pfcemNo they don’t and I have pointed it out multiple times now.
Yes they do. You wishing it were otherwise does not change that.
The characteristics linked to this or that generation are a loosely listing and that’s it.
No they are not. You wishing it were otherwise does not change that.
These characteristics are usually introduced with a generation, that doesn’t mean any single aircraft of that generation features all of them!
Not true. You wishing it were otherwise does not change that.
Supercruise in the form of that achieved by the F-22 is such an example. This capability hasn’t existed before in that form, therefore it’s seen as a 5th generation characteristic, though there are aircraft like the F-35 which doesn’t feature it. The same is true with regards to FBW systems or glass cockpits on 4th generation fighters, not all of them feature those, while these characteristics are linked to this generation.
No, supercruise is/was a characteristic SPECIFIC to the F-22, not to 5th generation fighters as a whole – just as Mach 2+ & large BVR radar were specific to the F-14/F-15 but not 4th generation fighters.
FBW & class cockpit are not defining characteristics of 4th generation fighters.
Nonsense, see above.
Not nonsense, reality that you & other wish was not.
I’m not changing the definition, I point out that the US definition is not the sole one and I’m pointing out that the “oh it lacks stealth so it’s just a half generation above or below” is absolute nonsense.
Yes you are. You are specifically trying to include &/or exclude generation defining characteristcs for the purpose of including &/or excluding specific fighters from the established generations.
***
Well, according to RFI for “next generation fighter” aka “ATF” aka “5th gen fighter”,
requirements:
supercruise 1.4-1.5, STOL, cheaper and faster maintenance then previous gen, reduced/LO RCS.
Once agian, you are confusing (or deliberatley misrepresenting) SPECIFIC requirements/characterists of the F-22 as defining characteristics of 5th generation fighters as a whole.
***
… let me guess. you have.. what’s your background, anyway? From your expertise so far I’d guess a pizza baker…
I have enough of a basic understanding to know what is meant by “the RCS the size of a x” or “a RCS of x sq m” refers to.
Where?
What do you mean where? I recall at least three separate press reports, the 1st stated “the size of a marble” & “theis size of a golf ball”, the 2nd stated “-40 db” & “-30 db” and the 3rd stated BOTH “marble/-40 bd” & “golf ball/-30 db”.
No, they haven’t, only your lies about supercruise being not in the original requirements.
Yes they have. You chosing to ignor/disrequard them does not change that.
BS. Stealth was not in the original requirements, supercruise was from the very start.
Like Scorpion82, you are confusing (or deliberatley misrepresenting) SPECIFIC requirements/characterists of the F-22 as defining characteristics of 5th generation fighters as a whole.
***
So if F-35 doesn’t supercruise M 1.5 minimum it isn’t a 5th gen. fighter ?
Again, you are confusing (or deliberatley misrepresenting) SPECIFIC requirements/characterists of the F-22 as defining characteristics of 5th generation fighters as a whole.
As much as you WISH it were not true, the F-35 IS a 5th generation fighter. It has ALL the defining characteristics of a 5th generation fighter.
pfcemIt will be interesting to see if build hours can be brought back to target. If not, the flyaway cost per unit is going to rise a lot more above the projected cost, isn’t it? I assume the employees of LM are not prepared work 50+% more hours without being paid for them.
Quite the opposite, the latest projections assume the target is never reached.
If you look at the estimated vs actual hours chart on page 15 of the GAO report you can see the rate of reduction (the angle of decline of the line) is in line with projections except for not achieve the rather steep decline over the 1st few airframes.
For another perspective…
Aircraft AF-1, the first production-representative conventional-takeoff-and-landing F-35A, entered final assembly a year ago only 88% complete, with more than 250 parts missing and over 1,000 hr. of traveled work. By comparison, AF-2 entered final assembly 98% complete, 35 parts short and with 250 hr. of traveled work. “The improving trend began after the first four aircraft,” he says.
Of the 19 development airframes, 13 have been delivered to ground testing or the flight line and the remaining six are in final assembly. The last of them, AF-4, came out of the mate fixture in late November. “We’ve seen one-third reductions in span time and hours per aircraft over development and traveled work is down 90%,” Crowley says. “But it took longer to turn the corner than we allowed for.”
