pfcemF-35’s flying characteristics are inferior to competing designs and I am not completely convinced that its true RCS is small enough to constitute a decisive advantage, especially against future threats.
Inferior to what competing designs & how? AND MOST IMPORTANTLY HOW DOE THIS TRANSLATE TO IT BEING AN INFERIOR FIGHTER?
This is still nothing that proves or confirms that F-35 compares to F/A-18C at low speeds.. This all trash of yours about how everyone is so damn happy and pleased and impressed is extremely boring to read and says to me nothing, at all.
Again, read the program documents & the comments of those who have ACTUALLY FLOWN IT…
OK, finally show me data of some programs you mention.
What data? None ever got beyong the conceptual stage.
All those who have flown it by now are paid by those who will be selling it. Boring and uninteresting..
Not all of them…
You got no means to check whether presented data is accurate or valid so don’t even pretend you do more than quote whatever load of BS LockMart feeds you with. You are the ultimate LM parrot on this forum, even their speaker does not do his job as properly as you do.
Yes I do. And so does everyone else.
Yes, I have..
BTW, I am completely ignorant to blockheads, you are right.Yawn. Same boring nonsense, claims from those selling the aircraft..
No, comments from the only people who actually know 1ST hand how well the F-35 flies. Comment which if found to be false whould result in said pilots temination (of themselve & possible the who program) & disgraced reputation such as to never work again in ANY test program ever again. In fact test pilots are paid to be THE MOST CRITICAL of the aircraft.
pfcemVery true.. All these minimalistic price quotes are just projections from old times.. Much has changed since then and much will.
…but LRIP is BELOW said projections. Showing that dispite all the changes the actual production/procurement cost of the F-35 is NOT >50% higher than projections (which is where it would have to be for full rate production to end up >$100 million flyaway) as the naysayers wish it were but instead tracking in line (a few % below in fact) with the projections.
pfcemCola1973 has once again proven that they are not worth responding too & that it was a complete waist of time/effort to think they could have ever gotten such a simple concept as DEVELOPEMENT COSTS are payed separately from PROCUREMENT COSTS rather than tacked on top of them during purchase.
***
Oh Bull…
WHAT FLY AWAY COST?
There are severall you know?
Unless the 58,7 million $ includes the ancilary equipment, THAT´S the recurring Fly Way Cost the one that for the Super Hornet is LESS than 55 million $…And by the way, where have you got that number (58,7 million $)? Because if its were i am thinking that you got it, newsflash, it was completely and hopelesly outdated (just ask a certain David R. Heinz) a week after it was made public.
Your turn.
The contract flyaway price – what would be listed in the budget line item as “Flyaway Unit Cost”. If it were Recurring Flyaway Cost or Nonrecurring Flyaway Cost it would have said so.
Earth to Sintra…I am the one who started the topic on this forum about how the negotiations for the multi-nation contract that was to have set the flyaway cost of LRIP F-35As for the member nations at $58.7 million (FY2008 dollars) had fallen through – how I felt it was bad news for the program. :rolleyes:
pfcemBUT ARE PAYED EITHER WAY, SO WHAT’S YOUR POINT? If are payed later, they can only be more expensive, so the best bet is that will be payed together with flyaway bills.
That exactly the opposite of what you claimed DEVELOPMENT COSTS ARE NOT TACKED ON TOP OF PROCUREMENTS COSTS – instead that DEVELOPMENT COSTS & PROCUREMENTS COSTS are SEPARATE COSTS payed separately. PROCUREMENTS COSTS are payed by those who develope the system (as the system is being developed) & PROCUREMENTS COSTS are by those who produre the resulting system. For the JSF the PROCUREMENTS COSTS are (& HAVE BEEN) being payed by the program’s eight partner nations while PROCUREMENTS COSTS will be payed by any/all who eventually procure it.
You don’t have the faintest idea of what you’re talking about, do you?
Quite the opposite.
No pfcem, what you are doing though is being stupid, again. It doesn’t matter what you think the flyaway price is, but what it really is.
What you permanently do though is waving your baby F35’s flyaway price from 2025, since the program is enormously expensive and you’re trying to make it look more affordable than it actually is.
No, YOU are being stupid, pulling numbers out of your rear end when estimates BY THOSE PAYING FOR IT have been made AND LRIP costs are BELOW THOSE ESTIMATES!
The fact is, again, Rafale costs $82.3m (~$130-140m), EF $81.8m (~$120-150m), but F35 $172m-197m – page 33 (~$XXXm) of a flyaway price (program price within brackets), which is actually more expensive than F22 and the projections for the 2010 still put F35 more expensive than F22. F35’s flyaway price is higher than Rafale’s or EF’s program price.
GOOD GOD MAN. Of course the F-35 is expensive NOW, less than 50 have been built BUT the production rate is ramping up & the cost is dropping with eanch & every lot (year). Engage your brain for once & look at how much the 1st lots of F/A-18E/Fs cost vs what more recent lots cost now & what the 1st lots of F-22s cost vs what lots 7-9 cost. In BOTH cases the cost has been/was cut by MORE than half.
LOL…get a brain and learn what flyaway cost is before returning to this board.
I know what flyaway cost is.
***
I was discussing the unit recurring fly away cost,
Nice try.
and i think that those 58 million US$ for the F-35A are without ancilary equipment…
$58.7 million was F-35A unit flyaway cost in FY2008 dollars. Which as I have noted before works out nicely to ~$70-75 million in FY2014 dollars.
***
One problem identified some time ago is that if an export customer orders F-35’s for delivery say in 2015, the price will be much higher than if those were supplied in 2020. With program delays and a reluctance by buyers to purchase at early LRIP prices if they can avoid it by letting others buy the aircraft from early production batches, the point at which prices will fall keeps shifting to the right.
The prices started falling with the 2nd lot & have continued to fall with each successive lot.
