pfcemOnce again, LM telling me is not LM showing me and waiting until they do is simply my prerogative. If I take every claim at face value then I’d believe every fighter is superior to every other one, so some scepticism is, I rather think, natural.
:rolleyes:
Hmm… China, India or Russia, perhaps? Not that Australia really has anything to worry about from the last one, though other F-35 customers do.
What ARE you smoking? You ACTUALLY believe that in ~15 year the sky is going to be populated with hordes of Chinese/Indian/Russian 5th generation fighters.
So far.
And the trend is for LESS numbers…
Exactly. It’s designed and sold as a striker to the US and then sold as fighter to the rest of the world, which is my point. Not saying it isn’t a capable fighter, as I’ve already acknowledged, just that the emphasis depends on the customer, whereas the design doesn’t.
No, it is sold as a stike fighter PERIOD. A replacement for the F-16, F/A-18, AV-8B et cetera.
We get rid of a squadron of F-111s and buy a squadron of Super Hornets for their strike capabilities. Oh yes they are a replacement, albeit a more multifunctional one than the aircraft they supplant. As we are buying the Super Hornets we are not going to ditch them after ten years. Even I don’t think Defence are spending $6 billion for just ten years of ‘stop-gap’. They’re supplemental strikers and at this rate they are the only thing that’s going to bring us up to 4 air combat squadrons. With current economic conditions (and other factors) I highly doubt that we are going to buy any more F-35s than we have planned.
But again, the only reason for the Australian Super Hornets is because of the ‘gap’ between the early retirement of the F-111 & when Australia has significant numbers of F-35s. If either the F-111s could/would be kept in service a bit longer OR the F-35 could be obtained more quickly….
The Super Hornets are NOT, as you are implying, because Australia considers the F-35 only an air-superiority fighter & not is good strike aircraft.
As I’ve already said, China? India? Indonesia isn’t the only country in Australian defence planning any more. And as for larger opponents losing ‘in today’s world’, I’ll believe that when I see it.
:rolleyes:
Who says its competitors are and will be limited to 4th generation aircraft? Certainly not me.
The F-35 is the only 5th generation fighter available.
And 6 AAMs are plenty if you assume a 100% Pk and a comparable number of enemies. I don’t do either.
No, 6 AAMs are plenty even if you assume a 50% Pk & twice as many enemies.
If you read my posts you will see I have never once claimed nor ever will that the F-35 cannot use its wing stations. No matter how many times I say this however it just doesn’t seem to filter through that there is no mission profile which would persuade an F-35 user to degrade his primary air-to-air combat advantage and survivability in order to carry more AAMs. The pylons are the perfect thing for CAS or strike when mixed with other stealthier, A2A internally-configured Lighting IIs in a package. But I will not believe that the external pylons are of any relevance in an air-to-air battle.
I think you need to read your own posts…
No; but then, I don’t know if it can, do I?
What makes you think it can’t?
Because it doesn’t carry weapons in external pods to begin with, just a shot in the dark here, but I’m guessing it’s maybe because of an RCS penalty? And if it’s already much less stealthy than the F-22, am I really going to want to degrade it when facing 2nd gen or better AESAs? Again, just a guess here, but my initial instinct is… ‘nah’.
I didn’t say now, I said “a point in the future”. Just such a stealth weapons pod is said to be under study/developement…
AND even without stealth weapons pods, an F-35 with “traditional” external stores is STILL significantly more stealthy than 4th generation fighters. Not to mention the OTHER advantages the F-35 has…
I REALLY wish people would stop faulting the F-35 for not being an F-22 & therefor somehow not good enough.
pfcemProbably not, but there’s still nothing to see in terms of the results no matter how hard I look, hence why I haven’t seen it. As I said I don’t debate they have carried it out.
The point is that the F-35 DOES have IR suppression even for the engine exhaust. Therefor it most likely has a IR signature significantly LOWER than 4th generation fighters, not a larger one.
