pfcemNo-one knows what our F-35s are going to cost yet because we haven’t signed any final delivery contract. That will probably come this year. At the moment, all we have is LMs projections.
False.
The US DOD has already stated what the price for the F-35A will be for partner nations. IT IS NOT AN ESTIMATE!
When you go to a store & see a price tag on an item, it is not an estimated price but the price the store (LM & the US DOD in the case of the F-35) is selling the item for.
pfcemNotwithstanding mixing supersonic cruise and subsonic cruise does enlarge the combat radius of the F-22, but no evidence to prove that mixed combat radius is longer than MiG-31, furthermore the speed of MiG-31 is faster than F-22 under this condition, regardless other supercruise range of MiG-31 is true or not, if we say “without a/b used” is for extense combat radius, then MiG-31 offer a combat radius longer, if not, what the condition we shall give to the definition of supercruise?
The Mig-31 has an internal fuel capacity of >36,000 lbs, an empty weight of >48,000 lbs & a MTOW of >100,000 lbs!
I suppose your next argument is going to be that the F-22’s speed/range is unimpressive because of the Concorde (176,880 lbs of fuel, 173,500 lbs empty & 408,000 lbs MTOW). :rolleyes:
pfcemAirframe price is one thing……..program cost is entirely something else.
Airframe cost is one thing, flyaway cost is another & yes total program cost is entirely something else.
The flyaway cost of the F-35A for partner nations is significantly lower than that of the F/A-18E/F.
You cannot and will not tell me that the unit+program cost of buying 75 SHs plus associated support (engines, maintenance, etc.) will be equal to or more than the same for the F-35 for the same number of aircraft.
For partner nations it is significantly MORE.
The SH’s hardware is proven, in production in the hundreds, and in service today……..the F-35 is still testing all of it’s components in pre-production state.
Which has nothing to do with how much the F/A-18E/F &/or F-35 cost to procure &/or operate.
Try again, focus and concentrate on my point, for Canada’s unique needs (irregardless of contracts here) the SH can do as much for them for the money spent and saved as the F-35 can. This is the impetus of my original post……not which is most advanced or so on……which one will meet the country’s needs most economically.
No it can not. Because the F/A-18E/F is MORE expensive than the F-35A.
BASICALLY, from a cost point of view, for partner nations full rate production deliveries of the F-35A begin in 2012…
For Canadian defense planners/buyers, the SH can be ordered today for minimal cost vs. the F-35 with uncertain cost fluctuations, and you can plan your other defense needs much more accurately around it. Heck, even the Aussies with much more pressing defense needs are buying it as a fall-back for many these same reasons.
Sorry, but Australia in buying its F/A-18Fs as a STOP-GAP between the retirement of its F-111s (2010) & when it gets its F-35s (2012). If Australia could have gotten its F-35s beginning in 2010 instead of 2012 OR determined it was cost-effective to keep its F-111s in service until 2012, it most likely would not have bothered with the Super Hornet. And Australia’s F/A-18Fs are costing it MORE than its F-35s.
pfcemAnd the US DOD has never been wrong with Estimated costs of weapons syste ?
What part of a stated cost, not an estimate do you not understand?
When a country buys a weapons system , the do risk assessment to see where it goes , i am yet to meet a person who will put the F-18E/F as an equal risk investment to the F-35 , which basically hasnt even flown fully with FINAL configuration of its most critical avionics suite , hasnt even completed testing let alone gone into full production (And let me add allready has aquired considerable cost increase , delays and redesigns).
What does this have to do with the fact that the F/A-18E/F is MORE expensive that the F-35A?
Publically stating something and CONTRACTUAL GUARANTEES ARE 2 different things.
Fine. The publicly stated CONTRACTUAL GUARANTEED (upon contract signing of course) flyaway price for the F-35A for partner nations is $58.7 million (FY 2008 dollars).
What actual numbers are you talking about ? You mean the actual cost of the Full production F-18E/F comming out of the line vs the Full Production F-35 comming out of the line ?
The price of the F-35A the US DOD has stated for partner nations vs the price that has been & IS being paid for the F/A-18E/F.
The only problem with that is that there arent any F-35’s comming out of the line in full production and the PUBLIC ESTIMATES by the DOD has been revised upwards and if the HISTORIC trend is any indicative we will see the PUBLIC ESTIMATES continously revised upwards untill quite some time into the production run when the curve becomes more favourable !! This is the fact with big ticket , cutting edge Weapons systems under the wings of the DOD!!