***
gee only 5 or so years of squabling to go before the f-35 enters a stable sell price through high production of about 100m average for the 3 of them, total paid in today dollars
this is better than a soap opera
F-35A: $70-75 million (FY2014 dollars)
F-35B/C: $80-90 million (FY2014 dollars)
THAT is the projection & LRIP lots are BELOW projections…
***
well this is my link, where is your’s ?
i think before the engine contract was a subcontract from boeinghttp://www.defense.gov/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=3613
McDonnell Douglas Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $1,319,574,240 not-to-exceed modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-04-C-0014) for the procurement of 24 F/A-18Fs and Alternate Mission Equipment (AME) for the Government of Australia under the Foreign Military Sales Program . Work will be performed in St. Louis, Mo. (28.7 percent); El Segundo, Calif. (25 percent); Goleta, Calif. (8.6 percent); Clearwater, Fla. (2.3 percent); Greenlawn, N.Y. (2.1 percent); Burnsville, Minn. (2.1 percent); Johnson City, N.Y. (2.1 percent); Brooklyn Heights, Ohio (2 percent); Vandalia, Ohio (2 percent); Grand Rapids, Mich. (2 percent); South Bend, Ind. (2 percent); Mesa, Ariz. (1.8 percent); Fort Worth, Texas (1.8 percent); and at various locations across the United States (17.5 percent), and is expected to be completed in July 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
not to exceed instead of firm fixed, heck we may even get some change, i luv it when our friends are nice to us
i wonder how much less that the $54.982 mil per plane it will be ?this is the full contract that navy had and split our 24 out of, these numbers are too big for me, can you check and make sure we pai9d the same as the usn
McDonnell Douglas Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded an $8,562,099,934 fixed-price with economic price adjustment contract for the multi-year procurement of F/A-18E/F airframes. This Multi-Year II (MYP II) contract will cover the procurement of 210 F/A-18E/F aircraft over a 5-year period. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Mo. (60 percent), and El Segundo, Calif. (40 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-04-C-0014).
That is just the airframe, NOT the entire flyaway (much less weapon system or what ever cost you prefer).
***
Where’s your evidence for that claim? Oh, right, you have none. It must be the political pressure of the “We want to pay EVEN MORE for the F-35 development” brigade. And it’s been said lefties were the Kool-Aid drinkers…
Where’s your evidence for it being ANYTHING other than my educated guess as to what is ACTUALLY going on? Oh, right, you have none.
Your reading comprehension fails you yet again.
Indeed airframes haven’t been ready when they should have been. Had LM been forced to complete them on time, costs would have risen. Production is on budget because it didn’t have to be on time.The reason you can flaunt the production costs being close to what they are supposed to is that they are delayed, which costs you money on the other part of the bill. Awesome achievement.
Your comprehension fails you yet again.
The early lot airfraimes were taking longer to complete than projected but in order to meet milestones, the airframes were passed on to later phases of production BEFORE all of the previous phase work was complete. And BECAUSE of that, they were not only delayed in final completion, they were MORE EXPENSIVE than they would have been if completed ‘on time’.
The reason you can flaunt the production costs being close to what they are supposed to is that they are delayed, which costs you money on the other part of the bill. Awesome achievement.
No the resaon I flaunt the production cost is because THAT is the cost that matters. IF the early airframes had been completed ‘on time’ they would have been LESS EXPENSIVE.
You seem to have no idea how international currency relations work. Do you want to claim ignorance or dishonesty?
Quite the opposite.
As far as I’m aware, the only thing that has been trending better are those production cost of specific LRIP lots. And these have already been discussed above.
Good God man, the problems in production have been THE cause of the delays!
pfcemIIRC, Kopp, too, has always claimed the F-35 being an unworthy replacement of the F-111.
But I didn’t say the F-35 is an unworthy replacement of the F-111. Again, Australia had decised to replace BOTH its F-111s AND its F/A-18s with a single type. For that there is nothing better than the F-35. Like I have said before, dedicated strike aircraft have gone out of fashion & most nations have chose to go with FIGHTERS with significant strike capabilities to perform BOTH roles.
Unfortunately Australia decided to retire its F-111s early & thus needs a ‘stop-gap’ to replace its F-111s until it can aquire all 100 of its F-35s. For THAT ‘stop-gap’, a F-15E derivative is the closest (western) aircraft there is to F-111 like heavy strike aircraft & even Boeing (which manufactures BOTH the F-15E & the F/A-18E/F) says that it is better than the F/A-18E/F.
I agree. Unfortunately it isn’t much of a fighter even now. The only things that save it are RCS and avionics.
BS, even without its HUGE RCS advantage the F-35 is very good fighter. It’s RCS (combined with its OTHER advantages) simply puts it into a different league.
No. LM defined supercruise as >Mach 1.0. This has been proven here several times by posting links from their own CodeOne and even you have admitted that. Later they changed it to as >Mach 1.5 because it suited their marketing. I don’t see why they would not change it back to >Mach 1.0 again if it suits them, they have already proven themselves to be dishonest enough for that.
No, and we have been through this before. Your continued denial of the facts don’t change the truth.
Yes, I completely agree with you !!! F-35 will indeed be doing more A-A work than originally intended. Unfortunately for you, the decision to cut the F-22s came way later than the design of the F-35 has been set and frozen. That means, yes, F-35 will be forced to do much A-A work but its design does not reflect that, at all.
Its design reflects that it is & ALWAYS WAS intended to be an excellent fighter in its own right. Its designers knew full well that just like the F-16 before it that it will not only act as a fighter for the USAF (because there simple will/would never be enough F-15/F-22 to do it all) but be THE air-superiority fighter of almost all other customers.
I don’t have to read anything. Writing requirements and actually achieving the goals are two different things. I’d still like to see that part which confirms that F-35 compares to F/A-18C at low speeds..
Yes you do. Because you are claiming the F-35 is something other thhan what it actually is AS DEFINED/REQUIRED in the program requirements/goals. And thus far those who have flown it & those who have seen the data as to its designed/predicted flight performance are well pleased with its flight performance.
If there never was any modernized Harrier then it only proves my claim that the F-35B nations have opted for the only existing possibility..
Quite the opposite. And there HAVE been ‘modernized Harrier’ studies/programs for DECADES. That those that would have progressed said programs into an actual aircraft have chose to procure the F-35B instead…:)
Those are pretty childishly sounding claims if you ask me. Even Piper Seneca “flies well”, what does it prove?
You are the one being childish. I am simply expressing what THOSE WHO HAVE ACTUALLY FLOW IT have said about it.
There is no single man who has ever taken F-35 into combat therefore I take the “4x greater effectiveness claim” as a pure fairytale.
:rolleyes:
Wrong. My assertions were directly derived from these numbers. Unlike you, I first read data and then make a decision..
Unlike you I do MORE than read the data, I check to see if the data means anything, is accurate/valid, et cetera…
Sure I am. I have just proven you wrong, again.
