pfcembased on the fact that only France would/will really provide help about nuclear sub, aircraft carrier, space tech and a permanent seat at the security council.
For once, the (usually limited) political weight of France has some relevance in the deal.
You have to realize that this deal is not only about the planes.
So THE reasons for selecting the Rafale have nothing to do with the merits of the plane itself…
pfcemData from Lockheed Martin specifications, [210] [211] [212] F-35 Program brief, [63] F-35 JSF Statistics [60]
Empty weight: 29,300 lb (13,300 kg)
When you do stick to the old data from 2006.
I’m not.
2006 (PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION) data was 29,036 lbs. :p
POST WEIGHT REDUCTION data (given in 2007 program documents) IS 26,664 lbs.
Strangly enough, however, many 2008/2009 documents give the PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION data. I suspect that whoever ‘updated’ the PDF files edited a older 2006 file rather than the more up-to-dtae 2007 file.
Now you have this 29,300 lbs nonsense. That is 264 lbs HEAVIER than the PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION weight. You can also tell it is bunk because the likelyhood of all three varients weight actually being an exact factor of 100 lbs is astronomically small.
pfcemIn your neverending naiviety you have obviously missed the difficulty for clearance of new weapons. Check Typhoon’s story for that and why they had to test Meteors on Gripens. Now add all complexities of carriage and firing of internally mounted weapons on top of that.
ONE MORE TIME! Slight design changes to the Meteor were done IN 2005 to remove F-35 internal weapons bay clearance issues.
pfcemYes, the weights are higher.
However, they are also the only official weight numbers available on the Web, and note that the F-35C has the post-CDR wing size. AFAIK those are the most recent numbers to be released.
LOL
Why don’t you write to LockMart and tell them they are wrong?
Why should I do that? They ‘told’ me & everyone else who bothered to pay any attention what the POST WEIGHT REDUCTION weights are in 2007.
YOU are the one who should write to LM & ask how they could have possible spent two years & $6.2 billion on SWAT only to have the result be F-35s of the EXACT SAME weight or heavier (depending on which numbers YOU are fooled by) as they were BEFORE.
***
The F-35A is the weight of the F-4. In short, both are over 13 tons empty equipped, when the Typhoon is over 11 tons empty equipped.
Eurofighter Typhoon: ~24,250 lbs
F-35A Lightning II: 26,664 lbs
F-4E (definitive version): 30,328 lbs
For all to see you did not give the related data to bolster your claim.
Yes I have. MORE THAN ONCE. In fact someone else even posted an image of the exact page. The data comes from an unclassified JSF Program Overview breifing by Maj “Digger” Davis HQ ACC/ A8F 30 Oct 2007.
pfcemI find that very hard to believe that there is plenty of room for four Metors in each F-35 bay! Two, yes, no problem. Three…Hmm at a push but I doubt it. Four, I very much doubt it no matter how well you organise them, can’t help but think that if theres four Meteors or AMRAAMs in each bay, they’re going to be ending up twating one another when fired. saying that, I maybe wrong but whats wrong with just having two Meteors in each bay? More would be nice but four is okay and besides, don’t want too much weight to luggage around especially when the F-35 is heavy enough as it is.
I am sorry your understanding of just how much space there is inside the F-35’s weapons bays is so off. AGAIN, keep in mind that they are long enough to stagger AMRAAMs/Meteors giving PLENTY of fin clearance even when looking at them straight on it ‘look’ like they are in each other’s way.
MBDA already did the study & made changes to the Meteor IN 2005 to fit 2 (possibly 3) per bay. My understanding is that MBDA reduced the fin span slightly for it to work with the ‘trapeze/air-to-air’ station & redesigned the ramjet air intakes for TWO to work with the ‘air-to-ground’ station.
SOME people think (&/or want you to think) that 4 AAMs (2 per bay) isn’t enough…
Eight Meteors @ 407 lbs each in ‘just’ 3256 lbs…
***
He didn’t mention anything about weight, the issue here is space.
Yes he did. He implied that the 3256 lbs that Eight Meteors weigh would be a signifiant hindrance on the agility of the F-35.
***
I’d be interested in where you think the JSF sucks!
Areas like
workshare
Tech transfer
export versions
performance
soverignty issues
cost
delivery schedule ie LM’s past and present performance and inability to deliver on price and on time or even near time – near price.
or your take on how you think the project is progressing.If you could answer these without the need to rebutt others assertions I think we could get a clearer understanding of what you actually think, As a JSF apologist, your take on these issues would be most illuminating!.
