Do you have a source for this?

L

What do you think the US DOD (not LM, it is the DOD which sets export prices) quoting a F-35A flyaway cost of $58.7 million (FY2008 dollars) for partner nations is?

The Thing is that it is Not that hard to reduce the Signature of an F-15E to a point where it is close or eqaul to the F-35 when there is next to no chance of the F-15SE ever seeing serious $$ , or being taken seriously by anyone in a position to put serious $$ 😉

No, the thing is that is it an absolute impossibility to reduce the RCS of the F-15E to anything even close to approaching that of the F-35. Applying RAMs to a non-stealth optimize airframe can only do so much, in order to get anywhere near that of the F-35 requires very careful & deliberate shaping of pretty much the entire airframe.

The JSF is a fine plane on paper, but it needs to be translated into a real aircraft with a real price before these arguements are any use.

The F-35 is a real aircraft. If you happen to be lucky enough to live in (or can travel to) the right place, you can see it 1st hand.

Or, as long as you don’t believe in some world-wide conspiracy, you can do an internet search & find hundreds of pictures of it.

There are lots of conflicting price estimates for this aircraft, with the Manufacturer tending to quote at the low end (not that surprising:D).

Who do you think has a better idea of the cost of a say a 2011 Ford Mustang? Ford any anybody else…;)

The alternate engine is not that expensive in relation to the program.

Or really….

So the only cost involved in the F136 is the additional (on top of what has already been spent) to finish its developement…

The big problem:-
What is worrying about these quotes is the knife edge the JSF is currently on.

If the number of aircraft cut from the program is more than 50-80 or the budget gets blown out by more than $1B, then the program is in danger of the F-22 death spiral.
This is how close the JSF program is to collapse, $1B is being touted to send it over the edge, with several years till real production $1B is not going to be enough.

You misunderstand. It is not that continuing to fund the F136 will lead to the end of the F-35. It will lead to the loss of 50+ aircraft per year…

Now add the current financial crisis, the troubled US economy, add the UK’s reluctance to fund the Tranche 3 typhoons, and its very tight military budget, and the program doesn’t look like it can handle any bumps in the road.

These bumps in the road are part of all aircraft production and they start out small, such as the tiny number of flight tests carried out so far, delays and cost blow outs are guaranteed.

Now the big question – what will give?.:-

Clearly the program is the USA’s only option to replace the current aircraft, so its cancellation is only a remote possibility (at this time).

I think the cost vs capability is the only variable they can play with, with capability of the aircraft in the early marks suffering badly.

The airframes are a given, flight testing has been cut and cut again, so can’t be cut much further, Training, avionics and software are in the firing line.

So I expect a very cut down version to be produced with the capabilities ‘promised’ later, much later.

Export prospects:-

The export numbers originally projected will be cut, the UK may halve its requirement, they know attrition reserves can be bought cheaper later!!, so they are going to get a bare minimum to service the carriers.

The northern Europeans are now getting cold feet;) with delaying tactics to see what the price/capability/schedule is going to be all three are moving in the wrong direction so I do not see increases in exports.

The US is under the same pressure, the danger signs everyone is looking for are more legacy aircraft ordered in the interim and that’s already started.

Future:-
So the once rosy future of the JSF is looking more than a little wilted, its running on a knife edge, and the program partners are looking very uneasy.

Only adding the money now will stop the slide, I think its already started and will take another enormous investment to keep it on track.

The final big question – Is there enough money available to pull this project from this death spiral, what would the US afford up and over the $1B being touted.

Just my take on it.

Cheers

John

Sorry, you assume a forever (or at least long-term) world-wide recession/depression.

Forgive me for fetting a bit political here but…

What happens if in 2010 the US electorate wakes up & sufficent number of fiscally responsible Senetors & Representative are elected to stop the out of control Oboma spending? What happens if “the next Reagan” is elected in 2012 &…

I don’t. Don’t get me wrong. I think the Obama decision was perfect. I also think that for USAF, with her resources and potential enemies, the aircraft can amply fullfil the missions. But, if the enemy of today was Russia, meaning a Russia of comparable strenght in airforce, i wouldn’t count on the F35 doing the job as well as if more F22 were around. Because for once, the whole F35 thing, revolves around the hpothesis, that the F35 won’t be detected. Now, that can be true for current Iranian air defence for example, but would you bet your life that it could do the same against a russian air defence, with various radar wavelenght coverage, Awacs and enemy aircrafts equiped with very powerful radars and IRST?