No you have not. You have just demonstrated how ignorant/disingenuous you are ONCE AGAIN.
This is a typical way of your presenting arguments. You actually have no idea about how nimble the F-35 is but you would not survive the idea of it being less nimble than the rest because nothing foreign could possibly be better. And just in case someone proves that F-35 isn’t nimble enough you already have a way out claiming that being nimble is worthless, anyway.
That shows two things:
1. You know nothing about how the F-35 really performs
2. You don’t even want to know how it really performs…. you only need to hear that it is “better” than anything else so that your small bubble doesn’t burst..
Wrong. Those who have flown it have made PUBLIC STATEMENTS which give a good generalization how nimble the F-35 is EVEN WHEN COMBAT LOADED.
And in your typical BS way you deliberately misrepresent my position. I NEVER said the F-35 wasn’t less nimble than the most nimble fighters AND I NEVER said being nimble is worthless. Quite the oppisiute on BOTH counts.
***
man, unless LM engineers have invented some “anti-gravitational” device, there’s no way that an F-35 witgh 23 000 lbs of load and the F-22 with the same load “perform” the same (unless you consider them both as flying bricks unable to make anything else than fly in a straight line, but that would make you a bit lonely around here, IMHO)
While the F-35 and the F-22 share similar overall shape, the F-22 has way bigger “lift area” (wing, fuselage) with something like 70 000 lbs of thrust behind… the F-35 is smaller and having a little more than half that power push it…
In what parallel dimension can you believe the F-35 may even get close to the F-22 in manouvering with similar load?
Listen to/read what those who have ACTUALLY FLOWN THEM have said…
pfcemLess than the 54.669 million US$ 2009 Recurrent Fly Away Cost of the Super Hornet?!
http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/10pres/APN_BA_01-04_Justification_Book.pdf (page 23)
Get a life…
12 Total Flyaway
26,315,218.774 / 389 = $67.65 million
02,289,464.932 / 037 = $61.87 million
01,417,297.313 / 023 = $61.62 million
00,663,412.169 / 009 = $73.71 million
Get a calculator.
And as I have said before something just does not ‘jive’ with these flyaway costs being so comparatively low compared to the weapons systems cost at this point in the F/A-18E/F program.
***
What does this sentence even mean? LOL
Exactly what is says. Is english like a 3rd language for you are something?
LOL who cares if it’s separately or under the same bill, since it needs to be payed at the end of the day.
NO THEY ARE NOT UNDER THE SAME BILL. They are SEPARATE bills payed SEPARATELY.
So, tomorrow (10.1.2010.) Island wants to buy F35, but isn’t a JSF consortium member and JSF consortium will sell it for flyway price then??? Hahahahahaha…
Flyaway + the usual foreign sales charges by the USG… And those chages DO NOT include developement costs.
I mean, pfcem FFS, read what you post. This is growing tiring, as you keep throwing ample amounts of rubbish my way, which I am supposed to sort out and answer then??
YOU are the one throwing ample amounts of rubbish, not me. Note that I am not the only one to TRY & explain this particular point to you.
Really? How come then you permanently come here with JSF’s flyaway prices?
Yes really.
I am simple comparring apples to apples. Flyaway is a common price quoted for other aircraft so it is only fair when comparing the F-35 to use ITS flyaway price as well. AND flyaway price is the price payed by customers for the ‘flyaway’ aircraft.
I don’t get it, what’s wrong with you?? Are you even American? Examine your English a bit…
LOL, someone help, please! I’ve been explaining this for the nth time today and I’m wondering am I talking to the wall or what?
And I have corrected you for the nth time. You have made it clear you probably never will get it.
Pfcem, do you have any idea how is amortization calculated??
Anyway, I’d expect F16 got amortized after 40 years of production. You didn’t?
US even give them for free…:D
Intelligent analogy pfcem, as always.
Do YOU even know what amortization is?
AND PCFEM, FFS LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FLYWAY, PROGRAM AND LIFTIME COSTS!
I have made it abundantly clear that flyaway, program & lifetime cost are different. AND STATED MANY TIMES THAT TO BE FAIR/HONEST YOU MUST COMPARE THE SAME COSTS (whether it be flyaway, weapons systems, program, lifetime or what ever you chose to use).
pfcemThe aircraft isn’t in service, everything you have written is your wet dream.
An aircraft does not have to be IN SERVICE for people who know what they are talking about to understand what it will be like in service.
It is over cost and behind schedule, yet you claim there are no problems.
DEVELOPEMENT is over cost & behind schedule. Unfortunately that is the rule rather than the exception with modern weapons systems. But disingenuous ignoranus naysayers make it out to be that the F-22 & the F-35 are the ONLY programs in history to have such a thing happen AND that this is a sign of them being on the verge of ‘collapse’
I NEVER claimed there are no problems but the FACT is that the naysayers are exaggerating the problems.
For those who ignoer/forget…
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.”
THE #1 factor is just how successful the F-35 ultimately will be is its PROCUREMENT cost, which has been BELOW projections.
The people you dismiss with your silly attempts to gain the moral, intellectual high ground are merely challenging and questioning the continual positive spin that is constantly spewed about the aircraft / program by the likes of you rose tinters.
No, they are ignoring/dismissing the positive FACTS & spewing as much negative spin as they can come up with.
You fail to address any of the concerns raised with anything other than re-warmed marketing guff.
What concerns?
If indeed there were no issues and the aircraft was indeed to be a world beater you wouldn’t have to or feel the need to “defend” it so actively.
That is of course unless you like being shown up as a babbling fanboy all the time.
Again I NEVER SAID THER WERE NO ISSUES! That is exacty the kind of ingroanus BS you & your ilk resort to time & time again.
***
I’d wait and see how the F135’s bypass ratio figures into dry supersonic performance.
So are you admitting you have no clue or being an ignoranus & implying that anything >0.25 simply can’t do it?
No. It’s either a noun or a verb.
Nope, adjective. Just like some fighters as calls ‘light’ fighters or ‘medium’ fighters or ‘heavy’ fighters to to further describe what kind of FIGHTER.
So when in turn a clean Blk. 50 about matches the F-35 and the F-35 about matches the F-22, then the clean Blk. 50 about matches the F-22, right?
What does that tell us?
That COMBAT LOADED (with ~23,000 lbs of weapons & fuel) F-22s & F-35s are pretty agile.