Again, $58.7 million is NOT an estimate.
pfcemBeing a part of the defence industry for almost a decade now , i can tell you that the Price of the F-18E/F cannot be compared to that of the F-35.
Tell that to the people falsely claiming that the F/A-18E/F is less expensive than the F-35A. Not even using remotely comparable numbers to make such determination.
The price you are quoting for the F-35 is nearly an estimate within a group of institutions (DOD , Contractors , Service) that has a track record of getting these things wrong almost 100% of the time (look at what the raptors were being ” promised ” at and what they were being delivered at in the first 3-4 years of production as apposed to what they thought they would cost 3-4 years prior to those production levels) .
No it is not an estimate. It is the cost that the US DOD has publicly stated IS the flyaway cost for partner nations. It IS based on estimates as to what the F-35A will cost once it reaches full rate production. My thought is that the US DOD is promising the estimated full rate production cost to partner nations even for LRIP so that partner nations won’t wait for the cost to come down before buying.
The Cost of the FIGHTER is determined by the Manuf. and not the DOD , the DOD does the cost of the entire system and as a result the overall deal (aspects such as Weapons , contracts , sale of sophisticated intelectual property , sale of sensitive information , after sales , training , setups etc etc) each manuf. will put its price tag into the equation when they make the sale. It would be Laughed at in Defence circles , and even with some defence journos if one suggests that in circa 2013 canada can purchase F-35’s at a lower cost then then F-18E/F . I would guess that there would be a significant cost difference (think 30-40%) in the favour of F-18E/F .
Sorry but the ACTUAL (apples-to-apples) numbers show the F/A-18E/F to be the more expensive aircraft (& by a VERY considerable amount).
pfcem@pfc, you’re not nearly as bright as your momma told you that you were in grade school. So, just drop the act because you’re making yourself look stupid in front of the world.
Projecting your faults on to me does not help you.
It is being really optimitic if one thinks that the F-35 can be procured at a cheaper price then the F-18E/F in the 2011-2016 timeframe. Boeing will almost guarantee beat any offer made by LMA , and with obvious reduced risk of overruns and delay
That is bring_it_on, not me & it is false.
In that time frame, more SH’s will have been built and their tech will have been far more proven and supportable when compared with the F-35. OF COURSE the Super Hornet will be cheaper to build on a per unit basis. That’s what we in reality call a “no-brainer”………
Don’t confuse cost to build with cost to buy…
To BUY an F-35A, the flyaway cost for partner nations is $58.7 million (FY2008 dollars).
To BUY an F/A-18E/F, the flyaway cost for export customers is ~$90 million (FY2008 dollars).
Australia’s F/A-18E/F’s are costing it more than its F-35As. What on earth makes you think it would be any different for Canada?
And airframe costs is exactly what I’m talking about here since “flyaway” cannot be calculated until the exact customer with the particular contract and particular demands are laid down and made official. Canada can buy SHs off of the SH line with little in the way of change from current USN demands (add a searchlight, or different survival gear) per their demands for around $55.5 million in today’s dollars for the airplane itself. THEY CAN’T DO THAT WITH THE F-35! Thus my point.
No, Canada CAN NOT buy Super Hornets for $55.5 million. That is a “promised” AIRFRAME (not flyaway) cost to the USN if it & the DOD procure more beyond already existing orders.
What Canada CAN (& likely will) do is buy F-35As for a flyaway price of $58.7 million (FY2008) dollars.
The USAF, RAF, and USMC really need the F-35……….but the U.S. Navy doesn’t and could continue on into the forseeable decade or two with the SH and UCAVs happily.
😮
pfcemWith all due respect, there is NO error in my thinking since I never argued my point that way. If the above is your issue with how others are making their argument against the Block 60, lay the blame at their feet.
I am sorry, I did not word my response correctly.
No, YOU try comparing the weight difference between a Block 15 and a Block 52 with the gain from Block 52 to Block 60. Stop picking and choosing the Blocks to suit your argument! Either we use a Block 15 for both the comparison of T/W ratios and the comparison of weight growth, or a Block 1. It’s one OR the other, that’s what I’m getting at.
BS. I am more than happy to compare ANY block F-16 to ANY other block F-16.
The fact of the matter is (as I posted) there are little or no ‘worries’ about their agility of the Block 15/20/25 yet they show a significant weight increase over the Block 1 but NO increase in thust & thus their T/W ratio are WORSE than the Block 60. Yet for some reason people think the added weight of the Block 50/52/60 turns them into a ‘flying brick’ despite their very significant thrust increase over early block F-16s.