One of the biggest contributors to the improvement, he says, is the “unwinding” of the wing mate overlap—uncompleted assembly work traveling with the wing to the mate fixture and resulting from late delivery of systems following a wing redesign. With the first five LRIP aircraft now in mate, Crowley says Lockheed Martin is seeing ship-over-ship improvements. Learning curve percentages are in the mid-70s, he says, meaning improvements of 20-30%, compared with the 90s early in development. “We’ve reduced aircraft cost 50% over the first four LRIP lots. That’s a great curve.”
pfcemRCS=size of marble?
RCS=size of golf ball?
Look, even disregarding all other effcts on an incident EM wave, such as diffraction, refraction, re-transmission, etc. the strength of the reflection is dependant on the frequency (or wavelength, as they are inversely proportional and related by c) of the incident radiation. For example, a black marble will absorb visible radiation while a white marble will reflect a lot more of it. If both are placed against a non radiating background (black), I will spot the white one at a much greater distance. If we now use infra-red to look for the black and white marbles, and assuming they are at equal temperatures, I will spot them at similar distances.
So, an RCS the size of a marble, or a golf ball, or a hot air balloon for that matter, means absolutely nothing unless the conditions such as temperature and frequency (incident, reflected and scanning as there are cases when they can differ) are specified.
I’m not sure if comparisons to golf balls or marbles are anything more than public-relations exercises. What do they mean in practice? An RCS equal to the area of a golfball? An RCS equal to that of a metal sphere the size of a golf ball? The resulting figures will be very different.
From what I know (admittedly second hand) about the symposium where they were used, the figures I’ve cited probably are the best unclassified values that you are going to get for the foreseeable future.
Another point from the same symposium that is relevant to this thread is that the participants seemed perfectly happy with the term ‘third generation’ being used to refer to the ‘teen’ series fighters and their non-US equivalents, and ‘fourth generation’ being applied to designs such as the Eurocanards.
AFAIK its always been ‘RCS equal to that of a metal sphere the size of a golf ball’, etc.
I see that none of you even have the most basic understanding of what a RCS is OR how it is expressed.
***
Source?
The US DOD.
Funny that you have mentioned for at least 5th time that most know and agree to the definitions but you still haven’t provided any.
Because they have already been provided.
BTW, you got it wrong. Stealth is unimportant, supercruise is the all defining parameter.. If I can fly M3.0+ for the whole time of my mission, then I can have RCS like neighbour’s garage and I can afford not to care much about it..
No YOU are wrong. All aspect stealth IS a required characteristic of 5th generation fighters, supercruise is not.
And since you are so uniformed, the SR-71 flew Mach 3+ (& at very high altitude) MOST of the time but it was retired because not even that was enough to keep it safe anymore.
F-22 frontal RCS – <0.01sqm
F-35 frontal RCS – <0.1sqm
Off by two orders of magnitude.
***
It is surprising that you still seem to miss the point, while I have made it clear a couple of times now. It’s exactly the point that even aircraft of the same generation feature some unique capabilities and performances, that doesn’t put them into a different generation.
Yes, but they DO share THE defining characteristics of their generation.
And upgrading one type doesn’t automatically result in a new generation label either. The US doesn’t define 5th generation as stealth, it is one part of the features linked to that definition. Others include NCW capabilities, fully integrated avionics, sensor fusion etc. The point is a Eurofighter and Rafale for example offer very much the same things apart from all aspect stealth, though they include signature reduction measures, it’s a small form owed to the requirements. The F-35 doesn’t supercruise, why? Because it wasn’t required to do so.
Thus the Eurofighter & Rafale are not 5th generation fighters since they lack (by your own admission) one of the defining characteristics of 5th generation fighters. The F-35 OTOH is a 5th generation fighter because it DOES have ALL the defining characteristics of 5th generation fighters.
As I said at the end it doesn’t really matter which generation label you apply, because it doesn’t change a tad about their capabilities and that’s what counts at the end of the day.
Then why are you so hell bent on changing the definition of a 5th generation fighter?
***
A metal ball the size of a marble and golf ball to be more precise.
No, a circular disk the 2D AREA OF a marble/golf ball.
***
Yet you fail to provide anything to back that assertation…as you do with many other assertations. :rolleyes:
Restating your beliefs over and over again with no evidence other than marketing material to back them is not going to convince any reasonable thinking person that your beliefs are worth the time of day.