And what are those terms behind this fuzzy marketingspeak? What’s the SI unit for that? How is it derived?
Computer simulation…
Has the entire flight envelope already been tested and cleared?
No but it is well know what its entire flight envelope is by those who designed it & tested the design. Those who designed the Eurofighter Typhoon & those who desigend the Rafale (just a couple of examples it is true of virtually all aircraft for quite some time) knew what the flight envelope of thier respetive aircraft were BEFORE the aircraft actually demonstrated it. Flight testing these days is to VERIFY flight characteristics, not leanr what they are.
***
Then you basically agree with Carlo Kopp you otherwise despise so much..
Just how in your delusional mind is that in any way agreeing with Kopp?
That is just lawyer talk. You can print out stickers saying “this is a fighter” and label every panel of the aircraft with them, it still won’t make it a better fighter than it is.
No it isn’t. It is the INTENT/GOAL/REQUIREMENT of the program!
You can print out stickers saying “this isn’t a fighter” and label every panel of the aircraft with them, it still won’t make it less a fighter than it is.
True the F-35 is not capable of LM-cruising (>1.5). And so far it is not capable even of supercruising (for your information, this is defined as capability to achieve and maintain speeds in excess of Mach 1. for extended periods of time without the use of afterburners). I personally think that if F-35 could go over M1.0 on full military thrust just for one second, then LM would swiftly switch their SC definition back to M1.0 and trumpet this success out at every ocassion. They remain very silent about this, probably for good reason, I don’t know.
BS. The USAF/DOD & LM ‘defined’ supercruise as >Mach 1.5 for a reasons & will not change it even when in all likelyhood the F-35 demonstrates being ‘able to achieve and maintain speeds in excess of Mach 1.0 for extended periods of time without the use of afterburners’ as the reasons for their choice of >Mach 1.5 will have not changed.
For USAF the F-35 is primarily a mud mover. And always will be.. And the whole concept reflects that.. Of course, for Norway it will have to be primarily a fighter because I don’t see them fielding two types. But this is just throwing around definitions, it will not make the aircraft any better…
Actually, with the F-22 being cut to just 187 airframes vs a requirement for a MINIMUM of 381 means that the F-35 will be doing even MORE air-to-air work than it was intended to do. The whole concept reflects the fact that it is a FIGHTER with significant strike capability and while not intended as the USAF’s primary air-superiority asset that it WILL be the primary air-superiority asset of most every other customer.
Yawn, just another round of BS sucked out from your finger. I’d like to see that part which says that F-35 compares to F/A-18C at low speeds…
Read the program requirements/goals…
The only one still living in the 20th century is you because you are constantly comparing F-35 to 30 years old legacy designs. I am comparing it to future threats that are underway and it doesn’t look that bright..
LOL.
Show us the concept of the modernized Harrier they rejected in favor of the F-35B first…
YOu STILL do not get it. THERE IS NO MODERNIZED HARRIER BECAUSE THE NATIONS THAT WOULD HAVE DEVELOPED & PROCURED IT CHOSE THE F-35B!
Just more talk. Won’t help the thing fly any better, unfortunately.
Those who have ACTUALLY FLOW IT say is flys very well & in fact have stated they expect how well it flyes to surprise most pilots.
LOL. You can’t be serious thinking someone will take marketing guff spit out by LM as cold facts. Until some independent user has taken the F-35 into combat and confirmed the claimed “4-times greater effectivity” [whatever that means], then it’s just toilet paper to me..
Purple text is direct quote from someone who has ACTUALLY FLOW IT!
Four times greater means a kill-loss ration four times higher. For example, in most all simulations western ‘legacy fighters’ have had kill-loss rations ~1:1.
Funny to hear from someone directly comparing weights as a determiner. The actual lifting area includes fuselage, but that counts for Typhoon or Rafale, as well. The overall difference is still there and it is significant. That makes the F-35 a better striker.. and a worse fighter..
No, I only ‘compare’ weights to point out the fact that the F-35 isn’t THAT heavy.
The difference in lifting area (& more inportantly ACTUAL LIFT) isn’t as great as the “wing loading” figures suggest.
And the F-35 is a BETTER fighter because there are factors MUCH more important than pure flight performance than determine the effectiveness/capability of an aircraft as a fighter & in THOSE factors it is superior to the Typhoon & Rafale.
I didn’t count empty weight. I also didn’t take the max. load figures. I took typical load figures which was a fair approach and I would do it like that, again.
No you simple post numbers which disengenously suited your incorrect assertions.
You are wrong. If you take all jamming/ECM/EW, reduced RCS, target tow decoys into account then more than often the fighters will need to go for close combat, again. Expecting that you will be shooting down Rafales or J-XXs from 50 miles distance with AIM-120s like if they were clockwork Mirage IIIs would be a suicidal approach. AMRAAM might have 90-95% kill probability against a stupid, straight flying target but expect a huge drop in efficiency in high-tech combat under intense jamming.. The overall result will not be significantly higher than AIM-7s over the Nam.
LOL.
Flight performance is still alpha and omega of fighter design, boxes can be replaced or updated, airframe cannot be.
Not for quite some time now.
Nope. MiG-29 was focused on single task of shooting down enemy aircraft and it was a point defense fighter. Su-27S and F-15 were focused on single task of shooting down enemy aircraft and they were air superiority fighters.
Are you even capable of getting ANY fact correct?
Compared to today’s 4+ gen it is an average performer. Compared to future aircraft… well, if Chinese and Russians do it the way I expect, then it will be a fat lumbering truck… And you can be sure they are watching the F-35 very closely because their designs will be countering them much more often than F-22s
Wow, an ‘average performer’. I guess that makes all today’s 4+ gen fighters dogs too. 🙂
I can 100% intellectually honestly say that it isn’t nimble enough. Get used to that, you will be forced to hear that more often than you’d wish to.
No you can not. For the simple fact that you can continually demonstrated that you flatly ignor/disregardjust how nible it ACTUALLY is AND the fact that how nimle a fighter is is NOT THE DETERMINING FACTOR in a fighter’s effectiveness.capability.
***
Sure, but Beesley said that F-22 is only slightly better than F-35 which is in turn exactly as good as clean F-16. Wonder why that “slightly better” makes so much difference, then.. :rolleyes:
F-35 WITH BOMBS ONBOARD is slightly better than a CLEAN F-16.