Besides, the issue about wingloading remains even though the Block 60 does have a higher T/W ratio than the Block 15.
Well if you read the initial post the question was about KINETICS, not instantaneous turn performance…And as I said before, while the later block F-16s have seen a notable loss in instantaneous turn performance vs early block F-16s, their sustained turn performance has not suffer AS MUCH.
Aerodynamics & flight performace is VERY complicated. Such simple concepts as T/W ratio, wing loading et cetera are only a GUIDE.
That’s a matter of perception, you’re likely never going to get everyone to agree here. “Flying brick” may have been harsh, as the poster later admitted himself, but he sure hit a nerve and there is also a grain of truth to his observation.
No there is no truth in the BS claim that later block F-16s are “flying bricks”. Load any later block F-16 with an equal (usefull) load as any early block F-16 & the early block F-16 would be foolish to think it has the later block F-16 beat.
Some of the responses were certainly no less over the top, to the point of defying elementary school maths – and ante_climax definitely sounds like he is denying any loss in maneuverability whatsoever.
Actually ante_climax is just pointing out that the “later block F-16s are flying bricks” crowd have yet to prove their case & that in fact there IS evidence that later block F-16s are quite agile.
pfcemYou think wrong.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en-GB&q=23830%2F14567&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en-GB&q=32500%2F20500&btnG=Search
We are talking about ratios here, just because one of the figures gained more than the other that doesn’t mean the ratio has increased!
Personally, I would have expected the T/W ratio to stay at least similar and I suspect so would most others, due to the big engine. Alas, we’re all wrong :p What I suspected to be commonly thought is that wingloading increased dramatically, and since the wing wasn’t enlarged even in the slightest that is certainly true…
The error in your thinking is that there is less ‘concern’ about the weight increase from Block 1 to Block 15/20/25 than there is (by some) about the weight increase from Block 15/20/25/30/40/50 (whatever) to Block 60 yet from Block 1 to Block 15 there was NO change in thrust. At least the Block 50/52 & Block 60 have a THRUST increase to go along with the weight increase…
Try comparing a Block 15/20/25 (little or no ‘worries’ about their agility) to the Block 50/52/60.
Sure, but it is not due to any improvements in agility – and nobody in this thread disputed the vast superiority of the avionics onboard today’s Falcons compared to those of the early 1980s. The point being made is that most, if not all, of the competitors in the MMRCA programme can be expected to have an advantage in maneuverability over the F-16IN, many of them having been specifically designed to best the yardstick set by the more nimble earlier blocks!
Nobody is claiming an agility improvement BUT some are exaggerating the agility loss.
pfcemThere’s a much bigger difference in weight between the Block 52 & Block 60 than between the Block 52 & the F-16A.
This has already been said, more than once.
F-16A Block 01: 14,567 lbs
F-16C Block 52: 18,335 lbs
F-16E Blcok 60: 20,500 lbs
Block 01 -> Block 52 = 3,768 lbs
Block 52 -> Block 60 = 2,165 lbs
***
some additions…
F-16A Block 01: 14,567 lbs > Thrust: 14,700 military & 23,800 lbs afterburner
F-16A Block 10: 15,600 lbs > Thrust: 14,700 military & 23,800 lbs afterburner
F-16A Block 15: 16,285 lbs > Thrust: 14,700 military & 23,800 lbs afterburner
F-16C Block 52: 18,335 lbs > Thrust: 17,000 military & 29,100 lbs afterburner
F-16E Blcok 60: 20,500 lbs > Thrust: 19,000 military & 32,500 lbs afterburner
Block 01 -> Block 15 = 1,718 lbs
Block 15 -> Block 52 = 2,050 lbs
pfcemThe weight critical F-35B was “saved” two ways. The internal weapons-capability is reduced an the the thrust of the F135 risen.
No the thrust of the F135 was not risen. P&W was tasked with providing a “40,000 lb class” engine has produced one rated at 43,000 lbs. No change, just P&W making sure it meet the 40,000 lb THRESHOLD by exceeding it.
Also note that the ‘Hover Thrust’ of the F135-PW-600 for the F-35B is 39,400 lbs (no afterburner) with 20,000 lbs coming from the lift fan.
pfcemIt is being really optimitic if one thinks that the F-35 can be procured at a cheaper price then the F-18E/F in the 2011-2016 timeframe.
Quite the opposite. The F/A-18E/F price would have to somehow be cut by >1/3 from recent prices. AND…see below
Boeing will almost guarantee beat any offer made by LMA , and with obvious reduced risk of overruns and delays !!