I imagine aircraft with larger internal weapons payloads, better thrust-to-weight ratios, native supercruise and avionics suites that if not directly comparable do not lag generations behind, and in greater regional numbers, if not world-wide ones by that time.
From where?
Probably not, but when I start seeing not only three extra ones for EFTs but almost three times the number I start to wonder what exactly they anticipate for them if not missiles. Especially on fighters which never carry EFTs.
Doesn’t change the fact that 4-6 AAMs is plenty for air-to-air missions.
For example, the F/A-18 E/F has weapons stations for up to 14 AAMs but is will VERY UNLIKELY to ever carry more than 8 in combat & will unlikely ever fire more than 4 in a single mission.
It’s been marketed to my nation as a 5th generation fighter, and as the proposed primary air-to-air platform the largest focus of that marketing effort has not been on its strike capabilities. AIR 6000 was not there to buy a strike fighter but a design to ensure Australia’s air combat capability of which air superiority was the primary part. The Super Hornets were if anything bought in the strike capacity, replacing as they will the F-111s.
The F-35 IS a 5th generation FIGHTER!
No the Super Hornet is simply a stop-gap between the early retirement of the F-111 in 2010 & when Australia gets sufficient numbers of F-35s. Australia MAY only keep its Super Hornets for ~10 years & replace them with F-35s…
Mostly because history has a fairly solid trend of showing it’s not great aircraft in small numbers but decent aircraft in large numbers which win wars. I’ll remain sceptical of claims it’s the supreme assurance of air superiority against everything at a bargain-basement price until we’ve got three squadrons on the ground on budget.
Sorry but in today’s world a nation with four times the number of half the capability is going to lose BIG TIME. Besides where do you get that any adversary to a nation with F-35s is going to get four times the number of anything even half as capable?
I don’t disagree. It can use them if it wants to. But if it expects to encounter an aerial threat there is no sane mission profile in the world that would persuade a JSF driver to lose a very large chunk of his stealth advantage facing fighters with radars almost guaranteed to be AESA models, practically restricting it to an absolute (projected) maximum of six missiles in a pure air-to-air configuration for the foreseeable future, far less than that of its competitors.
You have that reveresed. There will hardly ever (IF EVER) be a mission profile where the F-35 should NEED more than 6 AAMs & IF that ever happens, the F-35 can carry up to 10 AAMs externally in addition to what ever weapons load it carries internally AND STILL BE significantly stealthier than any 4th generation ‘competator’.
I don’t disagree that the advantages of having six internal missiles outweigh the disadvantages of having twelve external missiles but no amount of reasoning will escape the fact that the Lighting II’s air-to-air load is not the same as either current or projected opponents.
What light/medium-weight fighter can carry more than 14-16 AAMs?
What light/medium-weight fighter can carry more than 8 AAMs + 4 JDAM (or 16 SDB)?
PLEASE get off this NONSENSE that the F-35 CAN’T or wouldn’t dare carry external weapons if needed – that IS what the 6 wing stations (2 rated for up to 5,000 lbs, 2 rated for up to 2,500 lbs & 2 rated for up to 300 lbs) are for!
And yet the video still tells me that they don’t expect the Lighting II to do serious manoeuvring in air combat. The way it’s put across is that it doesn’t even need to dodge missiles because its chaff will do that for it. This is simply me getting annoyed at the marketing hype and isn’t reserved to the JSF, although it does have more than others.
If it can actually DO what they say is it really hype?
I think it’s likely to remove any RCS advantage it may have against its then-competitors.
How?
pfcemGripen NG is designed and projected for airforces beyond 2015. While F-35 is delayed and designed for airforces beyond 2010. The avionics in Gripen NG is more modern and advanced than those in F-35 for many years before the F-35 is updated. And much of that is the reason for Saab selecting US suppliers that has more modern technology then when it was time to outfit the now delayed and over budget F-35. If you’re otoh not interested in national defense and CAS but instead look for a strike aircraft that need to hide to avoid enemy sensors just because it can’t fight then the F-35 is for you.
