pfcemPfcem, I see you got into another of your deliriums…and apparently still haven’t learn the difference between flyway cost and program price.
Stop projecting your faults onto me.
Although I suspect that you are deliberately ‘confusing/misrepresenting’ different costs rather than not knowing the difference since the difference HAS been explained to you. BUT it would not be the first (or the last I suspect) time you simply have not gotten (will not get) such things that are explained to you.
So, USNavy says F35 costs $196.6m in 2009 and will cost $187.6m in 2010 of flyaway price, only. That makes ~$240m of total procurement price in 2009 and ~$236m in 2010 and program price is still moot since the total number of manufactured aircraft is still unknown.
Thanks for demonstrating how ignorant/disingenuous you are.
How many airframes were procured in FY2009? How many in FY2010? How many TOTAL airframes up to/including FY2009 & FY2010?
Now take a WILD GUESS how that relates to how much full rate production of 230 airframes per year (130 for the US: 80 for the USAF + 50 for the DON [USN & USMC]) will be begining in FY2015…
Oh, & nice how you bring up the projected to be ~$10-15 million more expensive (than F-35A) F-35C costs.
***
which one, A,B or C, i showed A you showed B and you wonder why they are different
why dont we keep it simple and stay with A, the air force one
was there a price increase on that ?
i’ve got nothing better to do at the moment than to play nonsense with you
Because ignorant/disingenuous trolls like Cola1973 want to confuse the issue (& make the F-35 look bad) by comparing the “real costs” of the F-35C to the ‘projected cost’ of the F-35A.
***
it is coming down, but LRTP are dear and i dont think anyone expects anything different
untill it enters its multi-year price, then we will have a definite price for the future
australia is buying 14 of block 3 lot 6 ~2014, we should have a better idea by then
But ignorant/disingenuous trolls like Cola1973 want everyone to believe that the cost will never be much lower than they cost NOW. In fact they have said that the cost will go UP rather than go down. AND what ignorant/disingenuous trolls like Cola1973 won’t admit/accept is that LRIP costs being VERY CLOSE to (actually a few % lower) projections demonstrates that (at least for the moment) the projections are NOT (as they would have everyone believe) ‘pie in the sky’ but rather proving to be quite accurate.
LM & the DOD were confident enough on the full rate production cost to offer a deal to partner nations that they would pay $58.7 million (flyaway FY2008 dollars) for LRIP F-35As – which works out to be right in line with the projected full rate production cost of $70-75 million in FY2014 dollars. Note that THAT deal has fallen through so now partner nations will pay the same LRIP price as the US.
pfcemF-15K or F-16E/F wipes the floor with Typhoon. Now wasn’t that a useful answer? The ONLY area the Typhoon has an advantage is in manueverability and maybe acceleration and in those cases it’s not like we’re comparing a Flanker to a B-17. As far as AAMs are concerned the differences are trivial. Both -teens have AESAs and IRSTs. Both have (or will have) AIM-9X and HMCS.
Assuming claims are correct, the Eurofighter Typhoon’s greatest advantage over F-15K or F-16E/F is its reduced RCS…
pfcemAs much as I hate responding to this troll…
So, have you seen F35’s flyaway price today? It’s ~$190m!
It’s what Rafale and EF cost $82m and F22 cost ~$155m.
BS.
You can (& most people do) play all kinds of number games & come up with flyaway cost of the Eurofighter Typhoon & Rafale as anywhere from ~$80 million to ~$120 million.
Lots 7-9 (#123-183) F-22s cost an average of $140 million flyaway & projections were that the cost could have dropped to ~$120 million if ‘long term’ production had continued.
The cost of the F-35 is decreasing with each lot (year of production) & tracking BELOW PROJECTIONS which bring the flyaway cost of the F-35A to $70-75 million (FY2014 dollars) at full rate production.
Being a flyaway price, it doesn’t get amortized over time and I don’t know how LM plans to put it down to <$100m without doubling the assembly line speed and all other procedures related to it.
230 airframes per year!
pfcemHmm, maybe they got something superior to what LM delivers?
We have been through that nonsense before. It is not that they think they have somethings of superior performance but somethings better for Israel to have on its aircraft. Somethings DIFFERENT from everybody else’s F-35s, somethings that Israel can more quickly & easily adapt (modify/upgrade) to its specific purposes & somethings which Israel can more quickly & easily repair.