More specifically a F-22 with ~23,000 lbs of weapons & fuel AND a F-35 with ~23,000 lbs of weapons & fuel have similar flight characteristics (with the F-22 having the added benifit of TVC for extreme AOA/low speed) & that those flight characteristics are similar to a CLEAN Block 50 F-16C…that is until you get into the supersonic flight envelope where the F-22 is in a different league from the F-35 & F-16.
pfcemEither there having more problems than you can believe or there is some kind of time warp/alternate reality issues interfering with LM’s excellent track record such as the on time and on budget F-22 which has been flying 750 aircraft for the past decade:confused:
Someone is avoiding the issues.
Cheers
And just how does having missed the first flight date in Oct 2005 support the BS of FURTHER 2-2.5 years of delays & cost overruns?
***
That is not trolling.
It is merely stating facts inconvienient to the rose tinted spectacle brigade.
It isn’t inconvenient at all. NOBODY is claiming that the program has not experienced delays. BUT having experienced delays in the past DOE NOT mean FUTHER 2-2.5 years of delays are inevitable.
***
And has every single development milestone since then been extended?:rolleyes:.
Which in no way indicates that future milestones will be a FURTHER 2-2.5 years extended.
Is it 1/3 the price of an F-22:eek:
When was it ever supposed to? It IS curently tracking to end up close to 1/2 the flyaway cost of the F-22 & LESS than that of a Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafare or F/A-18E/F.
The JSF is in quite a bit of trouble, it gets very wearisome to keep hearing LM’s rosy outlook taken as gospel and repeated ad nauseam despite the facts. Look at LM share price drop, the big money is not confident, do you wonder why that is?
The JSF IS NOT in trouble, it gets very wearisome to keep hearing ingoranus naysayers made up BS of 2-2.5 years of FURTHER delays repeated ad nauseam despite the facts.
If the leaked delays are confirmed it does have an impact on costs and the in service dates which are supposed to be only ~18 months away and they can’t fly powerpoint presentations.
LM HAS CONFIRMED DELAYS! Delays of ~6 months, NOT 2-2.5 years. AND has explaind the causes of previous delays, how said causes have been addressed & how much better things are going AND IMPROVING.
For those who ignor/forget…
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.”
I guess if you believe the LM’s test schedule you’ll believe LM’s price estimates, that was the point I was trying to make and mentioning LM’s past record as ‘proof’ its all going well is frankly ridiculous!.
LRIP contracts have been BELOW projections. 🙂
There are other estimates of LM current JSF performance the JET report is one, the truth lies somewhere in between LM and JET, but my money and the big money is tilted far towards the JET report end.
LOL.
My bet is there is some big JSF changes in the pipeline, so hold on, strap yourself in and enjoy the show.
Cheers
John
What ‘big changes’? You mean like essentially reverting BACK to the pre-accellerated procurement schedule?
***
It sure DOES show that the program is having more issues than LM and some forum warriors want you to believe.
No it doesn’t. All it shows is that Gates is bowing to political pressure to ‘play it safe’ & assume JETs ‘worst case’ 2 years of FURTHER delays are likely.
As for your claim of unit production costs: Yeah, awesome. Never mind that they achieved that by being severly late. Had they been forced to be on schedule with their LRIP lots, the cost would have been never near that. And you end up paying the increased costs those delays incurred. LM definitely deserves a pat on the back for that.
What ARE you babbling about? In fact the delays have been CAUSED in some part to pressure to meet milestones, causing airframes to be delivered (to the next stage) incomplete which in turn then took MORE time to finish later.
Also, for all your harping on about intellectual honesty you go about comparing fighters prices from different currency zones without considering PPP adjustment to derive their respective costs again. Where’s your much desired intellectual honesty in that?
Nonsense.
Anyone still defending the way the JSF program is being run, and the leeway and sloth LM has been awarded, after another delay and cost increase as expected in the next budget as being just fine and claiming that everything is all dandy, deserves the title of “Black Knight”.
Sorry but even LM & its supporters know full well & admit to delays & cost increases that have occured BUT the reality that the program is currently (& has been for some time now) trending BETTER, not worse (& worse is what would have to be the case for FURTHER 2-2.5 years of delays & cost overruns).
***
…hahahaha…Kid, get a brain…
YOU are the one who needs to get a brain.
Who cares if they are payed separately, on not. Both (and more) bills still need to be payed.
THOSE PAYING THE BILLS CARE. Because…Development costs are payed by those involded in development. Procurement costs are payed by those who procure the resulting weapons system.
Now, let’s take AUS for example here. As a partner AUS contributes with $150m in the JSF program development phase, worth ~$50b.
This is about 0.3% of the development worth and therefore AUS F35s will cost flyaway price+program price-0.3%.
Now, if this by some miracle doesn’t happen and US choose out of altruistic reasons to exempt AUS from paying development price, then someone else needs to pay the difference and that will be US taxpayers, no less.Do you think this will happen? 😀
But CONTRARY TO YOUR BS, Australia’s contribution to developement is NOT tacked on to its procurement cost – IT IS PAYING ITS DEVELOPEMENT CORTIBUTION SEPARATELY. Nations who will procure the F-35 but were not part of its developement wont pay developement cost – DEVLOPMENT COSTS ARE BEING PAYED BY THE EIGHT MEMBER NATIONS.
***
Indeed the sheer ignorance of the fanboy brigade is astonishing. And woe those “naysayers” doubt LMs claims on schedule and cost, those wicked witches have to be burned for not “believing”. And if just another delay is evident and the naysayers were once again confirmed in their anticipation, the ignorant fanboy trolls just adapt to the new reality and propose the next new revised schedule who becomes the gospel truth until the next delay being officially announced. Yeah yeah but everything is just fine and on track and LM “delivers”, yes it does but when and at what price?
***
Loke, I’m not trying to establish JSF’s final price (I don’t know how much it will cost), but I’m trying to explain the relationship among JSF consortium members, since pfcem came with the idea that partners will be exempt of development costs??!!
Development alone was ~$45b in 2004! I said ~$50b today, but now it seems considerably higher and so will be the final price for partners.
Quite the opposite. I HAVE POSTED MANY TIMES THAT THE EIGHT PARTNER NATIONS ARE PAYING DEVELOPEMENT COSTS!
