pfcemI’m sorry but please try to use official numbers and figures when making your positions so people can more easily track your logic train and reasoning. Saying this or that as your opinion really doesn’t amount to much of a worthwhile debate or discussion.
SpudmanWP & I have been posting & referring to the official numbers.
Although I accept your comments and see you acknowledge that current F-35 cost estimates are being revised to the increasingly more expensive per copy vs the official Feb07/08 estimates. I’m sorry if I misunderstood your position thinking you supported the camp of thought: e.g., ‘official estimates are now coming in less than were originally estimated’. (You see, some have been stating that F-35 revised costs are coming down from original estimates, that’s all I was challenging – albeit an important point when assessing future FY procurements). So thanks for noting that for the record and recognizing they’re going up – it does indeed add to ones enjoyment of the discussion.
Nobody has been saying costs have been or are or will be going down from originally projected. But again costs are going down & while they have been, are, & will continue to be higher than original projections they have been & continue to track closer to the previous (2007/2008) projections than the DOD latest projections.
As for ‘underestimated’ FY11’s estimate on future FY15’s $106m per copy UPC – that will go ballistic, that’s just the point. Why? Once again, the estimates of PAST year procurements are being revised to the up side, more than expected. But future looking estimates are still flawed – yes, based on the same flaws on which 08’s estimates were based. Likewise, the revised upside correction won’t be made until probably Feb12 or 2013 (with total program restructure).
No the actual cost of PAST year procurements have been going down.
FY12’s UPC in fact will be revised to the upside at the latest by Feb11. (Unless a price fixing scheme is achieved prematurely, pre-SDD completion).
FY15? Best case scenario – say about 40 F-35A units afforded @ $150m (TYDollars), given a stable economic environment (independent of likely reduced Procurement budgets).. Respects.
Your dreaming. Budget negotiators asked for a Lot 4 (FY 2010) price below projections!
***
pfcemIs that 6 aam’s you are quoting there.
Which fairyland continent will the F35 be carrying those in anytime soon?
Yes that is 6 AAMs.
The F-35 will often carry 6 AAMs (4 AMRAAM internally + 2 AIM-9X externally on the outer most wing stations) on air-to-air missions from IOC.
It has yet to be decided for sure which but Block 4 (IOC 2018) or Block 5 (IOC 2020) is to include among other upgrades 6 AAMs internally.
But if you prefer…8,000 lbs of fuel + 4 AMRAAM (all internal) would make the F-35A 36,004 lbs (& clean) at takeoff with 28,000 lbs of dry/military & 43,000 lbs of wet/afterburner thrust. :p
***
As soon as you start hanging anything externally on the thing to be able to perform a mission to a satisfactory level then i’m off to buy something that has a better performance, offers more flexability and costs less.
And just what would that be?
Hanging external anything on the F35 negates it’s only advantage over the “legacy” aircraft.
No it does not. No matter what you hang externally from a F-35, it will still be stealthier than any 4th/4.5 generation fighter with the same payload.
And VLO is far from the F-35s only advantage over “legacy” aircraft.
Why do that and pay more?!? Unless you are a politician it makes no logical sense.
LOL.
pfcemAs shown in above cost quotes, the “Revised estimates” of late are in fact showing a trend Upwards compared to the original estimates from Feb07/Feb08, which is being the issue brought up here.
That is not what you said though….
And of course there is a trend upward compared to 2007/2008 projections, the number of airframes being built each year has been cut since then (& the production learning curve has yet to catch up with the 2007/2008 projections). But even with that (& the production issues thus far) the actual costs thus far have been closer to the 2007/2008 projections than the Pentagon’s latest projections.
That was the precise discussion – whether or not the original ‘estimates’ were off or accurate. They (Feb07/08 Procurement estimates) are clearly shown to be revised as higher today, I’m sorry. The estimates are unfortunately trending higher than previously expected (from original estimates).
No, the precise discussion is do the actual costs support the Pentagon’s latest projections or are they tracking more in line with previous projections.
Of course the UPC price itself is reducing for the most part year to year, but the issue of course is whether the original estimates are being revised up or down today – they are showing to be revised significantly up. Note the compared Budget estimates as listed in above posts.