Its always better to get the negatives from your side of the fence.
Cheers
The F-35 does not suck in any of those areas. :p
pfcempfcem:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/index.html
The weights you quoted earlier in this thread are between one and two tons lower than reality. That’s going to affect your W/L and T/W numbers a bit.
No, the weights I quote are the POST WEIGHT REDUCTION weights as given in program documents from 2007.
I don’t know what the numbers given on your link are (I have give some thoughts as to what they may be in a previous thread) but THINK ABOUT IT, those numbers are HIGHER than the PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTIONS numbers (see post #549).
pfcemFact is MBDA is working on a modified version of the Meteor which fits the F-35s weapon bays. This is not the stock version, it had to be modified to fit. So I wouldn’t bet my ass the F-35 will be able to carry 3 per bay.
Wrong. MBDA made slight alterations (shaved a couple/few mm off the fins & redesigned the ramjet air intakes) to the Meteor IN 2005 to accomodate its use with the internal weapons bays of the F-35. There is no separate ‘stock’ & ‘for F-35’ versions.
pfcemThe F-35 will have to perform separation tests with it before its approved.
Obviously as part of certification.
Still does not change the fact that there is NO reason to study if two Meteor would fit in each F-35 weapons bay.
pfcemI guess at this stage my question would be, what has changed between 240-3 and 240-4?
“Current” configuration (as of Sep 2009) is 4.7…
Well, the wing loading and T/W ratios are not great – that would not bode well for sustained turn performance.
Wing Loading (NOT AN ACCURATE REPRSETATION OF ACTUAL LIFT) & T/W ratios are BETTER than Block 52 F-16C.
pfcemmy feel is: had this board existed in the early ’90s, there may have been same discussion about “how perfectly handled the A-12 Avenger II program was”…. with no cost overruns, perfectly under projections and under budget… basically, a perfect example, set by real professionals of how things should be managed..
NOBODY is claiming such for the F-35. BUT the reality is that it is nowhere near as bad as SOME want you to believe.
***
Slightly unrelated question:
I’ve heard a fair ammount of whining from the US Navy about the F-35, threatening to pull out etc, but I can’t work out what their alternative is.
Is there anything, other than yet more F-18E/Fs that they could get on time and on budget?
Well, apart from the Rafale :diablo::D:D
The USN isn’t whinning about OR THREATENING TO PULL OUT of the F-35. There are of course those who want you to believe that…
***
Pcfem, you just made my entire point…
Actually the one who has been writing for years in this same forum that the JSF program was bound to sufer development delays, numbers slashed, cost increases, it wasnt neither you or Spudman, it was me.
You have been, in this entire forúm, the most ferocious proponent of the “Everything is going fine with the JSF development, it will be cheaper than the SH, the nay sayers will eat humble pie, you are all a bunch of guys in denial” and your favorite phrase “LOL”…
Finaly after all this time, you have just discovered the basic fact that developing a stealth strike fighter with (roughly) the size and weight of an F-4 Phantom in three diferent versions including STOVL, is bloody expensive, and that unit costs are probably going to be much higher then the “bench mark” that LM imposed himself, the Viper, or if you prefer, the Boeing Super Hornet.
I am very touched that finaly, you have actually give me reason, thank you.Cheers
BS. I have NEVER said there would not be any delays or any year-to-year buy reductions or total program cost increases OR that “everything is going fine with the JSF development”. What I HAVE said is that all of that is nowhere near as bay as the naysayers make it out to be AND that none of it is out of line with past fighter programs.
The F-35 isn’t the size OR weight of an F-4. The size & weight of the F-35A is quite close to the Eurofighter Typhoon.
And what YOU continue to ignor dismiss in the face of the facts is that the PRODUCTION COST of the F-35 is tracking quite close to projections – JUST LIKE THE F-22 & F/A-18E/F before, the per unit cost is getting lower & lower with each & every lot procured.
pfcemOf course there is need.. Meteor is not AMRAAM, F-35 is not yet cleared for four Meteor internally.
No there is no need. There is nothing special/different about the Meteor vs AMRAAM that would require such.
Neither the F-35 nor the Meteor are operational. The day both are, the F-35 will be cleared for four Meteor internally. And by the time any Air Force has a significant number of both, the F-35 will likely be cleared for six Meteor internally.