But i don’t think actually convincing anybody is the reason you post is it…;)
Don’t play dumb. You have seen the evidence on this very forum.
***
Since no-one at the symposium interrupted the briefer to suggest that his chart might be wrong, I’lm happier with the idea that there is only one magnitude of difference between the generation four (the Eurocanards) and the F-35.
I take the PUBLICLY RELEASED statements of the US DOD over some symposium for which ZERO evidence has been given that is not fictitious.
pfcemyou said it’s delayed relatively to 2007 schedule, and the 2007 schedule is an already several times delayed schedule, so you, indeed, admitted it’s delayed from a delayed schedule, like it or not… it’s not months but years late, period
But that is/was already evident, I did not ‘finally admit’ it.
***
Zzzzzzzzzzz… wake me up when you have finished the BS.
Let me know when you have woken up from your fantasy.
The FACTS are that LRIP lot have been BELOW projected cost & the F-35 has been meeting or exceeding all performance projections.
***
toan,
Note that ‘fly away cost’ does in fact include a few things IN ADDITION TO the cost of the aircraft itself.
pfcemSo given two fully integrated air warfare systems one utilising the F35 and the other the Su, Rafale or Typhoon (you choose) with all the supporting units, air, sea and land, can you supply a detailed plan for the F35 “owning” the opposing fighters in both the offensive and defensive scenarios.
You are very sure in all of your statements so i presume that you must have such plans drawn up.
Cheers
Oh can you set this in the 2018 timeframe please. (Just joking on that ;))
You don’t need a ‘detailed plan’. It is not that difficult.
***
In fact they are not silent when it comes to stealth. There is little known about real RCS values. The only fact that we can somehow depend on is that F-35’s stealth lags behind the one of the F-22 and is probably superior to Typhoon (the latter being an assumption but a fairly likely one).
I’d be extremely interested in having frontal RCS values of F-22, F-35 and some Eurocanards. I would be keen on to learn how far do these differ from each other and especially whether F-35 is closer to Typhoon or closer to F-22…
If Typhoon or Gripen approach F-35 in terms of frontal RCS (which cannot be ruled out for the moment), then therre is very little to support some ‘next generation’ claim. Of course, you will find many people who claim they do know (pfcem, if noone else) but noone really has an idea.
The frontal RCS of all have already been given (the F-22 & F-35 by the USAF/DOD). The F-35 is MUCH closer to the F-22 that the Typhoon (& other 4.5 generation fighters) being just one order of magnitude larger than the F-22 but TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE smaller than the Typhoon (& other 4.5 generation fighters). Not only that but we knbow that the F-22 & F-35 have ALL ASPECT stealth (reduced RCS & IR signature) AND that they will more than likley be fighting clear (thus retaining their full stealth characteristics in combat configuration) while the Typhoon (& other 4.5 generation fighters) will be carrying external payloads (weapons & drop tanks) with will increase their RCS considerably.
***
I have to disagree, it’s maybe your opinion but not mine and I think others don’t feel represented by the “we” as well. It has nothing to do with the F-35 at all. It’s much more about the fact that particularly US fanboys declare the US definition of jet fighter generations as the one and only true, even denying that there exists any other definitions, which is obviously wrong as proven a thousand times in previous discussions. In the end those narrow minded ignorants do what they can do best, ignore the facts and continue to shout out the ever same, lame and often enough wrong proven arguments.
If someone other than the US is the 1st to come out with the next generation of fighter then they can decide what does & does not define that generation.
I see that people like sferrin have a tendentiously similar opinion, but it breaks at some point. I think we can all agree that those generation definitions are thumb rules or loosely guidelines, not “must have all of this criteria”. The break comes when people attempt to class a Eurofighter or Rafale into the same generation as the F-22 because they virtually feature most of what is offered by the F-22, except for all aspect stealth (and supercruise in the re-invented/defined sense of M1.5+). But you find similar materials being used in the airframe construction, new FCS and engine technologies, cockpit layouts, avionics integration, sensor fusion, network centric warfare capabilities etc.
Wrong, ther ARE generation definitions & aside form a minority with a problem with the fact that a particular fighter they like does not meet the definition of a particular generation most both know & agree to what they are.
