pfcemI don’t know where you get get your information from. LM have already said that they aim to give a price for export F-35’s mid 2009 – and that price would depend on all parter(?) customers taking the numbers anticipated.
No, LM & the US DOD have already PUBLICLY announced the export price for the F-35A, may be that the price for the F-35B & F-35 C will be announced in 2009.
I think they did this because most countries did not want to commit to ordering without knowing the price. LM recognised that the absence of a price was a big problem.
BINGO! Customers wanted a definitive price before further commitment, so LM & the US DOD gave them a price. That price is $58.7 million each for the F-35A.
How can you know that an LM manufactured product is LESS expensive to procure than other products when the manufacturer itself has said it cannot give a price?
I didn’t say that. I said the procurement cost (that is how much the customer has to pay) is lower…
As to through life costs, did you spot that the estimated cost to the USAF was recently increased from ca $300 billion to ca $600 billion? Doesn’t sound too much like it is going to be cheap to operate/maintain.
Do some research. The increased cost come from a re-evaluation of inflation rates over the life of the program & a two year weight reduction program.
Can the future UK carriers have catapults fitted? Yes.
Are there other aircraft capable of flying off carriers available? Yes.
I am one of the people saying that the British carriers SHOULD be CTOL but it is “cheaper” for the UK to stick with STOVL…
Britain has a limited defence budget. It would be foolish of the British government not to consider alternatives to the F-35.
What alternatives? All the “alternatives” are MORE expensive!
Carrying on with the F-35 on the current nebulous basis could result in a serious reduction in the future capability of the UK armed forces.
In what wet dream are you having that there is ANY better option?
pfcemBig and small is beside the point. It is the price that matters. Large aircraft with much simplified maintaince, Pilot and airmen trained, more upgrade potential with more flexiblity of weopons is the way to go.
No, big & small IS the point. The bigger an aircraft is, the MORE expensive it is to procure & operate/maintain but the easier it is to stuff a lot of ‘stuff’ on/in it.
You are trying to make the F-35 look bad by comparing it to MUCH larger & TOTALLY different types of aircraft.
from where u get this idea. MIG-31BM is clearly designed for Stealth fighter along with S-400.
Where do you get that idea from?
Sure against Iskander missile strike.
BS. An Iskander missile is easier to intercept/defeat than a 5th generation aircraft.
They are continuing with Flanker and MIG upgrades. I have shown PAK-FA criteria. One of it is more longer range than current Flankers/Foxhounds as Russian dont want to invest in airrefuellers.
They are continuing with Flanker & Fulcrum upgrades for export & as a way to impove their forces until the PAK-FA enters service, which even when it does will take a LONG time to build in sugnificant numbers…
Most countries know the price of F-35 and it is less expensive than other 4th generation fighters? i think u will have to eat ur words on this one. There is huge cost penalty of putting stuff inside airframe.
The export price for the F-35A has been announced at $58.7 million, that IS less than a new Typhoon, Rafale, F-15, F/A-18E/F, et cetera. AND the F-35 has been designed DESPITE ITS STEALTH to be less expensive to operate/maintain than 4th generation fighters.
I can see that.
They way are you arguing as though it is/was?
Stealth is only ONE element of what makes a fighter a 5th generation fighter.
Try to put Brahmos or Klubir missile on F-22. and see what effects on airframe life. Radars advancement are cheaper and way to go.
There is no need to put a Brahmos or Klub missile on a F-22 or F-35.
Price, slow pace of production, increase fuel consumption, less weopon flexibility.
price: Hardly, the F-35 is LESS expensive to procure & operate/maintain than its 4th generation “competators”.
slow pace of production: BS, full rate production of the F-35 is set to be 230 aircraft per year!
increase fuel consumption: Quite the opposite.
less weopon flexibility: I’ll give you that one but weapons to do just about anything you want to do are being developed for internal carriage &/or stealthy external carriage…
right all radars are the same:)
No, but “stealth defeating radar” is DECADES (if ever) away.
F-117 was cheap product and was usefull for its intended role in time line it was introduced.