What i mean, is, that the US plans, are made according to US needs. This doesn’t reflect an absolute reality. And i think that this is what Sprey is basically talking about. He is talking about the aircraft, if it had to go against a very capable enemy country. It is obvious, that against largely inferior enemies, the F35 will have no problem, because as a matter of fact, not even the F16 had any problems to go against Serbian, Iraqui or Afghani airforce. But these airforces are hardly a true measure to judge the real capability of the aircraft.

The flaw in your thinking is that the F-35 was designed (in combination with the F-22) to fight vs the highest level threats, not the lower ones. For lower level threats new F-15s/F-16s/F/A-18s would be just fine. It is the higher level threats (those that could match or exceed the capability of even new F-15s/F-16s/F/A-18s) that the F-22 & F-35 are for.

No matter what the future threat is, the F-35 will be more capable against it than any previous fighter (except for the F-22 of course).

The F35 is stealth. Yes. But the best RCS is head on frontally and in X band. It’s not invisible.

Of course the F-35’s best RCS is head on frontally and in X band, that is where it is most important. But its RCS from all angle is aslo much lower than previous generation fighters. In fact its RCS from other angles advantage over previous generation fighters is most certainly greater since aome 4th generation & 4.5 generation fighters have some degree of reduced frontal RCS but unlike the F-35 do not have all-aspect reduced RCS.

Nobody is claiming it is invisible.

Yes, always supposing the enemy is inferior in capability and numbers… The point is, the F35 in WVR, needs HOBS or is dead meat even against a F16 with JHMCS. In order to carry HOBS, as things are today, it needs to mount the AIM-9X externally. This cancels the stealth. And how much the RCS is increased by external stores, is something one can only guess. Nobody from us, can predict how the “touchy” RCS, will change from the external pylons/missile. How will this affect the radar reflection and brake the perfect “VLO” shape? Maybe more than one would like. All the enemy needs, is being able to shoot back at you.

Err…the F-22 has been more than holding its own WVR without HOBS missiles of its own vs those that do. Of course the F-35 is not the F-22 but still what makes you think the difference between the F-35 & the F-22 is not less than the difference between the F-35 & previous generation fighters…

Sorry, a pair of external WVR missiles is not going to cancel the F-35’s stealth. Sure it will add significantly to its RCS & have a marginal effect on its flight performance but it will still have a much lower RCS than any previous generation fighter & they too will suffer a similar loss of flight performance due to external weapons carriage.

And don’t forget that the minimum effective range of the AMRAAM is ~5 miles…

The SDBs are GPS guided correct? What about moving targets or advancing enemy infantry?

GBU-40 SDB Increment II 🙂

And the worst of all… Ok, you are USA, you dominate in air, sea, land, so 8 SDBs are enough per sortie. But come again to a scenario of an enemy of equal strenght or an enemy like China that uses huge numbers to overwhelm you. Ask the G.I. down there fighting for his life… What would he prefer to come to his rescue? 1 F35 with 8 SDB or 1 Super Hornet with 24 (?) SDBs or higher yield bombs or more versatile bombs (hit various types of targets)? You may say, “but the Super Hornet may never arrive in the area”. Well, with an F22 sweeping the “road” in front of it, it will arrive. The G.I. will reply “to hell with stealth! I am getting killed down here, i don’t care if the F35 can come all alone and throw its 8 SDBs! I want the enemy advance to be stopped ASAP, i don’t care if you have to escort and babysit the striker, i want the biggest payload you can give me”. So why use the “stealth” F35 for CAS (if you are not USAF with endless numbers and inferior enemy)? Because the enemy is inferior so that 8 SDBs are enough. This doesn’t apply for most other airforces around the world that can’t afford the USAF resources.

Again, the F-35 is designed to fight the highest level threats.

If you need more than 8 SDBs per sortie, the F-35 can carry 16 (or 8: 1,000 lbs class weapons or 4: 2,000 lbs class weapons) externally and will still be more stealthy when carrying them than any previous generation fighter with a similar payload. That or you send more than one F-35 if they have to retain their highest levels of stealth. 🙂

The F35 have HOBS… in external stores. The BVR only scenario again depends on enemy and enemy tactics and numbers. The EOTS is not there yet and by its positioning alone it is optimized for A2G and slaved to the radar anyway (you need to do lighten the target). The LPI isn’t panacea, nowdays ESM can catch even link comms between aircrafts. How much LPI is against modern EW suites is something we don’t know (i have my doubts). The problem as i said, is that others now have IRSTs too (today), which can track completely passively, AWACS and they can use links too. One sees you, everyone sees you.