All aspect stealth as in the case of the F-22 is owned to very specific requirements as is supercruise. No one even wastes a second to class any of the teens/teenskis into different generations, just because some of them feature very unique capabilities or unmatched performances in some areas. This is all owed to the requirements. For some reason those people are incapable to apply the very same measurement to the current generation of jet fighters.
That is because the 1st of a generation is not THE definition of a generation but that there are few specific characteristics which DO. In the case of 5th generation fighters, all aspect stealth is one of those characteristics but supercruise is not.
***
But I understand from Mercurius Cantabrigiensis that at a recent technical symposium where the effects of RCS reduction on radar capability were discussed, the attendees seemed fairly happy with the idea that aircraft such as the Eurocanards and Super Hornet were in the 1 – 0.1 square metre class, the F-35 was probably in the 0.1 – 0.01 square metre class, while the F-22 was in the 0.01 – 0.001 square metre class.
F-22 frontal RCS = ‘size of a marble’ = ~0.0001-0.0002 sq m
F-35 frontal RCS = ‘size of a golf ball’ = ~0.0014 sq m
pfcemas 2007 was an already delayed schedule, you finally agree it’s behind an already delayed schedule.. thank you for finally admitting it
I did not ‘finally admit’ anything. My initial statment should have been clear enough to anyone who has bothered to follow the program to any significant degree. If anything YOU ‘finnaly’ got what I said.
***
Competition for the F-35C?
No, more like a USN carrier-borne equivalent of the Predator C/Avenger.
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=3c621aa3f10b785132ca7c2abdabf75f&tab=core&_cview=1
***
So far we know that the promised price will most likely not be met. The promised performance stays open…
Not true. So far the F-35 has benn BELOW ‘promised’ price & meeting or exceeding ‘promised’ performance.
pfcemYou are mistaken that it has anything to do with LM. Look, nobody complained when F-22 was put in a separate generation, even if the 5th gen requirements were set to fit the Raptor because everyone felt that the F-22 was indeed superior to other designs in almost every performance aspect.
The whole thing started when LM F-35 was claimed to be 5th gen and requirements were silently pushed so that F-35 somehow fits in. Just like you have said – cannot meet standard, attack the standard.
You are correct that it has nothing to do with LM (it was the USAF which defined it) but incorrect in the notion that the F-22 is THE definition of a 5th generation fighter &/or that that requirements where changed so that the F-35 fit.
Was the F-16A not a 4th generation fighter because it did not have the Mach 2+ top speed &/or large BVR radar of the F-14 & F-15?
Seeing what the F-35 has become, many Euro-fans or Su-fans have started to ask – THIS should be one generation beyond my [insert typical favorite non-US design]???? THIS fat sluggish POS? Puhleeeze…
That so called ‘fat sluggish POS’ is not fat nor sluggish nor a POS & will OWN those Euro-fans AND Su-fans fighters.
Conclusion: the problem with generations has little to do with LM themselves and everything to do with F-35. In the eyes of the aviation community, performance wise the aircraft looks to be somewhat of a disappointment and certainly not worthy to be placed in an exclusive category one level higher than Typhoon or Rafale. Note that not even in this thread anyone questions F-22 being in a 5th gen category, everyone is pi..ed with F-35 being there. 🙂
No there is no problem with generations, just fans of 4th/4.5 generation fighter unable to accept that their favorite fighter (as good as they are) have been bested by a new generation of fighters with defining characteristics which make them 5th generation fighters.
pfcemIt would make more sense to categorize each subsystem of an aircraft and not limit ourselves to five generations. Take radars for example. The ground attack and air intercept radars are merging today. However, each type had a different evolution process to get there. The same can be said of just about every other subcomponent from radio to rack mount, from windshields to whatever other graularity you want to argue about. From a superficial standpoint the 5 generations typically cited are more than adequate.
To quibble over loose definitions is nonsense.
For the most part many/most sysbsystems DO have their own separat ‘generation’ categorization. Ther is no “5” limit, 5 just happens to be the number of fighter (actually jet fighter but the “jet” part stopped being used starting with the 3rd generation) generations we have had so far. Not that the F/A-18E/F replacement (F/A-XX) is already being described as a 6th generation fighter.
Ground attack & air intercept radars merged decades ago.
***
Because without that organisation to give us very clear definitions using generations within a forum to make a point is pointless. I think Scorpion82 makes the point very well, there are aircraft that don’t fit into your very loose definition that you very happily define as a particular generation.