The F-117 was NOT cheap & stealth technology of the 1970’s limited it to its limited (but VERY valuable) role.
Not so with the F-22 & F-35. If we built enough of them fast enough the price of the F-22 would come down to where it would be a steal comparred to LESS capable F-15s or F/A-18E/Fs and the F-35 export cost is LOWER than
a new Typhoon, Rafale, F-15, F/A-18E/F, et cetera.
There is other fundamental reasons also:)
Yes & those fundamental reasons are why “stealth defeating radar” is DECADES (if ever) away.
F-35 need all the fuel because it is too heavy. We have to see its life expectancy at MTOW.
No, you have it backwards. The F-35’s weight (which is actually not THAT bad given all that it carries INTERNALLY) is a DIRECT result of a rather ambitious combat radius requirement. Without that ambitious combat radius requirement the F-35 could be significantly lighter as it would not have to carry so much internal fuel…
Like the F-15 & F-16, the F-22 & F-35 are/will be “over built” to withstand the rigors of high g life.
How is Su-35 significanlty larger in volume?
So now you prove just how ignorant you are by not knowing that the Su-35 is significantly larger than the F-35 (which is about the size of a Rafale).
Small fighters like F-16/Rafale can use CFT/2500L fuel tanks to do the job. they certainly dont use any more fuel than required.
No, small fighters like F-16/Rafale/Typhoon HAVE to use CFT &/or external fuel tanks because they don’t/can’t carry enough fuel internally. The F-35 does not have that problem, it carries about as much fuel internally as a larger & heavier F-15C with one 600 gal external fuel tank & as much or more than any small/medium 4th generation fighter with THREE external fuel tanks.
And just because the F-35A can carry 18,300 lbs of fuel internally DOES NOT mean that it has to…
But it can be competitor to 5th generation fighters just like Test pilot said.
So, existing 4th generation fighters are “competitors” to 5th generation fighters, just not as good.
I am waiting for this proof of less expensive claim.
Search ‘F-35A 58.7 million’ 🙂
It is the price already publicly quoted to Australia & Norway.
material dont have that big impact like fundamental shape and still materials advancement is much slower than Semiconductors advancement.
Wrong! You can only make something LO via shape, to make it VLO requires special ‘stealth’ materials.
So what if materials advancement is much slower than Semiconductors advancement.
Provided that u want to use missiles and bombs against hardened strutures and mountaneous bases. Those things can only be carried externally. there is reason for both Su-34 and PAK-FA.
No provied nothing. Any weapon that a 4th generation aircraft can be fitted for, a similar sized 5th generation aircraft can be fitted for.
when that time comes. Stealth will be obsolete anyway.
Assuming it does at all…which even IF it does, the F-22 & F-35 (as they are today) won’t be the state-of-the-art US fighters anymore…
U dont have any proof of loading up F-35 to MTOW and operational life experiance of F-35. ur jumping a decade ahead of time.
No, I’m not.
The compromise for ahieving that is huge cost in development and procurement and slow induction that make it meaningless. u can much further develop 4th generation fighters with uprated engines, CFT, larger ET, more advance avionics, IRST, more composite use in construction to reduce weight and still it would be cheaper. This is the idea behind Su-35 and that is the right idea.
BS.
Further development of 4th generation fighters with uprated engines, CFT, larger ET, more advance avionics, IRST, more composite use in construction, et cetera is VERY expensive & time consuming and DOES NOT produce a product as good as a true 5th generation fighter.
pfcem6AAM is pretty much clean condition for Su-35/Su-27SM/MIG-31BM.
No it isn’t.
Besides, the F-35 is NOWHERE NEAR as big as a Su-35/Su-27SM/MIG-31BM…
***
These are big aircrafts and with next 10 year upgrades. they will be sufficiently capable of finding stealth aircrafts by own not to mention advancment in datalinks/IRST/EW etc.
No they won’t.