LOL.
No, the Gripen NG avionics are NOT more modern OR advanced than those in F-35. NOTHING even close to known today does.
The F-35 can fight quite well. Better than any F-16 or F/A-18 AND because of its stealth it can chose the best advantage point from which to fight from.
pfcemThe study with the 3:1 result was against a Flanker/Fulcrum threat. The other study was against a “threat in the near future”. Interestingly the exhange ration for the F-15, F-16 & F/A-18 against that evolved MG-29/Su-27 models is equal or less than 1:1. For the unspecified type in the other study the exchange ration was equal or less than 1:1 for aircraft like the Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Super Hornet, but >6:1 for the F-35. Given LMs usual bias for marketing hype we speak about a similar threat aircraft for both studies, non LO/VLO types being treated as equal and of course the F-35 is way superior! Interestingly not that much superior in the study were the F-22 has to be justified:rolleyes:.
Given the fact that LM seems to have been involved in both studies, which one should we take for granted? 😉
Again, different models, different parameters = different results.
If the VLO type has an exchange ratio of 3:1 or greater but the non LO/VLO types range from say 0.75:1 to 1.25:1 what difference does it make ‘treating’ the non LO/VLO types as simply ‘near 1:1’?
So has any other manufacturer for their types…
The others have been around a long enough time (or are derived from a type that has) that the data is well enough known.
I’m aware of the F-22s advantages over the F-35, it was more a kind of rethorical question.
BTW when other fighters could not according LM.;)
Just explaining how it is the F-22 scores an even better exchange ratio.
Interestingly no different results for the non LO/VLO types, just for the F-35…
No, different results.
All about 1:1 or less. So basically similar exchange ratios.
Similar not being the same…
Well 3:1 is definitely superior, but not “way” superior.
Yes it is. It means that instead of shooting down about ONE enemy aircraft for every one of yours shot down you shoot down THREE enemy aircraft for every one of yours shot down.
To cut it short, I’m more than sceptical about those results! It looks much more like hype the F-35 nothing more or less.
And just what about the results do you find sceptical?
pfcemWhat I have seen is LM telling me they’ve reduced the signature, not any actual data as to the results. If you have some I’d be glad to see it, but as I expect it is classified I will wait and see.
That is right, it IS classified. But it is not classified because it does not have it…;)
If ‘quite some time’ is approximately 15 years, I accept the point. Otherwise I will remain a tad sceptical.
And what do you think will come available in ~15 years that will be as good or better than the F-35 will be in ~15 years?
Then I take it the extra hardpoints are just there for fun?
Typically, they are for drop tanks. :p
AND, just like large internal fuel capacity, just because you CAN carry it does not meant that you HAVE to…
Then why did you claim it was not being marketed as an excellent air superiority design?
It is marketed as a strike fighter. The FIGHTER part incuding ‘excellent air superiority’ capabiliity (as in as good or better than 4th generation fighters).
The only thing better today, but if enemies can generate half the capability in four times the number I will still remain concerned.
Why?
No; which does not exonerate the F-35 from a weapon load which will likely be smaller than its competitors by the time it enters service.
The F-35 can carry a VERY significant weapons load if it needs to. BUT in reality, a strike mission with 2 JDAM (or 8 SDB) + 2 AMRAAM or an air-to-air mission with 4-6 AMRAAM is plenty MOST OF THE TIME. Especially since the F-35s stealth should allow it to avoid fights it does not want to engage in AND when it does chose to engage in a fight will most likely do so from an advantageous point.
I haven’t debated the F-35 is as competitive as anyone else in WVR, so your argument is not with me. I have debated, under a now apparently false assumption, that people were saying it is twice as good as anyone else in WVR.
Also, in a video posted some way back spouting the benefits of DAS, the claim was that ‘DAS makes manoeuvrability irrelevant’. It can manoeuvre but according to them they don’t expect it to need to.