But you said costs were rising when in fact they are falling – at the very best you can say that cost are not falling as quickly as projected. And again, the issue is do the actual costs support the Pentagon’s latest projections or are they tracking more in line with previous projections.
And yes… due to these miscalculated original ‘estimates’, one can reasonably make the case that FY15 UPC estimates of $106million per copy x 70 jets being expected as of today are also critically flawed and are hence likely going to see correction.
So absolutely the so far flawed estimates therefore justify an immediate time out, via the ‘stay the course’ acquisition process, and future estimates deserve careful examination by US Congress ASAP.
The $106 million is the ‘revised estimate’ as per the FY2011 budget!
***
My misinformation? What kind?
Yes, your misinformation.
Misrepresenting the performance of the F-35 being the most glaring.
I have done nothing in this thread but questioning myths and BS you have provided.
Quite the opposite
My only concern here is to filter out credible information about the subject I want to learn about from the loads of stuff that gets published. That means throwing out info from all paid consultants, people involved with marketing and PR, as well as fanboy clowns wearing rose-colored glasses and painting nothing but best case scenarios. And I am doing that very successfully, strictly for my own personal purposes.
BS. Pretty much everything you have posted paints a very different picture.
OK, I give this theory a chance, elaborate on this further, pls. How exactly would they gain benefits from that?
With Austrailia getting the F-22 & upgrading F-111s instead of the F-35 they expect that they would receive payment for their F-111 upgrade design AND they expect a signifiacnt portion of the actual F-111 upgrade work to be done by a company THEY started & have a finacial stake in.
That’s a very cheap BS and you know it. If this was true, then EVERY aerospace journo would post nothing but bad news to earn more, they are all on the same boat.
Quite the opposite.
Beesley is paid to be very critical, yes. But he is also paid for maintaining good image of the F-35 towards the general public. He surely knows what the bird is really like.. but sure as hell he won’t tell you or me..
Beesley is paid to be the most critical person on the planet as to the F-35’s flying characteristics & performance and relay that to those in the program. He does not get paid for anything that he says to the public and he & the program have much more to lose by lieing or misleading the customers &/or the public than they could ever hope to gain by doing so.
Also note that Beesley is not the only pilot to have flown the F-35 & had very positive things to say about it (& no, not all the pilots who have flown the F-35 work for the program).
***
Not what you and others have said in the past.
Make up your mind and stop changing your tune when the music doesn’t sound so good anymore.
Yes it isa what I & others have said in the past.
It is you who are trying to ‘change tune’ by falsly accusing I & other of saying thing we have not said.
Stop attempting to claim the moral high ground sonny. You are pricelessly entertaining with this rubbish and just embarress yourself, particularly when you write patent fairy stories like the rubbish below.
I am not the one embarrassing myself not writing fairy stories.
Rubbish. Only if you are of a particularly deluded mind and judge others by your own low standards would this be valid. There is such a thing as independant critical thought, something you seem to be truly oblivious to.
Quite the oppositte.
Stop deliberately spinning any critical thought and comments into some weird imaginary, un-justified attack on your favourite wet dream.
I am not the one spinning, you are.
Sure, internally at LM.
You think he’s telling you as a member of the general public what he really thinks…??? :rolleyes: Ah bless. :rolleyes:
I know he is not lieing & would like to tell everyone much more about how great the F-35 flys but is limited in how much information he is allowed to say to the public.
pfcemBeesly talks fuel fraction and A2A combat
Hes talking about loading only 8k pounds of fuel on the F-35a for airfield defense
which would make it a 38k pound AF with 41k Lbs of thrust.
Actually, 8,000 lbs of fuel + 4 AMRAAM + 2 AIM-9X would make the F-35A 36,380 lbs at takeoff with 28,000 lbs of dry/military & 43,000 lbs of wet/afterburner thrust.
pfcemYou should consider being paid by LM, then. The amount of agitation work you’ve been doing for them in the last time is really priceless. Where others have quit the boat long ago, you’re still proudly carrying the torch… 😀
I would understand that someone is doing that for money. But that there are people who still want do that for nothing… just amazing…. 🙂
Well if you consider challenging the misinformation/disinformation of the likes of you & doing my small part to see that the truth gets voiced agitation than I am more than happy to do it – no compensation needed, it is its own reward.