***
This seems like a very concrete sign that the “rumour” that the F-35 is in trouble is correct:
quote:
– 90% of Last Year’s F-35 Test Flights Were Not Completed As Planned (16 instead of 168)
– The testing backlog is one reason Defense Secretary Robert Gates has delayed the program, …
– More than $2.8 billion … to continue its development, according to a 2011 budget document.
– The development phase must now be extended … to October 2015,
(Source: Bloomberg News; published Jan. 19, 2010)
No, what that IS is a clear sign that far too many people have no clue or historical perspective of fighter developement.
These figures can not be wiped under the table because these are part of the annual report sent to the US Congress.
Nobody is trying to ‘wipe these figures under the table’. BUT all of the flight testing delays/backlogs are/were due to specific issues with production. Issues which prevented test aircraft from being ready AND CLEARED for flight testing. Issues which have now been addressed.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/JSF121409.xml&headline=Pentagon%20Eyes%20More%20Cautious%20JSF%20Test%20Plan
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.”
Hence, the airworthiness of the JSF today mainly exists on paper. If continued testing would reveal any serious problems (leading to expectations of even more delays) then the program is in real problems (if it is not already).
Listen to/read what those who have flown it say…The ‘airworthiness of the JSF’ IS EXCELLENT!
If JSF delays would lead to unacceptable capability gaps then clients (including US ones) could be pushed towards alternatives which will keep flying for the next 30 years and destroy the jsf market.
LOL
The delays aren’t that great & a number of partner nations have already indicated a possibility/likelyhood of THEY THEMSELVES delaying orders by a year or so or to reschedule their buys to buy fewer early & more later (in order to get a better price since the price drops significantly with each & every lot).
The gamble to erase the EU fighter manufacturers by offering the “only game in town” could thus have the complete opposite effect.
What ‘gamble to erase the EU fighter manufacturers’?
pfcemTo be honest, using the figures you’ve just posted, there is now much more of a bias post 2023.
Oh really…
2024: 12 -> 14
2025: 13 -> 14
2026: 13 -> 14
2027: 11 -> 13
Thats 49 -> 55 for a post-2023 increase of a whole 6 airframes. But I am sure you REALLY meant post-2022…
Here is the list again as a with a running total. Note that their are 3 test aiframes prior to 2012 which brings the total buy up to 138.
2012: 06 (009) -> 00 (003)
2013: 01 (010) -> 07 (010)
2014: 08 (018) -> 00 (010) = (-08)
2015: 11 (029) -> 09 (019) = (-10)
2016: 12 (041) -> 11 (030) = (-11)
2017: 13 (054) -> 03 (033) = (-21)
2018: 12 (066) -> 06 (039) = (-27)
2019: 12 (078) -> 14 (053) = (-25)
2020: 07 (085) -> 10 (063) = (-22)
2021: 02 (087) -> 02 (065) = (-22)
2022: 01 (088) -> 04 (069) = (-19)
2023: 01 (089) -> 14 (083) = (-06)
2024: 12 (101) -> 14 (097) = (-04)
2025: 13 (114) -> 14 (111) = (-03)
2026: 13 (127) -> 14 (125) = (-02)
2027: 11 (138) -> 13 (138)
As you can see, with the previous plan the ‘half-way’ mark of 69 airframes was to have occured in early 2019 & with the ‘new’ plan it is pushed back to 2022. But Sweetman would have you believe that the previous plan had the UK buying ALL 138 airframes prior to 2023 before with the ‘doom & gloom’ of the ‘new’ plan delaying HALF the order until 2023 & later. The reality is that BOTH the previous & ‘new’ plans take 16 years ending in the same 138 airframes in 2027. THE difference being significantly reduced buys in 2014, 2017 & 2018 made up by buying 2 more each year from 2019-2022 (OK 3 in 2020) & a ‘full buy’ of 14 in 2023 another way to lok at it is 27 fewer from 2014-2018. Alternatively you can look at it as 27 fewer bought 2014-2018 with 21 more bought 2019-2023 (& 6 more 2024-2027).
pfcemTo clarify my earlier post:
I understand that the F-35C is intended to replace the F/A-18C/D’s (and the remainder of the A/B’s.) I am suggesting that the Navy procure additional E/F’s to replace the C/D’s as they end their service lives, and that F-35C development funds be redirected to a F/A-XX project. Incidentally, there is still room in the E/F for further systems development, and there is quiet chatter about developing some additional LO modifications to the Rhinos which could be incorporated into a new model, and to the external stores themselves. Perhaps Boeing will come up with some mods akin to the Silent Eagle.