As I said I accept that you can label aircraft into generations but I don’t accept it as a useful metric for comparative discussion. My main problem is people like Pfcem coming onto the forum and sayiing that X aircraft is just inferior or superior because it fits into whatever they personally define as a generation ignoring all the different aspects of avionics and weapons.
BS. Most (you can deny it all you want) know the clear definitions & how useful they are.
I have not personally definded ANY fighter generation – others have already done that.
AND (as much as you wich to deny) it the very characteristics that place a given fighter in a ‘higher’/newer generation DO make them superior to ‘lower’/older generation fighters.
***
The whole debate makes no sense. Since there is no definition of generations, people like pfcem will lie their a..es out claiming that SC was never defined as requirement for 5h gen, even if it’s obvious that if his favorite F-35 was able to achieve M1.0 without AB for even a second and Eurocanards were not, then he would be the first one to jump on this topic.
The situation is clear – someone wants F-22 and F-35 to be in a separate category, in order to play out his superiority complex. And that is all that matters. All foreign designs will be sent to 4.5, 4+++, 4.99 or whatever ridiculous categories just so they don’t make it to the 5th gen. And defiinitions will be constantly set up anew and shifted in order to fit the idea of F-22 and F-35 being one whole league beyond anything else.
You can now spend another 20 pages bickering but I simply don’t find a single line of what people like pfcem write here worth answering.
Yes there ARE definitions of the fighter generations and supercruise IS NOT among those that define 5th generation fighters (despite those who wish to deny it).
That ‘someone’ who wants the F-22 & F-35 in a differerent category is the US military & the requirements the F-22 & F-35 were designed & built to CLEARLY do put them in a different category than previous fighters (thus the justification of a new generation). The definitions have NOT shifted, that is just a game those who don’t like the definitions play to avoid admitting they are wrong.
***
what’s funny is that all that generations stuff was done several times, and every person defining them seems to have his own idea… some stated:
1st gen:
WWI fighters, basically, they start the thing
2nd gen:
Closed cockpit, heavyier fixed armament, last prop fighters (WWI, basically)
3rd gen:
jet fighters, still mg/canon armed plus eventually rear quarter IR missiles… basically, it’s still about dogfight, but with performance way over the previous ones (me262, f-86, P-80, mig 15)
4th gen:
generalised supersonic performance, electronics are used pretty much, radar, BVR missile-armed fighters (fighters like the F-4 and, basically, everything made after 1960)
5th gen:
stealthy, very integrated avionics, datalink, etc…
that’s more or less what I’ve read as “generations definition” until now. one can always argue about this or that point, but it gives a general idea
Wrong.
It is actually “1st generation JET fighters” but the “jet” part stopped being used starting with the 3rd generation.
And the only people with “there own ideas” are those who (for what ever reasons) have some problem with the established definitions & play the game of ‘there are no definitions so everyone is free to make up theri own & do to suit their own purposes’.
***
No? Who are you going to kid?
So try again pcfem. Obviously Lockmarts own stuff, not that from APA. And this was just a quick search.
Defining factors like multirole capabilities, FBW technology or glass cockpits which couldn’t be found on all aircraft of the 4th generation for example… :rolleyes:
That’s your guys problem, those things are rough guidelines not “must have”. If you would define it to closely you would be forced to invent a new generation label for different types within a generation.
I am not kidding anybody.
All you are doing it referencing descriptions of the F-22 (your 2nd one even EMPHISIZES that fact with “This 5TH generation fighter”) but the F-22 is NOT what defines 5th generation fighters just as the F-22’s level of stealth does not define VLO. You are doing just as I said & accepting the BS APA premis that the F-22 IS what defines 5th generation fighters & thus any fighter that does not have EVERY characteristic of the F-22 is not a 5th generation fighter.
Try this one…it describes 5th generation fighters & NOT just the F-22.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/capabilities/air_power/5th-gen/index.html
And try a google (or other search engine) search or heaven forbid try a trip the the library (or book store)…
pfcemNo, you are wrong. If you want to take domestic AF figures, then RAF Typhoon F2s are something over $55mil flyaway.
I agree. But your claimed price of Typhoon/Rafale worth up to $120 million each, too, is contract price WITH ALL OPTIONS EXERCISED.