DAS makes manoeuvring for situational awareness all-but irrelevant. And with modern weapons systems, if the pilot can ‘point his face” towards the target, he can target it (assuming however his aircraft’s systems can ‘see’ the target as well).
As there has never been a high intensity, large scale aerial conflict between two comparable foes armed with modern missile and fighter technology, while I understand loadouts are not what they appear on a brochure, having more is always better than less so long as you can minimise the negative consequences. Sukhoi certainly seem to have taken the view they need a pretty large weapons bay on the T-50.
It all comes down to how many enemy targets you expect each of your own aircraft to destroy.
Which will never be an air-to-air loadout or loadout which includes a decent complement of AAMs in addition to pylon-carried weapons for obvious reasons.
If that is the loadout needed for the misison it will & it CAN.
In fact I see a point in the future where (if needed) the F-35 can carry internal weapoons + 4 stealthily configured external weapons or weapons pods. What do you think about say 2 JDAM & 2 AMRAAM internally + 8 SDB & 4 AMRAAM in external weapons pods (2 pods with 4 SDB each & 2 pods with 2 AMRAAM each) – OR 6 AMRAAM internally + 8 AMRAAM in external weapons pods?
pfcemInstead of answering this twice you could have taken notice of the fact I have already apologised for my mistake on this issue.
I simply went through & responded to posts page by page. You did not acknowledge your mistake until post #51, ~3/4 down on page 2. I had posted my response to page 1 BEFORE I had even gotten that far.
I’ll believe it when I see it. Not claiming it isn’t true, just that I don’t believe I’ve seen evidence of it yet.
If you haven’t seen it then you are not looking for it.
I think I’ve already said that I don’t believe there’s a better candidate for Australia than the F-35; but that doesn’t mean it’s reassuring to me to find people saying ‘oh well, it might not be the best thing since sliced bread in X area but that’s fine because we can back it up with Raptors if need be’.
What SHOULD be reassuring to you is that the F-35 is the BEST ‘air superiority’ fighter available & that it will fair better against future threats than anything else Australia (or anybody other than the USAF) is going to have for quite some time to come.
Look at the latest F-15s & F-16s compared to the F-15As & F-16As 30 years ago & realize that the F-35 will be improved on as time passes as well…
Interesting that the majority of world aircraft designers appear to disagree with you on this point.
No they don’t.
When they’re telling me it’ll wondrous as my air combat linchpin over the next 30-40 years they’d sure as hell better be selling me a design extremely capable in air superiority.
It is.
As I have acknowledged, yes. Doesn’t detract from the fact that the argument ‘where it’s not at it’s best we’ll have Raptors to plug the gap’ doesn’t work for an awfully large number of customers, who may well be facing 5th gen designs by the time they start generating operational numbers of F-35s.
The only thing better is the F-22 so unless you think you are going to be fighting AGAINST the USAF, what is the worry about?
It remains to be seen if/when the T-50/PAK-FA enters service AND just how it compares to the F-22 &/or F-35 BUT do you honestly think anything other than the F-22 is going to do any better vs the T-50/PAK-FA than the F-35?
‘As capable as anyone else is’ doesn’t much impress me given that, as has been stated numerous times by people both inside and outside this forum, WVR performance is in a signficant part dependent on your missile and HMS and not your aircraft. The F-35 has excellent situational awareness but you can put an HMS + HOBS on a MiG-21 and have it roughly as capable. LM’s said as much that the F-35 doesn’t need to manoeuvre in a WVR engagement… which remains to be seen.
What it is intended to ‘impress upon you’ is the CONTRARY to what its detractors would have you believe the F-35 is quite capable WVR.
No a HMS + HOBS on a MiG-21 would not be as capable as the F-35.
No LM has not said the F-35 doesn’t need to manoeuver in a WVR engagement, quite the opposite, it has said that it CAN manoeuver in a WVR engagement.
Again, I can’t help but notice that all other modern designs have a slight tendency to disagree.
