hopsalot[QUOTE=Bager1968;2180765]
Hey, now – don’t you know that that is just because the US governmental bureaucracy and Lock-Mart are conspiring to hide the true costs, and so agree upon a completely fictional number to show Congress – with the remainder of the actual cost to be transferred via the “black budget”?
At least, that’s what the rabid anti-JSF crowd has said the last couple of times a LRIP contract has shown a decrease in cost.
Indeed, or the “well… its complicated… so who can really know? ” approach.
The F-35 has gotten steadily cheaper to produce. How there are still people who don’t seem to be able to grasp/accept that is beyond me.
hopsalot[QUOTE=FalconDude;2180784]
Interesting question.
However, it may be something that someone may answer. Quite simply let us find what the cost of the overall program has been so far. Say up to 2014 and then divide with the number of planes LM is planning to sell to the partners only! Add to that marginal profit. See if it works out.
It doesn’t matter if the plane gets cheaper in the future (or any product) to produce. A company needs to make back the money it spent on R&D. Now obviously this is a different case since so much of that cost was paid for by the … US taxpayer.
Lockheed is being paid to develop the plane. Obviously they would prefer to see it widely produced, but even the R&D contracts are profitable.
hopsalotYou may have noticed all the quoted messages are from January 2012. Now it’s early November 2014, two and three quarter years later. That indicates the problem needed considerable effort for it to be to solved.
You may also have noticed that our resident experts weren’t sure a straightforward fix was possible at all. :rolleyes:
Besides, much of the delay is accounted for by the fact that the new hook design has been in testing on land for quite a while. Taking it out to a real carrier is not the first step in the process.
hopsalotI suppose, given the fiasco the programme has been to date, the fact it has happened at all could possibly be construed as a big deal.
It wasn’t that long ago that we had self appointed experts here predicting that the whole rear of the F-35C would have to be redesigned….
Here are some examples a quick trip to the archives reveals:
Hi Levsha,
Consider this not all-inclusive list of things that have to be resolved with the F-35 variants.
…
-F-35C tailhook requires airframe redesign
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?113844-F-35A-for-Japan/page10
-There is no proof that the F-35C is meeting the air combat specification set down by the Navy. There is no operational squadron in service. There is no OPEVAL.
-The shaping of the hook as falling into the “likely to be solved” class of problems also needs significant proof.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?114109-F-35-third-restructure-in-three-years/page3
ELP:
Given the limited amount of suitable structure at the back end of the JSF variants, due primarily to the commonality being sought and the fact that the STOVL F-35B JSF is the baseline design, there was always going to be high risk associated with meeting the carrier suitability requirements for the CV.
The current design is such an outlier. This was obvious when first sighted in the flesh back in 2008.
…
Cat Questions:
[A.] Who can explain the reason for (1) the somewhat non-standard (and outlier) yoke configuration of the tailhook design and (2) why the damper is not on the centreline?
[B.] What are the compounding risks that arise when trying to fix such a configuration?
How this design got through CDR should make for quite a humourous read.
Simply doesn’t meet Milspec and, since there is no COTS or commercial specification, the MIL Spec rules!!! :p 😀
To know more, take a look at the requirements for tailhook design in MIL-A-18717C.
All pretty straightforward and logical …. as well as tried and proven over many designs and carrier suitable aircraft.
FYI – The testing at Lakehurst in August last year was only got as far as the “run-in” tests. AIUI, there were no FCPLs even attempted.
Those will be for another day with another tailhook installation design.
Though, it would appear they are going to try a different (sharper) hook point and high down force on the damper first, sometime later this year.
Almost certainly a total waste of time and funds but, hey, it’s only tax payers’ money anyway, isn’t it ?!?! 😮 😡
..