But ignoranuses like you want people to believe that NOBODY is paying any development costs yet & that they will be tacked on to the flyaway cost FOR EVERYONE WHO EVER BUYS IT.
THINK ABOUT IT! Are those buying F-16s today paying for the 1970’s developement costs?
pfcemIt doesn’t matter if they are booked together or separately. They both need to be payed, one way or another.
Output must be equal or larger than input, or the heads will roll.
Kid, this is how it goes in industry and trade. Where are you from?
Yes it does matter & they ARE booked separately BECAUSE IT DOES MATTER.
Development costs are payed by those involded in development – for the JSF that is the eight partner nations. Procurement costs are payed by those who procure the resulting weapons system – which is not only the eight partner nations but those nations which procure the F-35 at some point BUT WERE NOT INVOLVED WITH ITS DEVELOPEMENT.
Pfcem, it doesn’t matter. Someone must pay the bill. So, are you saying that US pays development alone and partners not??!! (*snicker* this will be funny)
You have a SERIOUS reading comprehention problem. I have already posted MANY TIMES in several threads that development costs are payed by the eight partner nations. Developement costs ARE NOT added onto procurement costs, THEY ARE PAYED SEPARATELY.
pfcemDo I even need to comment on this any further?
The forum would be better off if you didn’t.
Again, you start with a verbal diarrhea, as usual and I’m very interested how you plan to debunk this particular article, since it’s the topic of the thread.
To clarify. I’m interested what specifically is “old BS”, as you put it.
Like I said, there is no need to as it has already been done. IF there was anything NEW in the article…but there isn’t, it the same old BS.
Even TODAY they still propose what is essentially the 1970’s LWF (NOT the ACF or F-16 but the smaller, LESS capable LWF – something similar to a F-20) as ‘the ultimate fighter’.
***
Don’t ask me what the problem is. I have none.. I only respond to pfcem’s claim that F-35 is a FIGHTER not a BOMBER (a F-111 replacement), even if Aussies are replacing their F-111 with.. guess what.. F-35..
Australia is replacing its F/A-18s with the F-35 as well. I would not expect you to remember (or be intellectually honest enough to admit if you did) that I have stated that Australia SHOULD be replacing its F-111s with a F-15E derivative – something like the F-15SE. Australia’s plan was to have an all F-35 combat air force. Even with the F/A-18F ‘stop-gap’ (half of which are to be ‘wired to be able to become Growlers’) it is possible it eventually will be.
pfcem claims that F-35 will be seen as a fighter and that some new heavy striker will be developed (something like FB-22 revived concept?), I don’t see anything like that happen… I think that F-35s are primarily developed and also will be primarily used as strikers, not as fighters… the nations that have no F-22s will be forced to use them as fighters but that will be a pretty unlucky choice, hardly able to face future threats like J-XX or PAK-FA.
If you got any more questions regarding this, ask pfcem.. 🙂
No, I am simply stating the FACT that the F-35 IS A FIGHTER. THE purpose of the F-35A is to replace the F-16 (a fighter, NOT a bomber). I see you have NO concept of what a fighter is. You see FIGHTERS have proven to make quite good light/medium strike aircraft & as such dedicated strike aircraft have gone out of style (heavy strike aircraft & bombers still have their roles) as it is MUCH more cost-effective to procure fighters to act as your light/medium strike aircraft than to procure separate fighters & light/medium strike aircraft. The nations that have no F-22s know full well that the F-35 is 2nd only to the F-22 in air-to-air capability AND that the F-35 will do better vs the PAK-FA & J-XX than any 4th or 4.5 generation fighter.
***
All those you have mentioned, namely F-16C/Ds, F/A-18C/Ds, & AV-8Bs are primarily strikers, not fighters. And their replacement, the F-35, is also primarily a striker, not a fighter. The whole concept including high-drag fuselage, large weight for a single engined fighter and lack of SC only confirms that..
Wrong. The F-16C/Ds, F/A-18C/Ds are MULTI-ROLE FIGHTERS. More specifically FIGHTERS with significant light/medium strike capability (since FIGHTERS with significant light/medium strike capability is more cost effective than separate fighters & light/medium strike aircraft). The AV-8B is actually a CAS aircraft. The F-35 isn’t a high drag fuselage, it is a VERY VOLUME EFFICIENT fuselage (about the same size – both frontal crass section & total wetted area – as the Rafale) that carries everything it needs to do its job INTERNALLY (as opposed to much dragger exteranl carriage). The F-35 isn’t much heavier (< 2500 lbs/10%) than the Eurofighter Typhoon. True the F-35 is not ‘able to achieve and maintain speeds in excess of Mach 1.5 for extended periods of time without the use of afterburners’ but neither is any other fighter except for the F-22. As for ‘able to achieve and maintain speeds in excess of Mach 1.0 for extended periods of time without the use of afterburners’, the F-35 is most likely able to do that.
You are only referring to electronics. But F-35 lacks something to be a good fighter – flying abilities. First, I don’t believe it flies as good as F-16 and even if it did, being as good as F-16 is not good enough anymore..
No I am not referring to electronics. I AM referring to BS that the the F-35 is a “Mud Mover that will try to be a fighter”. And the F-35 has SUPERB flying abilities – as good or better than a CLEAN F/A-18C at low speed/high AoA AND as good or better than a CLEAN F-16C at higher speed. You can disbelieve how good the F-35 is all you want, it wont change the truth about how good it is. I also see that you are still living in the 20th century…
They haven’t chosen F-35B over a modernized Harrier because there is no modernized Harrier planned or developed. They took the only available option.
Yes they chose the F-35B over a modernized Harrier, and THAT is why there is no modernized Harrier planned or developed.
***
If they do… for now though, they are in the process of replacing their F-111s with F/A-18Fs… which WAS designed as a “heavy striker first/fighter second” to replace the A-6 Intruder (the F/A-18E was the F-14 replacement).
Exactly what they buy to replace the Super Hornets with (after their F/A-18A-mod Hornets are replaced with F-35As) is still to be seen. They could buy more F-35As, F-35Cs, or maybe buy into a USAF F-15E replacement program.
No, the F/A-18E/F was never intended to be a F-14 replacement but it became one.
The F/A-18Fs are a ‘stop gap’ due to the early retirement of the F-111s before they could be replaced (along with its F/A-18s) by the F-35. Australia may not even keep its F/A-18Fs (assuming it can find someone who wants them) beyond 2025.