Again, no they don’t.
Ignor the publicity photos intended to impress the ignorant & look at REAL combat loadouts…
Which it simply won’t if there’s an aerial threat.
The F-35 will take off with whatever weapons load if felt necessary for the given mission.
pfcemThe word “COULD”… as opposed to… WILL BE was used.
So again…
“COULD” meaning all it would take it the effort (time & money) to develope & implement.
The F-35 is limited to 2 large AG weapons and 2 AA weapons internally.
No it is not. Even if you limit it to ‘current configuration’, 8 SDB & 2 AMRAAM or 4 SDB & 3 AMRAAM is possible.
Once you start hanging weapons externally… you may as well buy more Gripens, Rafale, Hornets…
LOL. Even WITH external stores, the F-35 is WAY stealthier than they are…
Not to mention the OTHER advantages it has over them. 🙂
The LM website DOES not mention any upgrades to the weapons bay…
Nor does the official F-35 website..
They don’t mention a lot of things…
So a seeker wont be fooled into tracking an exhaust plume?
And the F-35s skin is “cooler” then other other airframes flying out there?
I dont follow your reasoning…
The F-35s IR signature is SMALLER than that of 4th generation fighters, not larger.
pfcemWhat I wonder about is that LM states the F-35 is 400% as effective in A2A as the teen fighters in one of its brochures, which would work out to a 4:1 exchange ration given that the teens all achieved a 1:1 exchange ratio in those 2 articles being mentioned.
Now in the first article I posted LM says 6:1 and in the other article where the F-22 is conerned as well it is just 3:1, meaning the lowest number is just half of that of the highest. So basically the same source but 3 different results?
Different models, different parameters = different results.
Of course it is feasable that the F-35 was primarily designed as a strike aircraft and the F-22 was primarily designed as a fighter. But how does the stealth argument holds water given the HUGE difference between the F-35 and the F-22? Could it be that the F-22 is much more stealthy or is it more owned to the Raptors vastly superior flight performance?
The F-22 has greater stealth AND greater flight performance…
Flight performance is interestingly something which has been dismissed as unimportant when comparing non VLO aircraft cause its just the radar or weapon which makes the difference…
It is not that flight performance is unimportant. It is that flight performance is NOT the be-all-that-is-all in air combat. AND the flight performance of the F-35 is in fact quite good.
The exchange ratios being equal for all those aircraft (F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, Su-30MKI) sounds a bit odd either. Or to cut it short those studies seem to be a bit oversimplified.
Where are you getting that the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, Su-30MKI had equal exchange ratios?
Also given the fact that stealth is often mentioned to be the main decisive factor the 3:1 or 4:1 ratios are of course not bad, but they seem not to reflect the widely spreaded opinion of the F-35 being way superior to anything else spare the F-22.
Excuse me. Significant positive exchange ratio (3:1, 4:1 & 6:1) when the other competators (including the BEST competition available) obtain near 1:1 at best IS way superior.
***
So what will happen if, some time after 2020, the F-35 meets a stealthy PAK FA? If Russia (heavily supported by India) manage to build a stealth a/c then isn’t there a good chance that those rare WVR can become more common again?
An F-35 cannot shoot down a PAK FA if the F-35 cannot detect, then track the PAK-FA. And the PAK FA would have the same issues with the F-35.
As others have pointed out, whereas the U.S has F-22 to handle future threats like PAK FA, the rest of the world does not… and F-35 is the only game in town. Hopefully it will perform well against the PAK FA also in VWR.
But if we assume that the PAK FA is as good or better than the F-35, then it will ‘mop the floor’ with anything else a potential F-35 customer is likely to get. 🙂
At lease with the F-35 they may stand a ‘fighting chance’…
***
An F-35 however has a radar cross section, approximately 1/8th of an F-16.
No, the RCS of the F-35 is ~1/1000th that of the F-16 resulting in a detection range of ~1/8th the distance.