Boeing could try BUT all military sales go through (in fact are conducted BY the US DOD) & it is highly unlikely the US DOD would do such a thing.
pfcemNo, 75 Super Hornets would not be cheaper than 75 F-35s. And if you are so convinced that Canada is very unlikely to go to war with a major power in the conceivable near term, what do you even need the Super Hornet for? Of course you SHOULD be concerned with things BEYOND the near term…
The current unit price for the SH to the U.S. Navy is roughly $55.5 million per copy. The F-35 is now looking at a unit price of around $70-75 million per plane for the initial production run to begin in 2011………that’s a difference of $15-20 million per airplane. Inflation, economies of scale, etc., will all come into play but the F-35 will be more expensive to buy than the SH…….no question in that.
Wrong.
You are dreaming if you think that the fly-away cost of a Super Hornet is $55.5 million, that is an AIRFRAME cost for the USN, not a fly-away cost & NOT an export customer price (in 2006 budget the USN got 38 for $72.4 million each, in 2007 budget the USN got 34 for $76.2 million each, in 2008 budget the USN got 24 for $88.0 million each & in 2009 budget the USN got 23 for $83.4 million each). Fly-away cost for export customer is ~$90+ million. A committed order of 75 MIGHT drop it to ~$80 million. Just look at how much Australia is paying for its Super Hornets…
The flyaway cost (in FY2008 dollars) for the F-35A to partner nations is $58.7 million. That is what Australia, Canada & Norway are known to have been given. The $70-75 million is an ESTIMATE in 2014 DOLLARS which is about right for $58.7 million in FY2008 dollars depending on what the actual inflation rate ends up being during that time (average 3% resulting in ~$70 million, 4% resulting in ~$74.2 million).
So it is in fact a $20+ million difference IN FAVOR OF THE F-35A.
pfcemWell, I’ve read Australia is looking to reengine its f-111’s with f-119’s for supercruise? Maybe then it can cruise at supersonic for long distances.
Don’t confuse Carlo Kopp & Air Power Australia with Australia.
pfcemLast, I heard only the initial F-35B was overweight and that has since been corrected……….As a matter of fact some of the weight saving of the F-35B. Are going to be used on the landbased F-35A and navalbased F-35C…..Further, it also now appears the F135-PW-100 is making at least 43,000 lbs. 😎
Sorry, things are looking up………..:D
Actually all three versions were overweight. I don’t see how they could NOT have been since cost was THE most important factor & less costly/heavier materials were used. Much of the weight savings came from replacing the less costly/heavier materials with more costly/lighter ones (with obvious effects on costs). The BIG problem with the F-35B was that unlike the F-35A & F-35C it was unable to meet its performance requirements in its overweight condition – so it HAD to lose a considerable amount of weight. So much weight in fact that just materials changes were not enough & thus design changes had to be made as well. Due to the commonality of the three types, the F-35A & F-35C also benfitted from the weight savings targeted primarily for the F-35B.
pfcemReturning to Spey, Riccioni, et all. They are what his called the “light weight fighter Mafia” and they are the “intelectual fathers/mothers/the all family” of the Viper, just Google and you will find their thoughts on the latest versions of the plane (and forget everything they said about the Raptor).
No, realize that the same thinking they use to degrade later block F-16s (in their minds the Block 30/32 ‘runed’ their beloved LWF) they used (along with inaccurate data) to degrade the F-22 & the F-22 has proven them WRONG (as will the F-35).
They are a bunch of senile old men who just can’t seem to realize that technology & air combat has progressed past the Vietnam Era.
Finishing, if there´s one person who thinks that the Viper his one of those planes that belongs to legend, the likes of the spitfire, the Mustang, the Sabre, the Concord, etc, that´s me. It was an aircraft that marked an era, it was the best of the best in aeronautical technology for a very LOOONG time, in it´s latest blocks it still his a dam good plane, a highly capable one and a very fine contribution to any Order of Battle, and i am one of those that thinks that the USAF could very well have a few more hundreds of them…
But you cant add four tons of empty weight, and every sort of collection of draggy extrusions and pretend that the flight envelope it´s the same of the YF-16, it´s not.
Nobody is saying that later block F-16 are a YF-16. They are in fact a vast IMPROVEMENT on the YF-16. Taking what was a quite limited day-only WVR light fighter & turned it into a true multi-role fighter. Yes it has lost some instantaneous agility (sustained agility not as much) but has gained SO much more.
Sign In