I have never claimed 4 AAMs was too few… Even 2 AAMs is pretty much enough..
I am pretty sure YOU were one of those ‘singing the chorus’ that the F-35 sucks because it can only carry four AAMs internally.
Only in your dreams. Spending money on such hypothetical loadouts would make the F-35 only more expensiove without any reasonable added value.
Tell that to all those (& again I am pretty sure that includes YOU) who fault the F-35 for a ‘inadequite’ internal weapons load of ‘just’ four AAMs or two AAMs + two AtG munitions.
PLUS, don’t forget that we aren’t getting half the number of F-22 we need & you know we aren’t going to be getting any more F-35s any faster to make up for that so the F-35s will have to rely more on self escort…
pfcemBelow what projections?
The projections of production cost made prior to production.
if it was true:
– why would anyone bother to remember Nunn-McCurdy in the first place?
– why did the congress have to reduce orders?
– why did the have to refinance development?
1. What does remembering Nunn-McCurdy have to do with anything?
2. It didn’t have to.
3. Because it spends WAY too much money on things that it should not be spending money on.
you claim costs less than projected and still, there’s more and more money pouring in it… now, there are only two possibilities:
a/ you’re completely on another planet (figuratively speaking)
b/ somebody is getting very very rich with taxpayers’ moneymy bet goes on “a”
c/ The ACTUAL cost of production has been below what it was projected to be.
***
Complete denial, yes, you are very good in that department.
Now lets see some real hard data…
The 100$ million mark in February 2007 was going to be crossed in 2012, in February 2008 it was in 2013, in February 2010 it went to 2014. Now, i can imagine what we are going to find in February 2011…
The estimated flyaway unit cost of the F-35A for the Fiscal year 2010, in February 2007 was going to be 162,5$ million, in February 2008 it was going to be 158,5$ million (HURRAH), in May 2009 it went to 188,4$ million, and finaly we do discover in February 2010 that the actual number is 191,9$ million.
Bellow projections? Maybe in Mars.
I am not the one in denial.
But thanks for showing what SpudmanWP & I have been saying all along, how the per unit cost of produring/building fewer (of ANYTHING) is higher than it is for more.
***
February 2007 – predicted Unit Fly Away Cost for FY 2009 – 199,3$ million
Bill in February 2009 – 211,7$ millionFebruary 2008 – predicted Unit Fly Away Cost for FY 2010 – 158.5$ million
Bill in February 2010 – 191,9$ million
Feb 2007 for FY2009 was for 8 airframes.
Feb 2009 for FY2009 was for 7 airframes.
Feb 2008 for FY2010 was for 12 airframes.
Feb 2010 for FY2010 was for 10 airframes.
Do you STILLL not get it?
pfcemhello sports fans, can the F-35 carry the Harpoon internally? or any other anti ship missile?
The F-35A/C internal A2G station can physically accommodate any weapon <13′ long, <30″ span & <‘2500 lbs’.
A Harpoon with folding fins (like those fired from the Mk 141 launcher) ‘fits’ within these criteria – note that the span of the non-folding fins air-launched Harpoon is 36″.
pfcemPentagon will move forward, even if only one bidder
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON, Feb 3 (Reuters) – The Pentagon wants Boeing Co (BA.N) and Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N) to compete for billions of dollars of orders for a new aerial refueling plane, but will press ahead even if there is only one bidder, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday.
“Obviously, we would like to have a competition for it and we hope that both companies will agree to participate,” Gates told the House Armed Services Committee.
“But should that not prove to be the case, we … have to move forward,” Gates said, when pressed on how the Pentagon would respond if one of the companies dropped out. “It’s been delayed too long. We need to get this thing started.”
More to the article for those who wish to read the whole thing.
pfcemThe aircraft will cost too much even without it, whether local fanclub likes it or not. All calculations provided by LM are hardly more worth than toilet paper until 70-80% of testing is done without finding any significant redesign issues.
One should be honest, that it won´t be much cheaper than F-22, so it would make sense to buy more of those and buy new legacy fighters to replace worn out G-16,F-15 and F-18.
Complete denial of the facts. LRIP costs are BELOW projections. Even the proposed FY2011 budget projects/esimated flyaway unit cost of the F-35A BELOW $100 million beginning in FY2014.
Sign In