EDITED
***
Now where the data points are relevant to this F-35A Procurement
price INCREASE issue, is via Weapon System Cost increase, as well as the total Procurement Cost (broken down to UPC) increase.
What increase?
F-35A unit costs from FY2011 budget ($ millions)
FY_________Prior..___2009.___2010.___2011.___2012.___2013.___2014.___2015
Total Pro.___280.9___246.9___248.5___193.2___187.1___148.7___123.7___106 .0
Wpn Sys____262.7___237.2___235.5___182.5___176.2___139.8___116.0___099 .6
Flyaway..___229.6___208.9___191.5___149.0___140.4___114.5___098.2___087.0
Spudman, please my friend, are you claiming here and now that the total Procurement bill for each F-35A thus far, as billed to the USAF and taxpayer is LOWER than estimated in Feb07? Please answer that and step up and make an honest, open disclosure as to how you stand on this issue of Procurement costs either going up or down vis-a-vis original estimates!
No not total procurement bill, the Unit Recurring Flyaway Cost (ie the $ paid to LM for each F-35 LRIP Lot aircraft).
Once again… it’s NOT the production cost which is simply billed to the USAF, it’s the full Unit Procurement Cost which is the relevant price billed to USAF and which is at issue here only – that which determines how affordable each years Procurement capability is!
Once again, Unit Recurring Flyaway Cost is the biggest contributor to Unit Total Procurement Cost & the most accurate representative cost of the aircraft itself.
There’s a reason why defense Appropriations list it as a “Procurement” budget and NOT “Production” budget. Please try to discern the two and how it relates to how costs have trended thus far. (including Feb07 Procurement estimates for FY10 aircraft orders vs the revised HIGHER estimates today). Respects.
SpudmanWP & I have always discerned the two.
And as anyone can clearly see from the FY2001 budget BOTH have trended down!
***
I’m sorry but the trends to Procure, whether in Net Cost, Weapon sys, or Total Unit procurement are trending up signficantly, and will only continue to as more orders are reduced regardless of reasons.
No, they trending down significantly!
F-35A unit costs from FY2011 budget ($ millions)
FY_________Prior..___2009.___2010.___2011.___2012.___2013.___2014.___2015
Total Pro.___280.9___246.9___248.5___193.2___187.1___148.7___123.7___106 .0
Wpn Sys____262.7___237.2___235.5___182.5___176.2___139.8___116.0___099 .6
Flyaway..___229.6___208.9___191.5___149.0___140.4___114.5___098.2___087.0
FY15 Unit Procurement Cost (UPC) estimated for $105million each?!? No way. Flag raised. Time out.
You have absolutely no valid reason to think so given what the actual casts thus far have been.
Congress must understand and comprehend the consequences of these fundamentally flawed, (arguably dangerous however well-intentioned) miscalculated estimates and expectations. That’s my position and believe me, I seriously wish I were wrong and USAF were procuring ahead of schedule and according to requirements. (probably even more than most JSF supporters).
Yes, they should ignor these latest BS estimates (that are not even based on the program itself) & look at which projections are the closest the actual amount it has been paying for each LRIP Lot thus far . :p
***
You have a program that basically came out and said we are and will be better at eveything that has gone before and also produce a cheaper product.
No, the program has said they will be better than the systems they replace & affordable/cost-effective.
Same said program is now undeniably late and over budget (unless you are off with the fairies a la pfcem).
NOBODY claims the program is on time or under budget. But the informed & intellectually honest recognize that it is neither late nor as over budget as some would have everyone believe.
Nobody has to be on anybodies payroll to start asking questions as to the validity of the statements initally put out, you just have to be a tax payer.
But you do have to have some interest/motive for the program to fail to assume the Program’s statement to not be valid.
However given the undeniable facts re current costs and timeframes those that insist that there are no issues open themselves up to questioning as to their motives.
NOBODY claims there are no issues. But the informed & intellectually honest put what issues there are into context & perspective and clearly see that thing are nowhere near as bad as some would have everyone believe.
***
I dont know but I am not aware of anyone having found Kopp or Sweetman on Boeing payroll. If you do, I will be the first one to dismiss their claims as biased.