Wrong. AMRAAM is a HOBS missile with a minimum effective range of ~5 miles. Who knows what the minimum effective range of the JDRADM will be…And who is to say that is a “zero minimum range” WVR missile like AIM-9X is deemed necessary, that that an ejector-capable one could not be developed?

And some also have better kinematic performances. As for F35s kinematics, we will have to wait for the real thing to come out, it’s not TW ratio. At each speed and altitude the characteristics of an aircraft change.

So what? Kinematic performance is the be all that is all if fighter capabilty/effectiveness…

And the problem with the F35, is that it wants to be presented, like it can do anything better than anything. Like trying to sell a car, saying that it is better than any other luxury car, 4×4 offroad truck, F1 racing car, SUV,pickup truck, urban utility car, family car, coupè. I am sorry, i won’t believe it, until i see it. Probably the USAF couldn’t believe it either, that’s why she wanted the F22, just like she wanted the F15 before, instead of relying in F16s.

Nice analogy but pray tell what do you think the F-35 can not do as well or vetter than any previous generation fighter (aside from of course what the F-22 is meant to do)?

Sorry, you have it backwards. The F-22 came before the F-35 just as the F-15 came before the F-16. It is not that the USAF wanted the F-15 becasue the F-16 was not good enough (or the same for the F-22/F-35), it is that even the USAF could not/can not realisticly afford an all “high” forces. Thus the F-16 (& F-35) to provide a larger number of lower cost (& yes less capable but still very capable in their own right) “low” for a “high/low” mix

At the end… does this poor ******* of F22 really have a purpose? I mean, really, the F35 if you believe forum enthusiasts (and LM), is the answer to everything. Makes you wonder why produce the F22 at all… Or why USAF wanted it in the first place…

See above…

My friend, the point is, that for USA the F35 at the numbers you can get and with your other aircraft, is enough agains Iran, Korea, Syria and i don’t know what else potential rogue state enemy you may have to fight in the next 15-20 years.

Other buyers, YES, DO want the F22, because they don’t have USAF resources and don’t see the F35 like the “panacea”. I will remind Japan, Israel, Australia and even HAF, which is widely known that our pilots would want F22 and not F35. But, is the F22 for sale? NO. Just like we wanted F15. Was it for sale? No. Even in 1999, that the F15 was for sale for Greece, it was the F15H (degraded export version).

If you had still the cold war with Russia today, and Russia was still throwing in the field loads of Sus and Migs (and pending the PAK FA), i don’t think your F35s would be so ready for “going alone” against hordes of Sus… That’s the whole story.

But for the US, the F-35 won’t be alone…And for those that have to “suffer” with just the F-35 & no F-22 will do better than anyone with any previous generation fighters…

USA made 2 aircrafts for her needs. With the current geopolitical situation, the 1 of them (the F22) is too costly to take in large numbers and air dominance againt US potential threat isn’t a problem (it isn’t even today without the F22). Hence a large number of F35 to do “everything” is a cost effective solution, that will allow the US economy to breathe.

Again, the “high/low mix” is not new to the F-22/F-35…

Now, LM takes this, and tries to sell it worldwide as being true for any airforce…

LM has done no such thing.

This is where the problem comes. And i think that this is the POV of the F35 critics.

Sorry, I bet you will find most all F-35 naysayers either were or still are F-22 naysayers as well & made the same BS arguments vs the F-22 as they do vs the F-35…

I mean, if you ask Sprey if USAF will have high casualties against Iran, Korea or name the potential enemy, i am confident he will tell you “no”. I think Sprey’s POV is of what happens if you go against an enemy with similar capabilities. Which is more or less, the same story of what RAND did in the scenario against PLAAF in Taiwan. The survivability of the F35 against high tech enemies would be greatly improved with the F22 sweeping and protecting them. Surprising an enemy like Iran? Likely. Surprising an enemy like China or Russia with dense air defence and AWACS? I wouldn’t bet my money on it. Sensor fusion and links work for the others too. And BVR isn’t panacea, EW suites get better and better, kinematics have improved, IFF and target ID are harder the longer the distance and tight formations can make your locking almost impossible to ranges that will allow you to avoid any WVR.

Blah, blah, blah, again with the BS that the F-35 is only good enough vs lower level threats.