That same convoluted logic would have had us cancelling the F-14 & F/A-18 just as they began LRIP and waiting for the F-22N & A-12…or cancelling the F-4, A-6 & A-7 just as they began LRIP and waiting for the F-14 & F/A-18…
pfcemHalf the order is already pushed back to the mid-to-late 2020s anyway, 13+ years hence – and what UK defense plan from 1997 remains uncut, intact and on schedule?
More Sweetman BS. Does he SERIOUSLY think that anyone with half a brain can not go back & look at the previous schedule & compare it with the ‘lastest’ one to see that his so called ‘push back’ does not exist?
previous UK schedule -> ‘new’ Nov 2009 schedule…
2012: 06 -> 00
2013: 01 -> 07
2014: 08 -> 00
2015: 11 -> 09
2016: 12 -> 11
2017: 13 -> 03
2018: 12 -> 06
2019: 12 -> 14
2020: 07 -> 10
2021: 02 -> 02
2022: 01 -> 04
2023: 01 -> 14
2024: 12 -> 14
2025: 13 -> 14
2026: 13 -> 14
2027: 11 -> 13
pfcemactually, it says that they only engaged in WVR fights, so, one can be pretty certain that the raptor scored no BVR kills against the rafale on that one (if you don’t play, you don’t score…. it’s logical 😀 )
Where does ‘it’ say only engaged in WVR fights? My comment was specifically about how with the translation of languages such things are often lost as to the true wording &/or meaning.
however, there was a quote of an F-18 driver saying that, during the exercises against the rafales, they couldn’t get a lock from a distance… While I can’t say which radar he had in his Hornet (or super hornet… don’t remember), if rafale’s systems allow it not to get locked, there are little chances of a BVR kill… while in the same time, if the attacker is using its radar trying to detect and lock the rafale, the latter’s own systems will have the exact direction of the radar trying to get a lock on it… alowing the OSF suite to be pointed in its direction and passively (without using its radar) get a solution and shoot back
Thing is, the detail of what the real capabilities of each aircrafts systems are, is pretty sensitive stuff, and not accessible to public…
That’s what reduced RCS & ECM does. Even IF you can detect a target that DOES NOT necessarily mean that you can target it…
pfcemI don’t see the F-35 as being an air-defense aircraft, so maybe this article is more something put-out by a ministry bureaucrat than an actual official statement of intent (This does happen in Japan from time to time).
Every government agency/military service looking at the F-35A sees it as an air-defense aircraft 2nd only the (they will never get) F-22.
Also, the F-35 was supposed to be the focus of the F-XX requirement, the F-X being the AD fighter. From ARES
“Japan’s F-X program is aimed at buying 20-60 high performance F-22-like aircraft. The follow-on F-XX effort is being written to an F-35-like requirement for many more aircraft. Both programs will replace existing aircraft.”
So maybe there’s either been a mix-up by the journos – or F-X has morphed into the F-XX programme. Hard to tell which is the more likely – Japanese Bureaucrats move in mysterious ways…
Japan thought it would be able to get the F-22 when estabishing the F-X concept…
But so unique are the F-22’s capabilities that even with Gates pushing the F-35, Japan has ‘threatened’ to develope its own 5th generation air defense fighter if it can’t have the F-22. As good as the F-35 is, it is no F-22.
pfcemThey aren’t. Unfortunately for you, I’ve spent the last decade in the numerical simulations business and I know exactly the advantages and limitations of this approach. Stupid and misinformed folks like you who think that you just stuff a computer with data and you get accurate and reliable answers to all questions, even considering as undefinable parameters as piloting skills or tactics, only can make me grin.
Yes they are. Even the designers of the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Mig-29, Su-27, Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen knew what the flight performance/characteristics of their respective aircraft were BEFORE fight tests VERIFIED their modeling.
If this was true, then there would be no delays, no overweight problems, no structural issues, no redesigns and no budget overruns.
Once again you demonstrate your ignorance/disengenousness.
For me it’s a proof of your absolute indisposition to say anything smart to disprove my claims. You are just hiding behind the same stupid sentence to distract attention from the fact that you got nothing better to say. The more you write it, the more you admit to lose.
When you post BS which needs disproved I do so. When you post BS that it so obvious that anyone with ANY clue can see it I don’t feel the need to do so.
No one would have chosen a “project” worth few sketches on the paper against a govt and Pentagon backed JSF super-program, even if the JSF was undeniably the last piece of crap. Choosing a project that will never be built anyway makes no sense, at all.