And u can potentially put longer range faster strike weopons on Flankers/Foxhound that can prempitevely destroy the airbases at much longer distance from where Stealth aircraft coming from. Stealth aircrafts dont have intercontinental range. they have to be based at limited number of potential airbases and with Russian implementation of doctrine of permanent readiness any such threat will be premptively destroyed with advance adoption of IRBM/Cruise missiles.
Yeah, right…airbases are completely defenseless.
The key is here to spend budget money on existing platforms as they give more flexiblity, can quickly be upgraded, piliot and maintaince are already trained on them. ur looking at year 2020 before first operational wing of F-35 can proper function all the air to ground functionality. that is too long time for tieing up so much investment in single project whose only defence is Stealth which is becoming dubious with passage of time.
:rolleyes:
***
First ur mistaken that Russia is building PAK-FA soley because of Stealth
There alot of other reasons. building fighter with composite materials, retention of industrial skill, applying new aerodynamic concepts, Supercruise with extended flight range not limited supercruise and any way in next 10 to 20 years. they will start replacing current fighter.
No you are mistaken, stealth is one of the driving factors behind the PAK-FA, otherwise Russia would continue along with ever more advanced Flankers…
Most countries will turned off when they know the real price of F-35.
Most countries already know the real price of the F-35 & it is LESS expensive (both to procure & to operate/maintain) than a Typhoon, Rafale, F-15, F/A-18E/F, et cetera
***
I dont know about China/India but Russian planning includes Strategic weopons top priority. And missiles like Iskander and further development of Smerch system. 5th generation mobile airdefence systems. Upgrade of current fighters. This all are negating value of Stealth fighter as sole source of funding.
Stealth fighters have NEVER been a sole source of funding.
And with current pace of advancement in Radars there wont be any difference between 4th and 5th generation fighters. as 4th generation airframes can take longer range weopons externally. u can put 3000L ET on 4th generation fighters for extended range. Stealth fighters make to many compromises.
BS, with current pace of advancement in radars there won’t be any 4th or even 5th generation airframes in frontline service by the time there is “no difference between them”.
5th generation fighters can be fitted any weapon 4th generation fighters can & can extend there range (already greater than 4th generation fighters) as well.
What compromises do stealth fighters make?
British Navy if spends such amounts on JSF. it will starve of funding of everything else for decades to come. and will unable to mount even expeditionary warfare.
LOL…
***
I havent been follwong Chinese development so i cant comment whether Stealth is important or not. But For Sukhoi has said Stealth is one of criteria among so many for there 5th generation fighter.
BINGO!
Russian have clearly seen F-22. and can accurately predict where its RCS will lie. just like they preidicted so many other things.
Yeah, right…
Stealth is good against 1970s radars.
And 1980s radar & 1990s radar & 2000s radar & 2010s radar…
Sukhoi believes in it.
No it doesn’t.
I can see the difference. F-22 is much costly project with same one role as single role of F-117. F-117 was not even produced in greater quantites nor was computing and manufacturing technology that advanced in F-117 time. It was much more difficult project to execute.
No, the difference is that while the F-117 had to make sacrifices for stealth, the F-22 does not, nor does the F-35.
So it works against one kind of system does not mean it can work against some one else systems. Just looks at high tech manufacturers of semiconductors from Japan/Korea/Germany. there is difference.
No, it works against the kinds of systems used vs aircraft & there are FUNDAMENTAL reasons why those systems use the radio frequencies they do.
F-35 needs all the fuel because of its weight and stronger engine.
BS, the F-35 needs all that fuel because of the extraordanary range/combat radius requirements for such a small fighter. And the stronger engine is to compensate for the greater weight of all that fuel.
Without Stealth there is nothing special about F-35 that any other 4th generaton fighter cannot upgraded.
BS, only significantly LARGER 4th generation aircraft could hope to be upgraded with all the NON-STEALTH advancements included in the F-35. And all of the similar sized 4th generation fighters require 2-3 external tanks to even come close to the range/combat radius of the F-35.
Flanker can be upgraded with airlaunched Klubir/Brahmos and Strike mission will still be cheaper than overall cost of maintaining and buying F-35.