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?113844-F-35A-for-Japan/page19
the tailhook is positioned very close to the main landing gear, which results in the fact that, when landing, the wheels roll over the arresting cables (that have to be inches above deck in order for the hook to catch them) which don’t have time to rise back at the sufficient height and therefore the hook doesn’t catch any of them.
the result is, the aircraft can’t be stopped on deck as it is now. the only way around it would be to move the hook further back, but that would require a complete redesign of the supporting structure inside the fuselage, resulting in a heavier aircraft and moving the CoG further back (as you’d need a stronger -> heavier, structure firther back in it), requiring other studies and modifications to get back to an acceptable weight and CoG position, all of which mean, again, a big additional cost
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?113844-F-35A-for-Japan/page18
S-9 – I don’t know that it is “unknown territory” but it seems to be trying to achieve an acceptable success rate with a hook/wire relationship that is off-nominal at best. As I understand it, the basic idea behind the original hook shape, or the Hornet hook, is for the wire to contact the hook above the apex of the hook tip, thereby trapping it in the throat.
And it is not to be forgotten that rolling tests are only the beginning. People will be crossing fingers, to some extent, to see if the modified hook will catch a trampled wire in a landing, and then on the carrier itself.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?113844-F-35A-for-Japan/page23
So there you have it. Today people want to act like this is a total ho-hum development, but not long ago they were openly talking about major redesigns and “crossing fingers.” Funny how that happens isn’t it?
:rolleyes:
hopsalotVideo of the landing
Congrats to the F-35 team!
It has been a rough few weeks for our crowd of hyperventilating critics…
hopsalotAs I have told you before, the Dutch government and defence-department (and many other defence-departments for that matter) highly disagree with you, since the F-35 was the ONLY aircraft that could accomplish ALL missions compared to it’s competitors.
And they spent a lot of time, money and effort to get to that conclusion.
Of course they could have p-mailed you on this board and saved a lot of money right? :stupid:
But they didn’t. They had a reason for that.
I let you figure out for yourself why that was.
Don’t be ridiculous, you know the answer here.
If the Gripen is deemed to have met the minimum necessary performance requirements, then that counts and is evidence of its capabilities.
If the reverse happens then the contest was rigged and it proves that Lockheed cheats.
hopsalot** By 2030, Brazil’s GDP will be on par with France and the UK. Before 2050, it will become the fourth largest economy in the world, with annual military budgets comfortable exceeding those of Fr/UK even if Brazil’s commitment remains at ~1.5% of GDP vs. >2% for those nations.
hopsalotShow me any aircraft that’s not a compromise.
What does the marketing matter? Do Dassault and Eurofighter market their wares as second best to something else at any mission? On the forum at least, one can compare any two aircraft at any given role without bring the company’s official line into the matter.
Question remains, of the gamut of missions that a fighter aircraft may be called onto perform, which competing aircraft outperforms the F-35, in what role and against which adversary? Objectively speaking and ignoring LM/BAE/Saab’s claims. Folks are all enthusiastic about the Eurocanard/SH’s prospects but then get remarkably reticent when asked how the aircraft in question would approach combat with a VLO design like the PAK FA.
That it does, but it doesn’t question its performance compared to existing aircraft or the objectives of the JSF program. Its ‘semi-stealthy’ but it was always meant to be so, being a ‘tailed’ design.
If for example, Canada were to adopt the recommendations of the report, it would cancel its fighter replacement plan altogether, and invest in UCAVs, presumably delivered post-2025. No judgement on the F-35 as an interceptor or as a strike fighter.
There have been a lot of particularly stupid attempts at criticism from the “anything but the F-35” crowd.
Trying to be all things to all people?
Remind me who invented the term “Omnirole.” It was a Western manufacturer, right? Lockheed?
What about this marketing material?
Gripen is among the first aircraft to focus on more than air-to-air combat. This means that it can cover a full range of mission requirements, saving customers the cost of owning separate bombers and fighters.
From the very beginning, Gripen has been designed to be a true multi-role and swing-role fighter – meaning it can perform air-to-air, air-to-surface and reconnaissance missions. It can change role while airborne, and it can even act in several capacities simultaneously. Gripen NG can perform a wide range of missions, from offensive and defensive counter strikes to air policing and tactical air reconnaissance. These missions can be performed 24/7 in all types of weather.
or
Any Mission
Anytime
Anywhere
Naturally this was done without any compromises at all. It won’t result in similar criticism because… um… Sweden!