But CONTRARY to what you have said they DID have a choice. That the choice of the JSF over any other was so obvious DOES NOT change the fact they they did have a choice.
My claims perfectly reflect the reality.
Only your alternate reality.
Just like in every industry, test pilot is a team member and carries personal responsibility for the overall outcome. Reliability and loyalty to the company and to the project are his most valued and best paid virtues, even more valued than experience. Few bad comments in the open which make few journos blow it up in the press and make few Congress members to cut the numbers by some 200-300 airframes would do more harm to the F-35 than all adversary fighters throughout the whole service time.
If you still fail to grasp this concept, then it’s worthless to argue, anyway, do not even bother to respond.
No it is YOU who fails to grasp that contrary to what YOU want people to think test pilots have MUCH more to lose by (as you say those who have flown the F-35 are doing & have done) making ANY comment that is found to be a lie than they have to gain by doing so. The F-35 not being able to do what the test pilots say it does would do more to harm the pilots career & the program than anything else. OF COURSE test pilots are going to refrain from making ‘bad’ comments but that DOES NOT mean (as YOU want people to believe) that they will lie.
pfcemThat’s a completely made-up statement. F-35 has not spent a second in even practice fight, you know sh!t about how well would it fare.
This is the early 21st century, not the early 20th century. The flight characteristics & capabilities of modern combat aircraft are well known to their designers well before the 1st airframe is even built.
LOL. Now that you mention it, you, too, look like a mind numb robot programmed to say one sentence:
“Beep beep… Thanks for once again so clearly demonstrating your ignorance/disingenuousness.. beep beep”Each time you repeat it shows that you got nothing to say on the contrary. Thanks for once again so clearly demonstrating your stupidity/narrow–mindedness.
No, each time I post it is because you have shown by your own comments that your are ignorant/disingenuous.
You have clearly admitted there were no alternatives beyond conceptual stage, there was nothing else to choose from. End of story.
The F-35 was once only a concept (known as the JSF)…But all those you might have chosen a ‘modernized Harrier’ concept chose to go with the JSF concept INSTEAD. In fact there were concept program that pre-dated JSF which were ultimately combined with the USAF’s F-16 replacement & the USN’s F/A-18C/D replacement TO BECOME the JSF concept.
Solar System, Planet Earth, year 2010. I am not surprised that you call it alternate universe, because your ideas about how LM lets whatever Simple Billy with piloting license ride their new stealth charriot and then trumpet out all drawbacks he has found to the press and screw up the sales are truly out of this world 😀
Funny how your comments are the opposite of reality on ‘Solar System, Planet Earth, year 2010’.
***
The sustained g of the 22 is being reported to be into the 3-3.5 gs at 30,000 fts, this is quite conventional, in the same league of the F-16A, the F-15A performed better
The sustained turn of the 35 is 5 gs at 15000 fts-M0.8-, again, close ( a little worse) to the 16A.
I’m sure all these 3 planes have the same sustained turn, with the 22 being better in the instantaneous turning due it TVC.
Except the numbers for the F-22 & F-35 are when COMBAT LOADED (& in fact those for the F-35 are for a previous PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION design)…
I have a feeling that the 35B is or will be completelly unsuitable for the US ‘marines’, i’m more than sure that such big machine (13 tons) with such new technology (lift fan) will be a lot more difficult to maintain than the Harrier..
How the 35B classify as a CAS aircraft with bay doors, Ram maintenance, obvious low profile flight requirement (not compatibe with the 35B), 13 tons mass, is out of my comprehension, but hey! let the kids to dream on their shinny pictures in magazines, practical requirements don’t matter…not my problem anyways..
The 35B for Europe makes more sense, since they want a STOL conventional bomber/fighter with better capability than the harrier
Is funny, because under my perspective, the europeans with their imperialist dreaming on bigger carriers and more warfare crap (why?, i don’t know) are needing the 35B, while the US ‘marines’, with the obvious warmongering US policy, are needing a CAS aircraft, something that the 35 will fail miserably.