Doesn’t make a Flanker a 5th generation fighter…
So does the cost of building F-35. It is still way more than legacy fighters.
Stealth make the project alot more expensive to beging with and increases multiply with production cuts.
No it doesn’t. The F-35 & it is LESS expensive (both to procure & to operate/maintain) than a Typhoon, Rafale, F-15, F/A-18E/F, et cetera.
As i said once u create shell of 5th generation there is little change u can do about it in overall context while Avionics and software is constant improvment so it never finishes.
Not true. While the SHAPE may not change much, the MATERIALS used can & do…
Provided those limited quantities of weopons can saturate Ship defences and have kinetic energy to do so. There is reason for going towards hypersonics.
Again, 5th generation aircraft CAN be fitted with any weapon 4th generation aircraft can.
And without giving too much away, the F-22 & F-35 will eventually be capable of carrying additional weapons beyond their current internal capacity that does not compromise stealth in a major way…
JSF consumes more fuel as it is heavy for single engine fighter. 4th generation fighters are cheaper to procure and can carry longer range weopons so no need for the same mission profile.
Just TRY & load a comparable sized 4th generation fighter with CLOSE to as much fuel & avionics as the F-35 CAN carry internally & see how much fuel they burn…Again, comparable sized 4th generation fighters need 2-3 external tanks to even come close to the range/combat radius of the F-35.
The F-35 may be “heavy for single engine fighter” but it carries MORE fuel internally than most LARGER twin-engined 4th generation fighters & that single engine has similar thrust as the twin-engined F-15C, F/A-18E/F & Typhoon yet the F-35 is SMALLER & LIGHTER than the F-15C & F/A-18E/F and of similar size (although a bit heavier) as the Typhoon…
pfcemWhat kind of intake does the F-35 have?
One that does NOT limit its speed to Mach 1.6.
The KPP THRESHOLD (aka minimum accepatble) top speed is Mach 1.6.
***
It’s not people here, but LM which gives this very data and if you would have read my posts you wouldn’t come up with that.
No, it is some WRITER simply taking the combat readius KPP threashold & doubling (& rounding) it and calling it range. NOWHERE has LM “claimed” that the max unrefueled range of the F-35A is 1200nm!
And that is what I refer to! LM claims it as general “fact”, but lacks any compareable data. If you present things in a favorable way, try to look at conditions which aren’t favorable for the F-35 as well.
Just because LM is not sharing its data with YOU does not mean that it does not have the data…
True, but can you prove superiority with that? No you can’t! That’s my simple point not more not less. Of course you can interprete the things your way to make the point, but the medal has two sites.
I never said the F-35 had a speed superiority.
For a good reason. You guys only compare the F-35s basic config to make your point, but refuse to compare it in other configurations where the F-35 might not be that excellent.
No, you have it the other way around.
***
Strange that you can be so sure in your affirmations that the F35 is the dogs gonads when you are stating above that you don’t actually know what it can do…;)
I am not the one quoting the KPP threshold as THE MAXIMUM the F-35 is capable of…
Secondly if the F35 is being used in it’s (secondary) air to air role a comparison between the 4 aam F35 and an 8 aam fighter is perfectly valid.
The F-35 is perfectly capable of carrying more than 4 AAMs, but UNLIKE the “competition”, it CAN carry 4 AAMs (eventually 6) plus up to 18,300 lbs of fuel internally & FIGHT in a ‘clean’ condition.
pfcemso let me get this straight EADS can throw a hissy fit because it might get a finacial penalty for not holding up its end of the contract, yet everytime the costs rise the customers have to pay? I have mentioned this on here before, why can defence contractors have such massive cost over-runs and governments just seem to pay them?