Kopp’s modivation is that he & his friends stand to gains significantly if Australia were to drop the F-35 in favor of their prposals of F-22s & upgraded F-111s.
Sweetman’s modivation is that bad news sells more than good news does.
***
Not sure any objective observer would say that comments from Beesley are outright lies; however it is worth remembering who pays his mortgage at the end of the day.
A company that is marketing a product will not come out and say: “it’s brilliant as long as you only use it within these parameters,” they will merely say “it’s brilliant” and leave it at that.
Thus it is not so much what he may say but what he does not say that is actually of interest.
Except that Beesley is paid to be the most critical person on the planet of the F-35, not to as some have implied & even outright stated mislead (&/or lie) about it.
pfcemHas the USAF made known what the 767 tanker is going to be called once production starts?
KC-X will be KC-45A reguardless of what airframe it is.
***
Anyone know why the p-8’s airframe isn’t being considered? Should be the right size to do the job.
No, it is too small & would not meet the requirements. Although, you COULD (if there were such an airframe) have something a bit smaller than the 767-200 if there was less emphasis on airlift capabilty (& did not insist on KC-X matching or exceeeding the fuel capacity of the KC-135R)…
pfcemI don’t see what exactly does it mean because there is a big difference in flight performance between F-16 and F/A-18, actually. F-16 is sports-car like built exclusively for AtoA, only later adapted for AtoG. F/A-18 is exactly the opposite, a limo, great for comfortable low level rides during AtoG missions, with an option of surviving the first AtoA encounter thanks to good nose pointing ability, after that it’s dead meat.
What it means exactly is that the F-35 has the low speed pointability & (even better) high AoA of the F/A-18C combined with the mid/high subsonic-transonic-low/mid supersonic acelleration & agility of the F-16C.
I find it peculiar that someone writes a term *F-16/F-18 performance* because it sounds like *Ferrari F430/BMW 7-series performance*. Looks like the writer has very little clue about what he is claiming since these two have nothing in common. 😉
That is what the USAF asked for. It is a stated goal of the program.
BTW, I wonder what exactly do Italian AF pilots know about how F-18 flies.:rolleyes: I have serious doubts that they ever tested any.
Every hear of pilot exchange? Through it even the very exclusive F-22 has been flown by pilots of foreign air forces. Italian (& other allied) pilots aslo fly against F-16s & F/A-18s on a fairly regular basis.
***
Yes . The only thing the F-35 has over the Rafale is its stealth , all the rest is in favor of the Dassault fighter or on the par . Things like flight characteristics , weaponry , deep penetration , AtoA , heavy load + range , are better with the Rafale .
Other things like ECMs , ECCMs , situation awareness (SA) , radar , EWRs , IRST , etc are more or less on the par (better ECMs for the Rafale , better radar for the F-35) .
In your dreams.
The F-35 will never have the same firepower-range ratio than a Blk50 or 60 . The problem with F-35 “fanboys” is the fact that they think and take for granted the LM propaganda .
LOL. A F-16 Block 50 or 60 requires two external tanks (either two drop tanks or CFT + one drop tank) just to get to similar combat radius/range as the F-35A with just internal fuel.
Example : why they (the fanboys) always use a clean F-35 ? :diablo:
Because that is how the F-35 will fight.
Do they think that they are going to win Wars with 2 JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs and always fight 500nm from base ? 😀
Actually, add that eight ‘250 lb’ SDB (or eventually four AMRAAM or Meteor) can be substituted for those two ‘2,000 lb’ JDAM (not to mention a half a dozen other weapons that fit within the space/weight constraints of the F-35 internal AtG stations) & that the F-35A has a combat radius of 625nm, not 500nm (& even then just like is done with 4th generation fighters can be extended further via AR)…then yes the F-35 is going to do it part to win wars fighting clean. 🙂
Stick anything externally on the F-35 and you ‘ll end-up with something WORSE than the latest F-16s ! At this game , the F-35B could not even take off 😀
In your dreams. F-35 with internal weapons = CLEAN F-16C Block 50.
I mean , put 2 external fuel tanks on the F-35 : it is a 30% fuel increase but the range only increase by 8% , it is telling (LM numbers) . The thing is fat , draggy and slow .
No those are not LM numbers.