For comparison I prefer to use comparable figures, not just figures that make your favorite plane look good.
No I am NOT wrong. We have had this discussion about the cost of the Rafale & Typhoon several times here & EVERY TIME it has been shown by MANY POSTERS that depending on the games you play with exchange rate & such that the flyaway cost of the Rafale & Typhoon end up ~$80-120 million.
pfcemwhen? the programe wasn’t started and scheduled before? man.. according to your post:
– they started working on JSF in early 90’s saying “we’ll schedule the whole stuff in 2007.. no problem”
– the F-35 went on in 2001 saying “no projections yet, we’ll make one in 2007, you’ll see”
etc…
come on, a 2 year old would come with a better argument than that
I can not make it any more clear. When LM & the Program Office tell you the program is ~6 months behind schedule, they mean ~6 months behind the 2007 schedule. When JET PROJECTED that the program COULD fall 24-30 months behind schedule, they mean 24-30 months behind the 2007 schedule. LM & the Program Office are telling the ACTUAL STATUS of the program, JET is PROJECTING (& not even based on the actual status of the program) how far it COULD fall behind.
pfcemMadRat,
Wrong on all counts.
The USN F-35 is required to be just as stealthy as the USAF & USMC variants. There are no ‘lower stealth’ export versions, EVERY current customer is getting full stealth. Can you even imagine the maintanence nightmare of different stealth levels within the same service? Good God the primary purpose of the JOINT PROGRAM is commonality yet you want to make them even MORE different then they already are. Not to mention that IF there were different levels of steathe EACH level would require separate development, testing & verification.
Do you even bother to read. We ARE getting simplest form of the F-35 out the door first, its called Block 1 & isn’t even intended as a service block (all early block aircraft are to be upgraded to full service block shortly after IOC of the full service block – which is Block 2 for the USMC and Block 3 for the USAF & USN) AND we have mapped out to Block 7.
No, the F-35A DOES NOT require a more thorough flight test regime OR has more risk than the Navy’s F-35C model – quite the opposite in fact as the F-35C not only has ALL the F-35A flight test regime but has the ADDITION of carrier qualification. The F-35A is the lowest risk as it is the base model the F-35B & F-35C are based on.
YOU HAVE THE PRIORITIES BACKWORDS. The F-35B is given priority because it is the most urgently needed (the USMC is even accepting the ‘lesser’ Block 2 for IOC because of it) & the F-35C is given the lowest priority because it is the least urgently needed.
pfcemYour own listing shows that a clear cut is often not possible. The problem with that 5th generation definition nowadays is that some smarties in the US closely defined it around the very specific technologies and capabilities of the F-22. Supercruise was in fact one of the defining capabilities, as are integrated avionics, NCW, AESA, supermanoeuvrability and stealth. These are things repeatedly claimed by LM as 5th gen features. You’ll find that there are quite some aircraft which feature most of them, though not all or not to the very same extend. Does it make them a “below 5th generation” design? Just take a look at the very different technologies and capabilities of the aircraft which are considered as 4th generation. You’ll see that there are quite some differences. The F-14 and MiG-29 lacked FBW for example, the F-15 and Su-27 didn’t have a full FBW only FCS, while other types like the F-16 or F/A-18 have full FBW systems. The Hornet was actually the only fighter with a real glass cockpit in its basic layout. The Hornet was Viper where also the first to be truly multirole capable…
As you can see from the few examples above, there are a lot of differences, yet all those types are considered to be of the very same generation. Funny enough that the lack of one or two features (or just the level) is now seen as enough to disqualify this or that platform. Hell I see even those dumb ignorants claiming the PAK FA is at best 4.5 gen, because it likely lacks the same level of stealth as the F-22 or F-35… Sorry but how pathetic must someone be?
No 5th generations was not defined specifically around the F-22 (quite the opposite in fact) and Supercruise has NEVER been a defining characteristic of 5th generation fighters – that is simply APA (& the like) BS meant to try & convince the ignorant that the F-35 is not a 5th generation fight because it is not the F-22.