***
Australians had to replace their ageaing F-111s but the F-35 wouldn’t come for almost another decade.. that’s why they took the F/A-18 in the first place, even if it lacked range and payload compared to the F-111
Australia’s F-35 delivery schedule…
2013: 04
2014: 08
2015: 15
(15 per year through 2019)
2020: 13
Thats for the plan total of 100.
The problem is that Australia decided to retire is F-111s early in 2010.
Considering claims about the F-35 being a fighter, er, the program it comes out was called “Joint Strike Aircraft”, now, unless the definition of “strike” has changed, that means it’s a tactical bomber and conceived as such from the beginning. It is supposed to replace F-16C/D, F-18 C/D, A-10 (btw, I’m not so sure it will be very suited to low altitude low speed flying needed for close ground support the way an A-10 does… question of aerodynamics)
Wrong. “Joint” refers to it being a USAF & DON program. “Strike” is an adjective. Rather redundant as most “Fighters” these days have significant strike capabilities/roles. “Fighter” is what type of aircraft it is.
The F-35 isn’t meant for low altitude low speed flying. Like air combat, CAS has progressed as well. CAS these days is typicaly a JDAM or LGB launghed from 20,000′.
The “fighter” part is, more or less, like the F-111 was at the time of its conception: claimed being a fighter, and not being one at all in the end…
No, the “fighter” part IS like the F-16. A MULTI_ROLE FIGHTER with significant strike capabilities.
Even LM claims that F-35 should be equal to the F-16 in the air-air… which is far from “being second only to the F-22” for the time period in which it is supposed to enter service
No, the USAF/DOD & LM have the data (& test pilots have experienced it) that shows that a COMBAT LOADED F-35A has “subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16” &
Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16“. AND in terms of air-to-air combat the F-35 will be 4 times more effective than legacy fighters.
***
One would think that after 9,000 posts here you’d know basics like that. And I am even sure you know them well but throwing questions around is so much easier than answering them, right? :rolleyes:
One example that says it all – wing loading. A fighter needs low in order to outturn the opponents. A striker needs it high so that the low level ride does not become too bumpy and bomb delivery inaccurate.
F-35A/B – 91.4 lb per square foot – RAND figure was 108 but I took more conservative approach
F/A-18E – 93.2 lb per square foot
Rafale – 65.6 per square foot
Typhoon – 63.7 lb per square foot
Gripen – 69.8 lb per square footThis number alone pretty much disqualifies the F-35 from the league of good fighters..
Now I could go one with climb rates, turn rates, TW ratios and other stuff that is not published yet but I really got better things to do than to persuade someone who has already decided that he would not change his mind on anything, anyway.
“Wing loading” is all but useless as a determiner of aircraft performance these days. The calculation of “wing area” from which it is derived does not accurately represent true wing area nor the actual lifting area of modern combat aircraft.
BUT…an OEW F-35 has a “wing loading” of 57.97 lb per square foot. COMBAT LOADED with two ‘2,000lb’ JDAM + two AMRAAM + 18,307 lbs of INTERNAL fuel (for a total of ~23,000 lbs of weapons & fuel) you get 107.98 lb per square foot. Load up a F/A-18E/F, Rafale, Typhoon &/or Gripen similarly & their “wing loading” doesn’t look too good either. With say four AMRAAM + two AIM-9X + 9,000 lbs of internal fuel (for a total of ~10,720 lbs of weapons & fuel) you get a “wing loading” of 81.26 lb per square foot. Just becasue you CAN carry >18,000 lbs of fuel internally does not mean that you HAVE too – see the Flanker for what a reduced (but still useful) fuel load can do for a ‘big/heavy’ aircraft’s agility…
AND pure flight performance is not THE determining factor in fighter effectiveness.capability theses days…
***
Define Interceptor – Fighter – Destroyer 😀
What’s a fighter? A sportscar, like a TR6 or the old air cooled 911, fast, agile, focused on a single task. A MiG-21 or J-7, a F-104A, the Mirage 2000 in its original form. These days when everything fattens up, a MiG-29, or the EF2k/T1.
The F-35 certainly not. The question is can it hold itself against aerial opposition when loaded for a/g? Kind of the same question as in the later stages of WW2 when Hitler demanded the Fw190G JaBoRei models to carry a 500kg bomb into England, and still be able to hold itself against Hurricanes and Spitfires. The F-35 is very much in the spirit of the JaBoRei.
Wrong. Even by the standards of WWII, FIGHTERS were not ‘focused on a single task’ but were not only intended to shoot down enemy aircraft but attack ground targets as well.
Aicraraft ‘focused on a single task’ of shooting down enemy aircraft are INTERCEPTORS, not FIGHTERS.
***
The only one playing stupid is you and the likes who are changing rhetoric from topic to topic. Few threads ago you and the Raptor gang was battling for F-22’s supercruise and how it’s the best thing since sliced bread. And suddenly noone needs a fighter that can fly?
While I won’t comment on whether it be ‘playing’ stupid or actually BEING stupid but it YOU & your ilk who are stuck with outdated concepts of air combat & deny the facts given to you by the people who know what they are playing/being stupid.
If flying abilities mean nothing and a lumbering truck like F-35 is enough to out-fight anything because of its HOBS, IRST, AESA, and AIM-120s, then you have just admitted that F-22 with its supercruise, climb rate and maneuvrability is a complete waste of money… In fact, every fighter is, all you need to make is a stealthized B-52 carrying fifty tons of jammers and a huge AESA radar with 1200 km range, loaded with huge AAMs capable of shooting down aircraft at 500km+ distance.. Who can come close?
The F-35 is NOT a lumbering truck! COMBAT LOADED (thats ~23,000 lbs of weapons & fuel) will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16” Try loading up ANY remotely similarly sized 4th or 4,5 generation fighter similarly & see how well they “fly”…
***
Unfortunately, your denial won’t help the aircraft to become a better performer than it is..
No, YOUR denial won’t turn the aircraft into a lesser performer than it is.
Of course, it depends on the eye of the beholder. Compared to the F-4E the F-35 is a nimble fighter. If you are happy with that result, then I wholeheartedly agree..
It also depends on the intellectual honesty of the beholder. To those that are intellectualy honesty the F-35 is plenty nimble, to those intellectualy DISHONEST is isn’t nimble enough.
pfcemI know for a fact that the AGS can fire unguided rounds and this was always the case.