Just try to load a F-35 with full internal fuel , 2 cruise missiles “a la” SCALP or Storm Shadow , 2 external fuel tanks and 4 AMRAAMs in the bays , just try and tell me how the thing flies 😮
Better than a F-16C Block 50 with the same weapons load & enough fuel to fly as far.
Today , we can detect and track LO aircraft .
But the F-35 is VLO, not LO. :p
The problem is to put a missile on it and if the missile can ‘t be jammed easily , it is the missile we need .
To this extent , the IR guidance is the way to go (obviously) , the French and the Russians (Chinese also) have some good systems . Tracking and ranging of LO aircraft can also be made through Opticals + LRF + ECMs .It is the reason why everybody is trying to develop IRDCM (Infra Red Directed Counter Mesures) because the IR technology brings the capability to destroy LO aircraft like any other aircraft .
Excuse me. IR guided muissiles have the same problem radar guided missiles have. In order for the missile to have any kind of reasonable pk you have to somehow get the missile within range of the target in order for the missile’s seeker to lock on to said target.
***
They aren’t dogs and nor will the F-35 be a dog. But the “clean” F-35 won’t outperform the an A2A loaded Typhoon – it will be closer to the Rafale but probably still inferior as an energy platform. The Typhoon, will outturn it, out accelerate it – subsonically and easily supersonically, and fly faster & higher than it. The amount of curvature on the outer mould line for the F-35 doesn’t highlight good wave drag characteristics – relative to the new designs.
What a lot of people don’t realise is that the A2A loaded Typhoon for example, will easily out perform clean F-16s & F/A-18s. It is a VERY impressive kinematic beast. The F-35 will require its VLO to even the playing fields.
What a lot of people don’t realize (or deliberately dismiss/ignor) is that kinematics are nowhere near as important as they once were.
And VLO puts the F-35 in a completely different league to any/all 4th generation fighters in terms of combat capability/effectiveness.
***
Here , I would like to shed some light on the burned fuel versus supercruise topic , if you don ‘t mind .
The F-22 can supercruise and while doing so , it is reaching the theatre of operation quicker but it is burning a lot of fuel . You can say whatever you like , it is not supercruising at Mach 1.5+ without being in full mil power dry (no AB) unless to be close to bingo fuel (empty weight) .
You can stop pulling crap out of your rear end. The F-22 supercruises at 80% military throttle & is going significanly fast than Mach 1.5 while doing so.
I just wanted to say that it is a capability and NOT the usual way to use the F-22 . A recent article said that the USAF wanted the F-15s to be ahead of the F-22s when policing an adverse airspace . It is telling 😉
The F-22 will be used like a cobra : a slow and careful approach (behind the F-15s) and a sudden and brutal acceleration to “bite” the enemy then turn away .
As I see it , it is an excellent technique 🙂
Dream on. That IS the way the F-22 was designed & built to be used. And that article about about what the F-15C is being reduced to. The F-22 is perfectly capable of doing it all (air superiority) on its own but since were aren’t getting enough to replace all F-15Cs, 186 F-15Cs have been earmarked for upgrade & hopeful (I say wishful thinking) operational use beyond 2025.
***
Hold on: So in your imagination F-35 will fly around in the midst of “constantly moving S-300s who are protected by rings of constantly moving Tor-M1s and Pantsyr-S1s” like the invisible man, right ?
Then there won’t be any need of SEAD/DEAD either, since the F-35 is immune, i take it by your logic.
No, but the F-35 will ‘see’ & be able to engage said defenses at greater range than they can do the same to it…
pfcemI think that we can all agree on this .
*****************************
From day one , I believed that the F-35 was going to be a dog and for many good reasons . I am no-one but some clever chaps who know more than I do share my views .
The bird ~sorry~ “thing” is ugly , fat as a cow , heavy as a bull , slow as a snail . Fortunately , the thing has a powerful engine and it can try to do some subsonic stuff but it has a wrong airframe and aerodynamics are p!ss poor at medium to high (? lol) speed .
Simply because it has some of the best US avionics and is so-called stealthy , it is suppose to survive and to do its job , I don ‘t believe it .As I see it , it can makes its way in , but can ‘t make its way back .