Yes there IS (& always has been) significant disparity among fighters of any particular generation but there has ALWAYS been specific defining characrteristics which are required for classification as particular generation.
pfcemSpudman,
that’s fine, but this was already a revised schedule. Back in the mid 90s when the JSF programme was launched the specified date was 2008, not 2010. And even if you just take that schedule from 2001, the year where the X-35 was selected as the winning design, it’s clearly more than 6 month behind schedule. The point is that pfcem appears to try to draw a wrong picture by taking the revised schedules as the starting point and not those originally specified. And that’s why his attempts look somewhat ridiculous. I don’t know why it is so difficult for some to accept the hard facts. I mean it’s nothing special or unique to the F-35, virtually all modern military aircraft programmes are running behind schedule and above cost, the Super Hornet is an exception here and the Gripen was at least not that bad in comparison to other programmes like the F-22, F-35, Eurofighter or Su-34 for that matter. I don’t see the reasoning behind that kind of denial, does he benefit in any way from twisting the truth or why does he desperately try to “sell” us that nonsense?I suppose the 2008 figure from the beginning of the JSF programme was more some kind of date specified by the potential customer (not sure on that).
Once again…
The 2007 schedule as the baseline everyone (LM, the JSF/F-35 program office, the USAF/USN/USMC/DOD, JET et cetera) has been using!
***
Big projects like this require forethought to evolve; instead they are trying to run before they’ve even taken a footstep. And they keep adding stuff to it before it has even flown outside the prototype form; how do you hit a moving target?!
A better analogy is they are trying to take each step at a faster pace than the previous. And just what has been added?
It would have helped if they got the USN version out first and made the initial USAF purchase the same until a dedicated land-version was developed. The F-35A should have been the designation for the -C model and the landbased version the -B model, with a whole new model number for the current -B model.
F-35A = current F-35C; bigger wing
F-35B = current F-35A
F-24? = current F-35B; VTOL
Totally wrong. The USN at least has been getting new fighters. The USAF (& the USMC even MORE so) need to start recapitalizing their fleets more urgently than the USN. And just why should the USMC version have a whole different model number?
Take a page out of the Phantom II program and keep the costs down early on by starting with a simpler goal. The navalized -A model wouldn’t need to be the super stealth level initially, it could be a block 30 or 40 goal, with block 20 more concerned with electronic integration of gee whiz-ardry. BOTH services should be forced to use the -A model. As time allows get out the new -B model would be a more specialized land version that aims for the highest level of stealth sought. Lowest priority should be the VTOL version that has the most risk.
That funny. The USMC is staring off with Block 2, the USAF & USN a little later with the Block 3 and we already have mapped out to Block 7. And quite to the contrary the intital service version DOES need full stealth – maintenance on stealth is bad enough without different Block versions being totally different.
pfcemTell that your grandma. Originally specified ISD was 2008 for the USMC… 6 month behind the revised schedules. :rolleyes:
According to pfcem, it’s never late, because every time it looks as if will be, the schedule is revised.
I wonder if he tries that at work? “Whaddya mean, I’m late? According to the schedule I drew up on the way here, I’m bang on time. You lot are early.” “What’s that? Sacked?” 😀
The 2007 schedule is the schedule JET used in projecting a possible delay of 2+ years. As is ACTUALLY the case the program in nowhere near that far behind, if it were the vertical landing would not occure for another year & a half. The 2007 schedule had the 1st vertical landing occuring in the 3rd quarter of 2009, it occured in the 1st quarter of 2010.
Note I AM NOT saying that the program can not or even will not fall further behind (although the fact that things are improving does make that less of a likelyhood – just wait & see what happens once all 13 test aircraft are deiliverd :)) but FAR too many people are taking JET projections (not even based on the status of the program) as meaning the program IS 2+ year behind & IS 60-90% over budget.
pfcemJSF Price Jumps to $135 Million
By Greg Grant Friday, March 19th, 2010 2:28 pm
Posted in Air, Policy
Yet another misleading headline…
This is the same numbers/data that has been out since Mar 11th (the $80-95 million average per unit production cost) but are per unit TOTAL PROGRAM COST in then year dollars (very misleading give the difference in the value of a dollar over such a long period of time). As I posted earlier, these numbers/data calculate to an average unit flyaway cost of ~$81.91-97.27 million in FY2010 dollars. Nevermind that it is all based on JET II rather than reality.
This week saw the F-35B STOVL version of the JSF complete a first ever hover and first ever vertical landing.
Note how THIS occured ~6 months (not 2+ years) behind scheduled.
Sign In