The critics are desperate. The cancellation hasn’t happened. The foreign partners haven’t abandoned the program. There has been no death spiral. Nothing to do now but become more and more bitter.
hopsalotLet us sum it up:
1. F-35 is much stealthier than F-22
2. F-22 is faster and more maneuvrable
3. RCS is much more important than either maneuvrability or speed
4. F-22 was still not cleared for export while F-35 would be sold to anybody and his auntCan you see the logical paradox here? I certainly can.
The sources we have suggest that yes, the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22, and that the F-22 is both faster and more maneuverable than the F-35.
#3 really depends on the scenario.
The F-22 is not cleared for export. The F-35 is being exported.
Do you have a source that says otherwise?
hopsalothttp://aviationweek.com/defense/new-strategy-would-cut-f-35s-boost-bombers-and-uavs
So… now even the DoD is starting to realise the F-35 is a load of sh_t.
[spare the “but but but force multiplier, but but but stealth, but but but 5th generation, but but but network-centric, but but but lockeed, but but powerpoint” crap that will inevitably be a ‘response’.]
A think-tank wrote a study advocating increasing strategic assets, potentially at the cost of tactical assets.
In particular they like the idea of very long range, long endurance, highly stealthy drones.
It is good to know people are devoting thought to these issues, but it is more than a little premature to think the Pentagon is going to chunk its carrier battle groups and tactical aircraft fleets into the dumpster and buy as-yet unproven or undeveloped strategic assets.
This strategy, if embraced, would entail placing a massive bet on both drones and stealth. (Imagine the fits people around here would pitch if indeed we saw subsonic non-maneuverable drones armed with air to air missiles replace today’s fighters.)
hopsalotThere is your mistake, speaking on ideal configurations. Every design is a balance of requirements. Speed and maneuverability also have conflicting requirements, yet we have aircraft capable of high speed and maneuverability. You are attempting to “prove” that the F-35 cannot have a low RCS because it is a fighter, then using a chart of various configurations from the loser of the JSF competition to make that point. The RCS, speed, and maneuverability requirements for a bomber or an ISR drone would be different than that of a fighter, hence different shape. In essence, the premise of your argument ignores the balance that goes into ANY design.
Exactly…
hopsalotThe same report notes that canards and “articulating forebody strakes” result in RCS penalties.
Glad we can finally put that one to rest. (or is this going to be yet another case where people are going to pick and choose which parts of this they want to believe?)
It is kind of sad that a report that actually lays out some of the design trade-offs inherent in trying to create an aircraft that can meet all of its operational requirements is merely being mined for buzzwords by ignoramuses.
It has never been a mystery that from an RCS standpoint an ideal shape would be a nearly flat tail-less diamond/kite, or flying wing design.
The F-35, like the F-22, PAK FA, J-20, and J-31 has incorporated features that are not ideal from an RCS reduction standpoint in order to meet other requirements.
One could be equally pedantic and post a study showing that the F-22 design isn’t optimal for high-speed flight… its wings and tail are far too big, its cockpit sits too high, thrust vectoring adds a weigh penalty, etc. Does that mean the F-22 isn’t fast? That depends of course what you are comparing it to. The F-22’s designers had to make decisions about how to best meet all of the aircraft’s requirements. The end result is a very fast fighter by any reasonable standard.
Similarly, the F-35’s designers clearly did not prioritize stealth above all other attributes. That they didn’t do so should hardly be news. The end result is nonetheless an aircraft that is reportedly stealthier than an F-22.
[Air Combat Command chief Gen. Mike] Hostage makes another, very interesting comparison between the F-22 and the F-35.