Because much of the time cost over-runs & delays are not the fault of the contractor (hell, much of the time they are not even real). The government deliberately UNDERESTIMATES the costs in order to fool the bean counters of the true costs, the program inevitably gets audited when costs do not appear to be adding up or as part of the “normal” oversite/review process & BAM – instant cost over-runs. Other times the government can’t seem to stay out of the way & let the contractor do its job, instead micromanaging the whole process causing all sorts of problems stemming from people who don’t have the 1st clue how to get things done telling those that do how to do it.
pfcemThe F-35B is not for 2000 lb JDAM internally, oh such neatpicking Europeans. :diablo:
What part of for a typical F-35A strike mission do you not understand.
The inlet-system is the limiting factor of the F-35, when it comes to speed and nothing else.
The F-35 inlet-system does not limit to Mach 1.6.
It really is PATHETIC how in order to attempt to make a argument against the F-35, people quote performance thresholds (aka MINIMUM acceptable) as if the F-35 will not exceed them.
At least, when the chase-planes are with ETs and the real TOW of the F-35A not quoted. 😉
I GUARANTEE that the test pilots know what the TOW is/was. The chase planes don’t always carry external tanks, sometimes just one, other times two but that is a moot point anyway given that the chase planes can’t carry as much fuel even with THREE external tanks as the F-35A can carry internally.
So half the AAM-load of the Rafale and do credit it with more range. 😀
No, similar COMBAT CONFIGURATION!
pfcemReally? What is to read there is just close to half the way on internal fuel and no internal weaponsload is quoted. No flight profil is given and no related speed is given. 😮
Are you even capable of doing ANY research on your own or do you have to be spoon fed everything.
In OTHER documents it IS given as ‘USAF Profile’. You probably don’t know what that is so do some research & find out.
And just to add, the F-35B is given in ‘USMC Profile’ & the F-35C is given in ‘USN Profile’.
pfcemThe 1200 nm figure is given as max range on internal fuel not as combat radius. :rolleyes:
No it is not.
590nm is the COMBAT RADIUS KPP threshold for the F-35A, 1200nm is simply that number doubled & rounded up. The typical/traditional relationship between ‘combat radius’ & ‘range’ is range being ~3x combat radius (combat radius being ~1/3x range). I have no idea why people chose to use 2x for the F-35.
pfcemI think what the F35 fanboys forget is that export F35s will be downgraded compared to the US F35, and this is especially sensitive when it comes to stealth.
Maybe the US F35 will be a “stealth” aircraft, but what about the export models? Will it still be stealthy enough in its export variants compared to your best 4,5 gen fighters? Maybe so, but what about when the PAK-FA comes online?
Exports F-35s will be PLENTY stealthy. How stealthy is a matter between the US & the customer.
But just for the sake of argument, lets assume that the RCS of a given export customer’s F-35s is 10 times that of the US F-35s. While that would double the range at which a given radar could detect the export customer’s F-35s vs those of the US, it is still ~1/4 the range at which said radar would detect an F-16C.
F22+F35 combo can probably keep the US safe against the PAK-FA, but F35 customers will probably need something better than the export downgraded F35 to face against the PAK-FA. Besides the PAK-FA can be equipped with 3rd party hardware à la Su30 MKI, or so it seems judging from the indian adventure. F35 customers will be dependant on US goodwill it seems.
Defeating the PAK-FA is not the intent of the F-35 & the F-35 will likely fair better vs the PAK-FA than any 4th generation fighter.
pfcemIn some configurations maybe but not necessarily in all.
In the configurations the F-35 is intended for. That means [for a typical F-35A strike mission] two AMRAAM (or similar MR AAM such as Meteor) & two 2,000 lb JDAM (or eight ‘250lb’ SDB) & up to 18,300 lbs of fuel plus all the avionics carried by the F-35 INTERNALLY. Eventually the F-35 will be capable of carrying 6 AAMs internally (4 AAMs in place of the strike weapons).
Can a F-35 carry 8 AAMs still achieve mach 1.8 or supercruise?
We don’t know how fast the F-35 will be. All we do know is that the KPP threshold is >Mach 1.6 & that AA-1 (some 2400 lbs HEAVIER than the production F-35A) is impressing/surprising everyone who flies it (or tries to keep up with it).