That I don ‘t like 😡
It is not fast enough , it not armed well enough . If I was a F-35 driver on his way back after dropping my 2 LGBs , I would probably use the low level option and count on my “stealth” and my DAS and EOTS to try to avoid any threat because my aircraft is not capable to fight an interceptor on equal ground .
And if the sh!t hit the fan in AtoA , I hope to have some friends around .Now , with a decent planning , a F-35 with no external stores will penetrate the enemy airspace more discretely than a Rafale but it will have less fuel , less weapons and will still be fat as a cow , heavy as a bull and slow as a snail . Its way back will be heavily compromised .
No we can not. Your reasons for believing the F-35 to be a dog are completely contradictory to the facts. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, some people like its looks other’s don’t (some people like the Rafale better than the Typhoon, other the other way around). It is actually about the same size as the Rafale (length, wingspan, & frontal cross-section) & is only ~2400 lbs (<10%) heavier than the Typhoon. It is as fast or faster than most ‘comparable’ 4th generation fighters in combat configuration. It can (if neeeded) be armed with as much weapons as ‘comparable’ 4th generation fighters (& requadless of weapons payload can carry said payload as far or farther on internal fuel as ‘comparable’ 4th generation fighters with two external tanks). Its airframe & aerodynamics are designed & built for maximum performance at Mach 0.8-1.2 at 30,000-40,000′ just like the F-16. It is very stealthy (even with external stores it is stealthier than ‘comparable’ 4th generation fighters) & is more survivable & able to do its job better than any ‘comparable’ 4th generation fighter could every hope to.
pfcemHe did. And found him as paid LM consultant. That is, I guess, all one needs to know..
No he did not. If he did he would not have made such BS remarks.
It really requires a large portion of intellectual dishonesty in order not to recognize that so far all people bringing good news about the F-35 (Beesley, Thompson..) have mysteriously been found on LM’s payroll…
Except that not everyone with good news about the F-35 are on the LM payroll. :p
Don’t twist it. You have clearly stated that Thompson was not a consultant paid by LM while he himself admitted that he was one. What’s here left to argue about?
I am not twisting anything.
And regarding you, I really don’t give damn about whether you have ever received a dime from LM. Quite frankly, I really hope that you at least are not embarassing yourself here for free…
I am not the one embarassing myself here nor have I ever been paid anything for anything I have done here (or any other internt forum for that matter).
pfcemF-22 was for a long time prohibited to fly supersonic due to severe heat build up in the tail section, it was later added a bunch of copper to spread it out.
I have read a report, as has Scorpion, that F-22 is now prohibited to fly past M1.8 due to heat issues in the tail section.
But i didn’t save the text, and the link interestingly didn’t work a month later, so believe whatever.
Wrong. Early F-22s (test airframes & some production prior to IOC) were limited to Mach 1.8 during testing & evaluation due to the tail section issues. Once the fix to the issue was applied the Mach 1.8 limit was lifted.
pfcemShow me where you got that sh!t from
I already have. Both Beesley & Davis have stated so. You can find it in a number of program documents. Even some journalists included it as part of their reporting back in Nov 2008 of Beesley going supersonic in AA-1 (which was done with a simulated 5400 lbs internal weapons load + 14,000 lbs of internal fuel by the way).
***
If USAF and USN had their way in the 1990s, they would not have replaced F-16 or F-18. That class of Cold War cannon fodder airplanes would have been dead-ended. Kaput. To be no more.
Yes they would have. Programs which eventually lead to the JSF/F-35 began in the early-mid 1980s.
And the F-16 & F/A-18 were never ‘cannon fodder airplanes’.
Both services would have bought airplanes similar to what came out of the AFX program. Three of the four AFX contenders were developing 1000+ mile radius strikers that had the same capabilities as F-35 (VLO stealth, M1.5+, integrated avionics and sensor suite, maneuver performance, A2A and A2G capable). Two of those contenders were scaled down to become the single engined X-32 and X-35.
I agree, to replace the A-6 & F-111 just as A-X / A/F-X was intended…but both services would also have still gone ahead with their F-16 & F/A-18C/D replacement programs as well.
***
Straw man argument. The problem is aspect ratio, not area, and it does not affect turning negatively (on the contrary, the F-35C would likely turn better below the speed of sound) but acceleration and roll response.