AKA if a given radar detects an F-16 at ~160km (~100 miles), it will unlikely detect the F-35 at more than ~20km (~12.5 miles).
***
My point was, what happens when the opponent has an a/c with RCS equal to or lower than the F-35 — PAK FA is supposed to be able to match the F-22.
In such a scenario I would think that both a/c will have difficulties detecting eachother, until they are VWR. Now, if F-35 is “weak” in VWR then that’s not a good thing at all.
At least the F-35 would have a good chance of making it to WVR, where as anything else…
My point is, F-35 will beat any 4.5 gen jet, including the SU-35 — however how will it deal with future 5. gen fighters? They are not here now, but they will be developed well within the lifetime of the F-35.
Better than said 4.5 gen jets. 🙂
pfcemGotta say, I’m impressed they can generate a six-to-one ratio when they themselves have stated it’s carrying four missiles and is an unimpressive performer in WVR if it attempted to use its cannon.
A six-to-one relative loss exchange ratio does not mean that every F-35 shoots down six enemy aircraft…It means six emeny aircraft are shot down for each F-35 shot down.
In a WVR engagement, the differences in the capabilities of the various aircraft were barely measurable…
‘Course, it’s not like that massive great thrust stream from the world’s largest fighter engine would be at all a problem given modern IRST systems on threat aircraft. Surely not. Nah.
Given it significant IR reduction (yes to the engine thust, NOT just the airframe), more so than 4th generation aircraft not so fitted.
***
Equal exchange ratios for the teens, but more worse one for the F-35?
Different study vs different threat (& of course we don’t know nearly enough about the details to make a direct comparision between the results of the different models). 😉
The fact that LM is supposed to be involved in these studies as well makes you wonder if that is not just another marketing game.
LM HAS to be involved if any kind of realistic model data is to be used for the F-22 &/or F-35…
And how could it be that the F-22 is 10 times better than the F-35? Sounds much like stealth isn’t going to that super duper good on the F-35.
Oh, ~1/10th the RCS of the F-35, a pair of Sidewinders for WVR, superior flight performance…The F-35 IS NOT an F-22. 🙂
The F-35’s stealth was (in BOTH cases) good enough for a positive exchange ratio when other fighters could not.
***
The problem is that all other buyers of this supposedly wondrous omni-role fighter will be relying solely on it for their first punch air-to-air.
The models show it producing a significant POSITIVE exchange ration, so just HOW is it a problem?
As you say it is an absolutely perfect fit for the USAF, who can back it up with Raptors to do the heavy work when it comes to air-to-air and SEAD/DEAD, but no-one else can.
Yeah, having only the 2nd best FIGHTER in the world since you can’t have the very best is going to be HORRIBLE for JSF operators. :rolleyes:
It probably is superior to threat aircraft in BVR (so long as it has the combat persistence anyway and doesn’t need a kinematic advantage) – I’d be rather worried if it weren’t. But it’s still exceptionally limited in its A2A weapon load and is not primarily an air-to-air oriented platform no matter how much it is marketed as a ‘5th gen air superiority fighter’ as it has been to my country.
Superior to threat aircraft (& superior to anything else available)…& 4-6 AAMs is plenty these days.
Were has the F-35 ever been marketed as an ‘5th gen air superiority fighter’ rather than as a ‘5th gen multi-role strike fighter’?
It’s fine for the US to say ‘well it’s nothing special in X scenario but that’s no probs because we have Raptors for that’, but it is distinctly not fine for anyone else. We aren’t paying for just a strike fighter, we’re paying for the RAAF’s primary air-to-air platform for the next 30-odd years and I wish people here would actually recognise the ‘S’ nestled in the acronym for once.
PLEASE, just because the F-35 is not an F-22 does not mean it is not a MORE than capable enough ‘air superiority fighter’.
***
Perhaps ‘unimpressive’ was too harsh, but according to LM it’s nothing special:
“Unimpressive” vs the likes of the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Saab Gripen, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet & Sukhoi Su-30MKI IS pretty impressive!
