like i said earlier, i do not think that future blocks would be affected by a great deal, especially if some of the short term challenges are solved smoothly. The most recent GAO report has been fairly positive (as positive as can be i guess) and if the program does manage to stick to the trend in the coming few years, it would still be in a reasonably good shape.. What worries me a great deal is software, but also the effect of the sequester on testing, when no one really needs another reason for there to be a delay in testing and getting the bird to the warfighter.
If it was easy producing and delivering highly capable fighter jets then everyone would do it. 😉
I think Lockheed are trying to achieve the impossible, and thats why they are falling behind schedule and missing the budget. They are trying to integrate everything from the start when historically manufacturers try to deliver an aircraft meeting the minimum requirements and then the system matures over time with improved avionics (mostly software related). This makes it easier to keep the deadline, it includes a contingency and it keeps costs down.
I think LM didnt go this path because they tried it with the F22 and it sort of failed because of flip floping from the buyer.
To be honest I think that most manufacturers in a similar program would have similar delays considering how the whole program has been developing.
Tu22mCongratulations you retarded whores!
F-35, another victim of Obamacare.
Hahahaha. You don’t think LM are responsible for constant delays and increased costs? I have to say congress have been more than generous.
The chart below shows how tolerant all buyers have been.
Oh, and it’s only delayed 4 years (USMC IOC was set to 2010…).
Yeah, I guess we can blame Obamacare for that.
Tu22mYes, off course it is a big difference! Pakfa was designed to not have flat underside, while F-35’s design is patched up with quick fixes to the design.
And so much patching/fixes has maybe a little to do with a flawn design.
It’s not that much of a big deal. The bumps are only a few degrees so the difference is likely less than -10dB compared to the baseline (based on RCS on a flat plate with 10 degree difference in angle). We are still talking about an aircraft that is very small only through shaping and on top of that has very modern RAM.
Tu22mIt’s interesting that the only procurement in aviation that seems to be proceeding well is off-shelf purchases of US aircraft (C-130J, C-17, AH-64, P-8).
Yeah, and the F35 is the crowning achievement of that. 😉 Jokes aside though there is one specific company that pretty much always delivers on time and on budget, even when R&D is included in the timetable and budget.
Tu22mHe says 1.3 Mach, not 3.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph… you are right. That was a really sloppy miss.
Isn’t the F117 qualified btw? After all, USAF insisted on calling it a fighter.
Sign In