No it is not. A number of naysayers have specifically cited the F-35A’s (according to them) small wing area/high wing loading as ‘proof’ that it has poor agility.
***
The RN didn’t stick with STOVL because it’s what they know, they stuck with it because of the higher sortie generation rate, the ability to put birds in the air without having to rely on shipboard tech that can break down, and the ability to land aircraft in higher sea states, and much as I hate the F-35B as a design, it will do the job it has been designed for.
No, it stuck with STOVL because it was less expensive. STOVL higher sortie generation rate is due to shorter mission range…
pfcemI’m well aware of the relevant prices which matter the most here, thank you – e.g., the actual total Unit Procurement Cost which the USAF must be able to afford (or not).
Sure you do…that is why you call the #1 most important, greatest contributor to total cost (that of the aircraft itself) as irrelevant.
Please don’t play this game saying USAF has to buy the URF price. (and I’m sorry but you are incorrect, the Unit Flyaway Cost as well has gone UP from 2007 estimates)..
Tell that to the DOD negotiators have asked for a price for LRIP Lot 4 that is lower & who ever it is who has signed the checks for LRIP Lots 1-3 which have been lower.
Sir, there will not be year over year $12b appropriations budget solely for USAF’s sole F-35A Procurement. This is part of the damaging, one-dimensional and non-strategic-thinking misconception and confusion for making long-term policy decisions. You sound intelligent enough to be making better calculated financial forecasts than this (given the state of affairs going forward), I’m sorry.
It won’t require $12b appropriations budget solely for USAF’s F-35A Procurement.
These so-called bean counters are the ones who conceived of the whole ‘It will be cheap – so buy’ JSF Program and jammed it down and increasingly larger and larger and jucier throat. Now you bash them? Very interesting tactic. The very reason the jet was pumped as being precisely on schedule and highly affordable (along with synergistic industrial opportunities, sure), is the reason the entire Program was even justified and achieved the broad commitments early on. There’s just simply too much arrogant history revision going on here and blaming of Industry, etc. when the fundamental business scheme was flawed from inception.
Because if they hadn’t SWAT would not likely have been necessary & we could easily be 2+ years & $6+ billion ahead of where we are today.
***
I did, so? one can argue “logically” that bananas grow on the moon… it still won’t make it a reality. When you work for a company that has billions involved, you don’t come out and say publically “my boss screwed this up and will cost you more and more as time goes by”.
If he managed to get a Ph.D it doesn’t prove his competence, but only that he knows how to present facts logically to support his POV. You can get a Ph.D with any sort of thesis and the difference between you getting it or not will depend on your argumentation, not the reality or truthfulness of the thesis you defend.
I suggest you do some research on Dr. Thompson before making such remarks.
Finally, you get experts from the pentagon, DoD, independant, more or less everybody who looks a bit into the facts that says: this thing is way over budget and way late.. the only ones to say “it’s fine, almost not late and not that much over budget (for some “even under budget” in the end) strangely happen to be more often than not (actually almost exclusively, on LM-s payroll.. if you can’t see what that means, nobody on this board can help you…
No, they ignored the facts of the program & made projections based on previous programs.
Again, the underlining fact (aside from the projections not even made based on the program itself) is that contrary to what has been projected, actual cost of LRIP Lots has thus far (& the cost asked for by DOD negotiators for LRIP Lot 4) are below even 2007 projections much less these latest BS projections & have been tracking much closer to the Program’s projections that the DOD’s.
***
Case in point, re: those pre-conceived completely flawed FY15 Unit Procurement Costs (UPC) of $105m/ea… seriously (do you belive those?), even if USAF gets a blank check for procurement in FY15 those will NOT be priced anywhere close to $105m. Especially if block IV F-35A units.
With the fact that LRIP cost thus far have been below projections it takes some real intellectual dishonesty to think otherwise.
***
I did and they are total BS. Its a snow job trying to convince everyone that the F-35 program is suddenly underbudget a mere two months after admiting the program was overbudget and behind schedule.
Oh…guys your forgetting something else that’s very important….one word……inflation.
No, it is setting the record straight as to reality.
Nowhere in either article did Dr. Thompson say the program was underbudget…
Who is forgetting about inflation?