Sure it CAN. Just don’t expect to be able to hit anything. The AGS rifling has comparatively little twist in order for the LRLAP (which as StevoJH posted is really a gun-launched missile [with more than half its overall length being a rocket booster] rather than a ‘projectile’) to work – aka not enough twist to stabilize ‘conventional’ unguided projectiles. And as already mentioned a 300 round magazine (which wouldn’t last long) for the AGS requires the space of a 64 cell Mk 41 VLS.
pfcemI suggest you get your rose-tinted glasses with wrap-around straps, because you are still in a for a ride.
And just what is that supposed to show?
It sure DOES NOT show that the program is having anywhere near as much problems as some want you to believe.
***
Yes, every customer will pay flyaway price indeed, BUT PLUS development price. Even the US.
Wrong. The only ones paying development cost are the partner nations DEVELOPING IT. And development cost are SEPARATE COSTS!
The difference is that US already payed most of its program share through development, so far.
The only alternative is that US taxpayers cover the development price, for partner nations like Norway, f.e.
However, I’m pretty sure that even the least literate hill-billys will have to say a word or two about that.
Yes, THE US is paying the bulk of the developement costs. NOT EXPORT CUSTOMERS!!!
Pfcem, do you even realize what kind of syphilitic idea, you just came with?? 😀
I mean, it’s 101 economics. How can you give any (im)possible estimations about anything related to prices, when you have troubles with basics?
You are the one having problems with the basics, not me.
I am not giving any estimations about anything related to prices, THE PEOPLE DEVELOPING & BUILDING THE AIRCRAFT ARE! And unlike people pulling crap out of their rear end, THE PEOPLE DEVELOPING & BUILDING THE AIRCRAFT have the actual data AND HAVE DEVELOPED & BUILT AIRFRAFT BEFORE.
And with LRIP contracts coming in BELOW projections shows that their cost projections ARE NOT OUT OF WHACK & if anything a bit high.
pfcemWhen the F-35 is in full production I will be very surprised if it costs less than the Typhoon, Rafale and F-18E/F. But until the actual costs are revealed at that time no one can say for definite one way or the other except as pure spin.
LRIP contracts are ALREADY BELOW projections! And the projected full rate production flyaway price of a F-35A (FY2014 dollars) is $70-75 million [~$58.7 million in FY2008 dollars :)]. That is LESS in FY2014 dollars than the Typhoon, Rafale or F/A-18E/F cost in FY2008 dollars!
pfcemThen it is seriously f*cked up because I don’t see any heavy striker like that being developed and USAF seems to bet their bombing future on the F-35
No it isn’t. Replacing F-16C/Ds, F/A-18C/Ds, & AV-8Bs which were built in the 1980’s is simply a more pressing/higher priority. When it comes time to replace the F-15E (likely some time in the late 2020s/early 2030s – yes I would like to see it happen significantly earlier) THEN a new light bomber/heavy strike aircraft will be the priority.
That might be possible but that does not mean it actually will be 2nd only to the F-22 in air-to-air capability.
Do you even bother to read what people are responding to? The F-35 is no Tornado (‘a Mud Mover that will try to be a fighter’), it is a F-16, and not a limited capability early block F-16 either (I think of the ICO Block III F-35A as being the general/developmental equivalent of a Block 30 F-16C).
Maybe because there is no modernized Harrier developed..
Thats the point. They have chosen the F-35B INSTEAD of embarking on a ‘modernized Harrier’.
pfcemThe cheapest total development cost that i find for the JSF is 50 billion dollar.
The cheapest realistic production cost is 40 million dollar for every one of the +/- 3000 planes which are planned. Adding this up I get a whopping 170 billion dollar.
For this amount we could get +/- 700 extra F-22 (if at all needed).
Probably a lot more taking into account economy of scale bringing the price of an individual F-22 down, and economies made on training, maintenance…Now, is this reasoning completely bananas wrong, am I missing something, or does it indeed not make any sense?
To me it does not make sense in any case. The F-16 was a good partner for the F-15 because it held its promise of being relatively cheap and very performant at the same time. The F-35 seems very expensive for a plane which justification is that it is cheaper than the plane it has to support.
Och, VTOL you say; are we sure that we actually need that (we have helicopters and ospreys)? and would extra F-22 not largely compensate for this?
What doesn’t make sense is how things have gotten so bad for the US military that in order for the USAF to get an F-16 replacement, the USN & USMC to get a F/A-18C/D replacement and the USMC to get an AV-8 replacement is through a single ‘common’ program with three varients of a ‘common’ design.
As great is it would be to get more F-22s, an all F-22 force can’t do it all any more than an all F-15 force (as opposed to a F-15, F-16, F/A-18 & AV-8 force).
The F-35 will not be very expensive. Full rate production F-35A’s will cost ~1/2 a F-22, less that a Eurofighter Typhoon, a Rafale, a F/A-18E/F…
The F-35B is not VTOL, it is STOVL & yes the USMC needs it.
***
Considering price…
First, someone must pay that $170m per plane. It’s only US/AF-N-MC who get to pay flyaway price, because they belong to investor’s side. So, US taxpayers (USAF/N/MC) already payed a sh1tload of money for F35’s development and waving with flyaway price is taking US taxpayer for an idiot.
The rest (partners) must pay flyway price minus their contribution in development, so that puts a lot of “partners” at almost full program price.
Now, there are some indications that US have “tailored” prices for certain nations at will. That can happen too like in Norway’s example, but then someone else will need to pay the difference, be it US taxpayers (most likely), or partner nations.
There’s no such thing as free lunch.
BS. Every customer will pay flyaway price. Developement costs are separate from flyaway cost…
***
The nations which will buy the F-35 won’t even have access to the most advanced parts of the aircraft, which will have to be sent back to the USA for servicing or if a repair is needed.
Wrong. F-35 customers will be perfectly capable of performing servicing of there aircraft. As for repair, even current in seervice aircraft require being sent back to the manufacturer for certian repairs.
***
Btw, nice read here :
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Speaking of JSF: It’s simple. Either this year sees the most amazing program performance turn-round in the history of the galaxy, or we are looking at the most spectacular case of engineering hubris-to-nemesis since the Titanic.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++Hope.
LOL
The only ‘turn-round’ will be morons like Sweetman admitting that things in the F-35 program aren’t (& neber were) as bad as they want to make them out to be.
Sign In