But the pro US zealots are supporting the 35 as it would be a crusade (while the requirement is for a CAS plane, and only a zealot would see the 35B as a CAS aircraft…oh well..i’m understanding this better)…while the euros are bashing the 35 (while their intentions to have an useless shipborne airforce are clear (sure they have plans to retake all these african colonies..right?), and the 35B is perfect for their smaller carriers)
It’s funny
a good CAs aircraft is one that can loiter long time over target, manouver tightly at not to high speeds in order to keep target in sight and help the guys on the ground
The F-35 is heavy (more than double empty weight compared to a harrier), with very high wingloading, while its wings are made for fast flight (not much lift from these)… it won’t be able to turn around rapidly at low speeds, which means it will need more time to go around, find its target again, etc…
it’s simply not the right type of plane for that kind of job… if you look back, the best aircraft for it were always slow, with very high lift wing profiles allowing them to carry lots of ordnance at low speeds while turning tightly to stay in contact. They had to be rugged, able to withstand damage and keep flying regardless of that as long as friendlies needed help. Examples of such aircraft are the A-1 Skyraider, the A-10 Thunderbolt II or, on the russian side, the Su-25 Frogfoot… it’s always a (more or less) flying tank that’s able to deliver ordnance close to firendlies.
And today, we’re supposed to consider an aircraft that has fragile thin skin, that weighs way too much, has small stubby wings (for its weight) and is aerodynamically optimized for speeds (in a straight line) around Mach1 as a good next gen CAS aircraft?
The mission of CAS has evolved. Modern air defenses makes the ‘traditional’ low & slow CAS approach a recipe for disaster. Modern & future CAS is most commonly done using guided munitions launched from the relitive safety of 20,000+’ AND is just as likely to be done using a B-52 as an A-10. Note that even the latest A-10C upgrade is to improve the A-10’s ability to conduct such CAS missions.
That is not to say that the ‘traditional’ low & slow CAS approach does not have a role in low-intensity environments BUT in such cases even the A-10 is overkill.
***
Well, F35C is definitely on “thin ice” and today, some long time concerns became vocal.
No it isn’t.
Have there been any indications from US that they are thinking about getting foreign equipment like Rafale or navalized EF?
No. The F-35C is the USN’s future.
***
No, but some indications toward F/A-XX. Though I say the Navy lives in a dream world to believe there is money for another tactical platform within the next 20 years.
Forget the Charlie model. A F/A-XX should be the path forward for the USN. The Navy needs a Naval aircraft, designed from the ground up to operate in the maritime environment. Not a rehash of a ground-based fighter like the F/A-18. Perhaps a 6G version of the F-14D….
The F/A-XX should have: 1, range and endurance to provide for deep strike, to protect the carrier, and persistence for the ISR missions it will be invariably tasked to perform. 2, 2 engines for overwater ops – safety first. 3, 2 crew members. It is incredibly easy to get task saturated in a complex aircraft – integrated and automated systems help, but also add to workload. Let the pilot fly and fight the aircraft, and crew 2 operates the offensive/defensive/recce systems, controls the UCAV’s, and provides the incalculable value of an extra set of eyes. 4, some modicum of stealth, enough to allow for the undetected first missile shots – that’s right, shoot and scoot. Twisty dogfights are a thing of the past – BVR detection and identification will decide future air battles, performed at standoff ranges. Smackdown the enemy aircraft that threaten the mission at hand, execute, and leave.
The F-35C is the replacement for the F/A-18C/D with IOC planned for 4Q2014.
The F/A-XX is the replacement for the F/A-18E/F with IOC planned for ~2025.
pfcemthat come from, Quadbike?
If anyone said Raptor was beaten by the Rafale in UAE,
it is a distortion of reported facts.
The proper story goes that : out of six dogfights done on
the side after the exercises, the Raptor only locked the Raffy once!
( Now if it would have been in BVR, we’d really go crazy, lol. )At most, the French argument would be that for the price,
a plane that will not get downed by the highest standard of
western A/C with thrust vectoring et al. is a good deal!
Especially if compared with the price of the F-22.By the way, i found an interesting info that in the last contract for
it, there was to be found the necessary parts for 13 more
F-22 airframes! One can still venture about a reopening of the line
even if in all likelyhood, those are akin to spare parts.Good day all.
Chalk it up to differences in translation or what not but it seems as though the comment was not that the Rafale LOST only once in 6 dogfights BUT in 6 engagements was ‘killed’ WVR (or again depending on translation by GUN) only once, which says nothing about how many times the F-22 ‘killed’ the Rafale from BVR (perhaps even without the Rafale even knowing except for the F-22 being the most likely aircraft to have done so without the Rafale knowing what/where its ‘killer’ was).
pfcemWell, I’ve never seen that any country picked up anyone’s R&D costs except its own, so this would be a miracle-equal precedent.
However, given that US (and no other country) never did that for any weapon system, even while times were much better than today’s recession, I can’t see how’s that possible.
I mean, I don’t think that ever happened in human history and if did, then it was more than equally compensated through concessions somewhere else.