What you seem to be missing is that CONTRARY to what its detractors would have you believe, the F-35 IS quite capable WVR.
Which I’d expect. WVR’s a great equaliser really, but the fact remains that the F-35 isn’t going to outperform anyone else in a knife fight, hence why it’s not likely to get 2 kills with the cannon for one loss in addition to four perfect AMRAAM shots.
Again, a six-to-one relative loss exchange ratio does not mean that every F-35 shoots down six enemy aircraft…It means six emeny aircraft are shot down for each F-35 shot down.
I was under the impression that missile seekers would disagree with you. The hotter the exhaust, the easier it is to track, and such a very large exhaust plume would presumably be easier to lock on to than two smaller, cooler ones.
The problem is that your are INCORRECTLY assuming that the F-35’s exhaust is hotter. Besides, modern IR seekers don’t even rely of exhaust heat, but more of airframe heat.
Compared with something that can carry enough weapons to allow it to use that fuel, i.e. genuinely patrol airspace or perform CAS. As far as I know the SBD is not a CAS weapon, and nor are 2000lb JDAMs.
Multi-role =/= swing-role. F/A-18s, or at least the modern versions, can do both at the same time with near equal effectiveness to if you used an entire loadout for each. The F-35 has to have mediocre strike and mediocre air-to-air loadouts if it wants to do both at once. If the Raptor is anything to go by in terms of operating costs, I’d like my ‘multi-role jet’ to tackle more than a couple of targets in its sortie.
How many weapons do you think you need? You CLEARLY do not realize what TYPICAL weapons loads are used these days.
Swing-role is simply a matter of avionics capability which the F-35 has IN SPADES.
And don’t forget that if you REALLY need more weapons, the F-35 CAN in fact carry ADDITIONAL weapons externally & will STILL be stealthier than the ‘competition’.
pfcemI HOPE to eventually get to responding to poster comments but it will take some time…
Anyway THIS is what is important from the article.
Compared the air-to-air performance of the F-35 with that of the Eurofighter, Dassault Rafale, Saab Gripen, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Sukhoi Su-30MKI.
Range of the F-35 & Su-30MKI on INTERNAL fuel is comparable to the others with 2 or 3 external tanks.
Simulation showed that 72 per cent of future engagements would be BVR, 31 per cent would be at transitional range (between 8 n miles and 18 n miles) and 7 per cent WVR.
Taking all salient aircraft characteristics into account and utilising the Brawler modelling and simulation tool, the F-35 showed a better than six to one relative loss exchange ratio while the other aircraft scored less than one to one. This was in a four-versus-four scenario against what Mazanowski described as a “threat aircraft in the not-too-distant future”.
In a WVR engagement, the differences in the capabilities of the various aircraft were barely measurable.
…so much for the F-35 being a modern A-7 or F-105.
OR for the F-35 not being the F-22 meaning it is not as good or better than anything other than the F-22.
pfcemSorry, but the price used was from the SAME JANES ARTICLE THAT I CITED AND IT WAS A NAVY PLANE THEY WHERE TALKING ABOUT.
Sorry but you misread the article.
…according to Fiscal Year 2009 US Air Force (USAF) and US Navy (USN) budgetary documentation, the unit costs of the F-35 and F/A-18E/F are USD83.1 million and USD82.7 million respectively…
The budgetary documentation referred to are FY 2009 Budget Estimates (AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE & AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY).
The cost of the 1763 USAF F-35A is extrapolated out in THEN YEAR DOLLARS though 2035, adds it up & ‘averages’ it by dividing by the number of aircraft.
YOU DO REALIZE THAT THEN YEAR DOLLARS MAKES IT EVEN CHEAPER DUE TO INFLATION RIGHT.
No, INFLATION raises prices. DEFLATION lowers prices.
pfcem
The average unit flyaway cost of the F-35C over the life of the program is 83.1 million dollars. I know that this number does not agree with some people’s view but that number has been the official number for a while now.