The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”
http://aviationweek.com/blog/f-35-stealthier-f-22
Hostage said the F-35 actually has better stealth than the F-22. “I can’t say some of those things” due to classification, commented [F-35 Program Manager Lorraine] Martin, but she said Hostage accurately represented the F-35’s capabilities.
hopsalotOne of the strong selling points of the F-35 put forward by LM is that with the VLO characteristics (unmatched as put forward in some cases) and advanced sensor suite the F-35 package will dominate the battle space with authority and will not be required to enter WVR fights -which previous fighters without its capabilities where forced to get into- and in which it might not have the kinematic performance to survive (at this stage we do not focus on how agile the F-35 is as it has been established that there are platforms that are better than it at WVR engagements in terms of kinematic performance, the F-22 being one for example)
It isn’t simply that the F-35 won’t enter WVR fights, certainly as is the case with all other modern fighters it try to avoid them, but that WVR fights between fighters armed with the latest generation of HOBS missiles won’t be decided by platform kinematics in most cases.
With a missile like the AIM-9x Block III, or for that matter the Mica IR NG an enemy will have been in range for quite some time before it reaches WVR. If the necessary targeting data is available to the missile the missile itself is more than capable of intercepting a target anywhere near the launch aircraft, even behind it. The necessary targeting information could come from another Rafale or F-35, or from an organic sensor. (The first of these approaches has been demonstrated in a test environment by the Rafale, and DAS is advertised to have exactly this sort of full spherical targeting capability.)
So here comes the question, can an F-35 engage from BVR another F-35? In this question you have two possible outcomes
1. No —-Therefore the value of the F-35 against a similarly VLO adversary from BVR is practically zero and WVR engagements will be required. The implication being that IF the F-35 comes up against an “other side” design which happens to be on par in terms of VLO then the deciding factor will be the WVR engagement characteristics -kinematic performance being a crucial one. Do you disagree?
2. Yes —Therefore there is a sensor suite/missile combo that is capable of tracking and locking on to a VLO platform from BVR capable of making the kill. The implication being that again what if the “other side” comes up with a system combo on par with the one on the F-35? And this is where it gets interesting.
In debate this logical fallacy is called the “false dichotomy” (or “false dilemma” )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
“BVR” is not a single range, it is everything starting at the edge of visual range and extending forever. (at least hypothetically)
A BVR shot might take place within 10 miles or in excess of 50 miles. One could suppose that a “BVR” shot against an F-35 could be taken at 10 miles, but if the F-35 is capable of taking BVR shots from 30+ miles then the F-35 retains a substantial advantage. Note this doesn’t fully take into account the advantages conveyed by increased decision making time… even if the F-35 doesn’t actually pull the trigger until it is 30 miles out, if it can track its opponent from 100 miles out it will have a huge advantage. (The opponent meanwhile might be able to fire at 10 NM, but if that is also the range it first detects the F-35 it can’t be anything but purely reactive.)
An F-35 is not invisible. There are almost certainly scenarios where one could be targeted at BVR. However, the F-35 incorporate a wide range of technologies to make it more difficult to detect and target, including a dramatically reduced RCS, IR suppression, LPI radar and datalinks, and passive sensors. Taken together these technologies give it a substantial advantage over its 4th generation predecessors.
hopsalotIf I got a garage with Ferrari 458, Lamborghini Aventador and Aston Martin Vantage and get an offer from my rich father to get an X-Mas gift, either a Veyron or two latest Vettes ZR1, I choose Veyron. What does it say about Veyron’s capabilities?
Right, absolutely nothing.
Or, imagine you are a small country surrounded by much larger hostile neighbors that to no small extent owes its continued existence as a state to the professionalism and technological superiority of its air force…
For all the inane jabber people here post about what aircraft would be the most suitable for a small state seeking to defend itself… Israel has actually been living that scenario for every day of its modern history.
Of course as usual they just don’t know what you do. :stupid:
hopsalotCorrected for you..
I can’t remember, are the Israelis allowed to buy F-15/16/18? :confused:
Imagine for a moment if your numbers were accurate. (yeah yeah, but just imagine) It would show that the Israelis preferred to buy 25 F-35s over 60 F-16s.
What would that say about the F-35’s capabilities?
Sign In