That is exactly the opposite of what you claim the USG/LM will do/are doing with the F-35! Have you FINALLY come to your senses & recognized reality?
pfcemA sluggish aircraft is always inferior to a nimble one. If it’s F-35 against let’s say Su-27SM, then its low RCS and better avionics are gonna save teh F-35’s slow a$$. But throw it against anything with even remotely comparable RCS (T.50, J-XX) and you got dead meat. I would not feel very safe in the F-35 even against Rafale or Typhoon although it is yet to wait up how these compare.
The F-35 is neather sluggish nor slow. The F-35 will have a MUCH better change of vs the PAF-FA &/or J-XX than any 4th or 4.5 generation fighter. Being the ignoranus that you are YOU may not ‘feel’ very safe in the F-35 even against Rafale or Typhoon but you WOULD be safer than your adversaies in their Rafale or Typhoon.
For the n-th time, all pilots who have flown it by now are in some way connected to the program, be it from the side of LM, USAF, NAVY, Marines or foreign users. All these pilots are bonded by confidentiality agreements and won’t be allowed to talk about anything that is not the “official version”. Whatever a pilot like that tells openly, it’s not his real opinion. And it stays that way until regulars get the series examples into their hands. Comprende?
So now ANY/ALL USAF/USN/USMC & foreign user pilots are ‘connected to the program’ & are mind numb robots unable to say anything not ‘programed’ to say… Thanks for once again so clearly demonstrating your ignorance/disingenuousness.
Bingo. So now we finally agree that there was no other alternative to F-35B, anyway.
No, we do not agree. There WERE alternative to F-35B but thus far all nations which may have progressed with said alternatives chose to go with the F-35B INSTEAD.
Yes, all of them. The information security obbscuring the F-35 is tight. Especially now where the program is troubled, no negative comments about anything regarding this aircraft will be allowed, there is way too much at stake.
Wrong on ALL THREE counts.
No, you don’t. You got no insider info because if you had, you would never be allowed to go public. Those who really know about the F-35 don’t speak out yet. We only get to hear those who got no clue, like yourself.
I never said I had any ‘insider information’. There is PLENTY of public information GIVEN TO US BY THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN THE INSIDER INFORMATION & KNOW ABOUT THE F-35.
No, it is quite the opposite.
1. Any comment of a test pilot which would be found to be a reason for ANY negative publicity would result in said pilot’s temination.
2. Yes, pilots are paid to be very critical but they are not allowed to criticize anything publicly. What Beesley says to the LM guys is a totally different story from what he says to the press... and stop playing a 6-year old stupid kid as if you never heard about what PR is and how marketing works, you are getting extremely annoying..
What alternate universe are you living in?
pfcemPerhaps F-35 will turn out to be not too expensive to purchase by other countries, if, as you say, the US picks up the R&D bill and decides to not pass that on to export customers.
Not the US alone, ALL EIGHT PARTNER NATIONS – of course the US is picking up the bulk of it.
How much of the R&D bill from the F-15, F-16, F/A-18 (&/or any/all fighters before) did the US ‘pass on’ to export customers? Why would the F-35 be any different…
To me that is still a big IF.
Why?
Note that in the latest report it also said something about the possibility of passing some of the additional R&D expenses on to LM… as said before, how do you think LM will cover those expenses?
Not by tacking on an additioal charge for export customers to the negotiated/established/agreed to flyaway price.
At this stage I think we are all speculating, let’s wait and see…
Except that some of us are speculating using the known facts & historical precedents while others are making up facts & new precedents.
***
It’s not that this multi-billion-dollar program is in most visible respects almost a year behind the revised, delayed schedule promulgated two years ago. Or that the program leaders demonstrably can’t predict what they’ll get done in the next three months. Or that the Pentagon’s own program-independent experts have concluded, twice, that the project will take two years longer than scheduled.
Not a year (& not 2+ years), 4-6 months. What they did not predict correctly was how long it would take to ‘turn the corner’ on establishing production. Well they HAVE turned the corner.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/JSF121409.xml&headline=Pentagon%20Eyes%20More%20Cautious%20JSF%20Test%20Plan
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.”
No, it’s just that there are about six people in the US and Australia who write nasty things about it, and thereby are bringing the project to its knees, and if they would only STOP saying such HORRIBLE things about this wonderful, well managed program it would all be OK.
The project is not on its knees. Although those ‘six people in the US and Australia’ & those drinking their Kool-Aid would like everyone to think so.
Sign In