***
The rest of the article is much less interesting than the quotes from you own post #12 in this thread. Let me quote:
Dr. Thompson is not a paid consultant of LM.
Yes I have. How about you show either I or Dr. Thompson having been paid by LM…Embarassing, right? 😉
Not at all. Nobody has yet shown that I have received a dime from LM or (as the statements meant) that Dr. Thompson is being/has been paid by LM to spead lies about the F-35 program.
***
geogen,
Just one comment on your math. You are forgetting then year dollars…
pfcemI’ll just comment that while I agree with your assessment for justifying another 60+ block 35 F-22A, that option has been killed and will of course typical of policy making now be more expensive if the decision is determined to be reversed in the near-future.
And the option to procure additional F-15s &/or F-16s has been killed for quite some time.
Moreover, accelerating unproven, pre-mature, pre-SDD LRIP F-35 at $200+ million Procurement Cost (plus follow-on $ for necessary updates accordingly, prior to IOC) just doesn’t sound realistic, calculating or strategic. Besides, can the global industrial base even support that acceleration?
F-35A flyaway cost is below $200 million as of FY2010 & even total production cost as of FY2011.
F-35A unit costs from FY2011 budget ($ millions)
FY_________2010.___2011.___2012.___2013.___2014.___2015
Total Pro.___248.5___193.2___187.1___148.7___123.7___106.0
Wpn Sys____235.5___182.5___176.2___139.8___116.0___099.6
Flyaway..___191.5___149.0___140.4___114.5___098.2___087.0
The F-35 LRIP rates have already been cut from previous plans…the quicker you ramp up production (the more to build each year) the faster the cost will drop.
The more secure and strategic option would in fact be to continue w/ R&D and simultarneously procure combination of 4.5 Super Hornets/F-16++ and F-15++ until at least IOC is achieved and FRP justified. Furthermore, your new build F-15SG+ variant if ordered around say FY12 (very plausible in fact – tell the fat lady she’s early), would definitely be a strategic interim type ‘high end’ platform to augment the very required additional F-22s you note as being justified. And a proven and operational one at that..
No it would not, it would be a waste of time/money/effort which should otherwise be invested on the F-22 &/or F-35.
pfcemsuflanker45,
Read the two articles I posted to start the thread…
pfcemIf Clinton wasn’t elected to office, the USN would have a striker with a 1200 mile combat radius to replace the A-6 and USAF would have an F-111 replacement (which is what FB-22 was targeted for). That is what they really wanted (and still want). The USMC would have to suck it up and use F-18s, or better, GMLRS at the Battalion level. But Clinton was elected and F-35 was the best the services could get in the anti-military climate of the time.
My point is there is a performance difference between F-35A and F-35C for those partner nations who want to use their airplanes in OCA/DCA roles. The
True as that may be neither the USN A-6 replacement (which the USN somewhat got in the F/A-18E/F) nor the ‘USAF F-111 replacement (which the USAF somewhat got with the F-15E) are what the F-35 (or any of the earlier programs which ultimately led to it) ever was or intended to be. The USAF F-35A is a F-16 replacement, not a F-111 replacement & the USN F-35C is a F/A-18C/D replacement, not an A-6 replacement. More realistic/accurate would be to say that what Clinton did (although it is a bit unfair to blaim him without mentioning the context of the major defense cuts due to the end of the cold war – I & many others feel that the cuts should not have been so drastic & if they weren’t we would not be in as bad a situation as we are & have been in for quite some time) is cause the USAF F-16 replacement program, the USN F/A-18C/D replacement program & the USMC AV-8B replacement program to have all been combined into a single program. And whether said programs ultimately became one or not, the USAF F-16 replacement & the USN F/A-18C/D replacement would still be similar in size/weight to what the F-35A & F-35C are due to the USAF & USN requirements.
With a more pro-defense President during the 90’s instead of Clinton, something may have risen from the ashes of the A-12 to replace the A-6 & F-111 rather than the F/A-18E/F & F-15E but again those are separate from the F-35…
A is the hotrod with performance similar to F-16 Block 50. The C, well, not so much…
Yes but my point was that if what some here want everyone to believe were true the F-35C would be the hotrod with agility better than the F-35A due to its larger wing area & resulting lower wing loading (they appear to not realize that it is 2010, not 1910).
Sign In