No, $83.1 million is the ESTIMATED average unit flyaway cost of the PLANNED 1763 USAF F-35A over the life of the program IN THEN YEAR DOLLARS.
pfcemRegardless of the availability of boom-equipped tankers, there is a very good argument for equipping the F-35a (including for the USAF) with a probe, rather than a receptacle. If that was done, it wouldn’t add any cost to production, & very little to development – and if done from the start (too late now, though) would have saved money on development.
Wrong. Future tankers are fitted with BOTH systems & fitting existing tankers as such is not THAT difficult or costly.
For fighter-sized aircraft, hoses are more operationally efficient. A tanker can carry multiple hoses, enabling the simultaneous refuelling of multiple fighters. The greater delivery rate of a boom cannot be used by a fighter, as it is limited (& that is not going to change) in the rate in which it can accept fuel.
True BUT some fighters can recieve fuel faster than others & the faster a fighter can receive fuel the LESS advantage drogue/probe has over boom/receptacle…For example, the F-15 can not only recieve fuel much faster than the F-16 but can in fact receive fuel FASTER than current drogue can deliver it.
PLUS there are two tactics used for aerial refueling (track & anchorpoint). The drogue/probe system only provides a noteworthy advantage for one of them.
Analyses commissioned by the USAF & the CRS agree: hoses are operationally superior for tactical aircraft. Booms are superior for large aircraft, such as bombers & transport aircraft, which need more fuel & are therefore built to accept it at higher rates. The same analyses agreed that over the lifetime of a fighter fleet, the advantages would greatly outweigh the initial cost. Fuel usage would be reduced, for a start.
In fact several studies were conducted in the 1990’s. And the more complex/realistic/accurate the model used the LESS the advantage drogue/probe showed…The 1995 Frontier Technology study found the reduction in the number of tankers required to be as little as 17%.
pfcemThis is laughable , LM isnt going to do that , if they did a cost GUARANTEE without any fine prints to its customers for a product that is HIGH RISK , and is peanuts into its development then they would have long gone under and shut shop.
Who said anything about there not being any fine print? Good God the lengths some people will go to in order to not admit to being wrong.
The GUARANTEE comes on contract signing but the price (NOT AN ESTIMATE) has already been given AND MADE PUBLIC.
So basically what you are implying is that for every one Export F-35 sale we are paying for one through our own pocket ?
I am not implying anything, just stating the facts. Facts which CLEARLY show the F-35A to be significantly LESS expensive for parnter nations than the F/A-18E/F. As I said before, Australia’s F/A-18E/F are costing it more that its F-35As & the same would be true for Canada.
PLUS the cost to the US will only be so high initially (as in the 1st year production run). It will drop CONSIDERABLY & QUICKLY as production ramps up.
This is quite baffling and unprecidented , i doubt that US DOD would offer a 50% subsidy per export unit and would allow LM to sell the F-35 at half the production cost and foot the bill for the rest when they themselves dont have the money to buy enough of fighter aircrafts to begin with.
It is neither baffling nor unprecidented. Keep in mind that partner nations have already forked over a ‘considerable’ amount of money to ‘help’ pay for development…
pfcemSo if program costs continue to skyrocket the same way they have done with every other advanced fighter project I’ve come across lately, none of this will be passed on to the customer?
No, it gets passed on to the same customer(s) who are fitting the bill now. The US DOD (USAF, USN & USMC)…& most likely LM eats some as well.
Basically LM & the US DOD are assuming the risk of cost increases (as well as the ‘start-up costs’) in order for partner nations to buy at a set price even for early LRIP aircraft to encourage them to commit sooner rather than later (such as waiting until full rate production in order to get a better price).
Note that while the flyaway cost to partner nations is $58.7 million, the flyaway cost of the F-35A to the USAF is expencted to be ~$130 million to begin with – decreasing year-by-year until (hopefully) it is equal to or lower than the cost to partner nations.
Sign In