And the F35 in WVR, as is today, will be dead or not stealth in the first place, which will make it dead in the BVR too against a Su.

BS.

One can argue that the F35’s “stealth” profile won’t brake much to allow the enemy to detect it first. Even if we take this as true (nobody knows really) and even if we suppose that an enemy Su with IRST won’t detect the F35 (or the missile flare launch), the Su all that needs is to be able to have the F35 with external stores within launch parameters. And unfortunately, however you look at it, the best situation for BVR launch, is head on approach, from high altitude, high speed. This makes you more vulnerable to IRST detection. The most surprise attack is from 3 or 9 oclock, but that’s also the worst position for a BVR launch. The NEZ will narrow down too much, the missile will be in the worst kinematic position, modern aircrafts now have MAWS…

:rolleyes:

The DAS, is nice to have, but its real gain in WVR combat i don’t know how much it can change the issue of needing a HOB missile in the first place (going with guns won’t help you much, DAS or no DAS) and good kinematics. Because, even an F16 Block 30 (which is the most agile F16 version for dogfight), if it arrives at WVR against the F35 with stealth configuration, will most probably shoot the F35 down, even without JHMCS (the HUD alone and plain AIM9M/L will give advantage). Needless to say, that should the F35 “strike dedicated” versions, that have not even the internal gun, find themselves forced to enter WVR engagement range and are in their “stealth configuration” (no AIM-9X onboard), they can only eject and nothing else, even if the pilot is world class ace that could succeed in gun killing the enemy.

LOL

I add about DAS, that until the EOTS comes in (the first blocks don’t have it, correct?), it’s hardly comparable to a real IRST (range wise). The whole structure of the F35, can’t help betraying, that it was made for strike as primary role (kinematics, internal A2A payload, position and function of EOTS, gun availability in the various versions). The fact that now suddenly the F22 has more or less become “useless”, is another story. It’s called “making a virtue out of a necessity”. The “panacea” thing is LM marketing, just like any company that wants to export, says that her product is the best. IMHO, the F35 is asked to fit too many roles and you can’t be best in every single one of them. There are too many compromises you need to make.

Stop the nonsense. LM had made no such claims of F-35 “panacea.”

For USAF, where numbers isn’t a problem, this isn’t an issue. But for others it is. The F35 is too valuable to risk losing it like that.

What are you talking about?

And a question that was raised from a greek editorial… Why can’t an UCAV be used as 1st day strike aircraft??? It would also cost much cheaper… I am sure LM has the answer for that too. (Probably is that UCAV has shorter range and we need to get in deep into Iran to strike various targets. Well, not all customers need to bomb Iran…)

Becasue true strike-capable UCAVs are still decades away & even when they do become a reality, there will still be things that a manned aircraft can do better.

Flex is right, 1:6 to 1 = 16:10
I think Meteor is the game changer.

Your most certainly correct that the Gripen NG’s positive kill ratio had more to do with the Meteor than anything about the Gripen NG itself…

Do you perhaps know which kind of inflation model is at the base of the then-year dollar calculation?

3-4%

I don’t know the exact number used in the projections but we have the $58.7 million in FY2008 dollars and we have the $70-75 million in 2014 dollars (3% makes $58.7 million in FY2008 dollars to be ~$70.1 million in FY2014 dollars and 4% makes $58.7 million in FY2008 dollars to be ~$74.3 million in FY2014 dollars).

It seems kind of odd to extend such a projection that far into the future.

It is a long program and the US DOD & LM have to make the projection out to the end of the program as part of is ‘business plan’ justification to Congress.

Oh, and just for my own reference: Do you know where I can look up the price quote as delivered to the partner nations in April 2008?

Here is one from June 2008.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23855599-662,00.html

But I recall (perhaps incorrectly as to when exactly) being made aware of said price (not necessarily the exact number but something in that ballpark) being quoted to Australia, Canada & Norway (& I assume all partner nations) earlier than that (I recall it being April 2008) which is why when I saw the public annoucement in June I, for one, was not surprised.

1.6 to 1 means 16 Flankers lost for every 10 Gripen lost. Nilsson says the JSF gets the opposite ratio: looses 16 JSF for every 10 Flankers shot down.

Think about it, no way do 6 JSFs get shot down to kill a single Flanker, no matter how badly it gets beat up on this forum.

No way do 16 F-35 get shot down for every 10 Su-35 either.

Garbage in = garbage out.