Comparisons should be fair. Comparing a F-35 with 4 internal AAMs (just to keep the clean argument) with a fighter with 8 AAMs or so is not a fair comparison.
Nobdy is comparing a F-35 with 4 internal AAMs with a fighter with 8 AAMs.
pfcemThat claim is a wild guess.
A F-16C or EF with with two bombs and two AAMs could not be outperformed by a F-35A, when on internal fuel like the F-35A over the target area.
You are the one making a wild guess.
The main advantage of the F-35A is the better chance to penetrate close to that target undetected at medium heights, when the F-16C or EF could achieve something similar at low level.
Yeah, right…:rolleyes:
pfcemYou should ask military people those questions.
No, YOU need to answer that question since YOU made the comment.
Right now we have a new operational aircraft, Typhoon, for these roles. I think we have a breathing space and do not need to commit to anything…. YET.
But the Typhoon is MORE expensive that the F-35B! It isn’t stealthy, cant operate from carriers, can’t carry as much fuel even with three external tanks, et cetera.
There are HUGE benefits to the UK for committing to the F-35 now.
I think the F-35B is to replace the Sea Harrier FA2, and it was a mistake to get rid of them when Hoon did. I think this forces UK to look at least at the F-35B now, and perhaps affects interest in other F35 variants. Will the RAF get the B too?
No the F-35B is to replace ALL UK Harriers. The RN & RAF Harrier sqaudrons are ‘interchangable’ (at least they are SUPPOSED to be).
I think the current UK government have never shown competence in these matters, and make unsafe decisions.
No argument there but puilling out of the JSF would be the worst decision yet.
pfcemSpeaking as a UK taxpayer who is concerned about what kind of equipment we send our forces to war with, and how much it costs, I still don’t much like the F-35. Some of the research this thread has prompted me to make has changed my view of JSF, and I now acknowledge it is looking like a pretty incredible piece of engineering. I don’t think it’s conceptually appropriate for UK, though. I think we could have a few, very stealthy, pure attack aircraft, stealthy cruise missiles, but use far less expensive aircraft as fighters and aircraft for CAS, and have a few more of them. This is my opinion. I am not saying it is correct. I am just airing a view.
So what “far less expensive aircraft as fighters and aircraft for CAS” would you suggest?
The export flyaway cost of the F-35A is $58.7 million (nothing official on the F-35B or F-35C yet but lets ballpark it at ~$70 million).
Keep in mind that the UK F-35Bs are to replace its Harriers…
pfcemConsider that AA-1 only kind of looks like a F-35 this is interesting. There aren’t any real war systems in it of measure. Of course too that wonderful hyped mission doesn’t mention that it was short 5,000lbs of gas. AA-1 is coming up on it’s end of usefulness. After some important tests, because it doesn’t have very many JSF systems on it, will probably be parked after a while.
Not quite.
The AA-1 test vehicle is some 2400 lbs heavier that the production F-35A is projected to be. The AA-1 with 12,000 lbs of fuel represents the weight of a production F-35A with 14,400 lbs of fuel. That is about the fuel load of a F-15C or F/A-18E but in a smaller aircraft that weighs ~2,000 lbs (vs F-15C) & ~4,000 lbs (vs F/A-18E) less. Again, just becasue the F-35A CAN carry 18,300 lbs of fuel does not mean that it HAS to do so.
The idea that the F-35 can go through stiff IADS without high amounts of super-cruise and altitude ( a-la-F-22) makes those press releases nothing more than interesting theory.
Huh?
The “offical” RCS of the F-35 is ~0.0014 sq ft. That is about 1/1000 that of the F-16C. In other words the detection range of a given radar vs the F-35 is ~1/8th what it is vs the F-16C.
pfcemWhen I remember well, the F-35 has a air-refuelling capability and wet stations for ETs. Why such a waste, when range is no issue for a clean, but stubby F-35.
Air-refuelling capability & wet stations for external tanks is NOT a waist, it is how you EXTEND the range of an aircraft beyond that of its internal fuel capacity.
Nobody EVER said range is no issue for ANY clean aircraft. But if the mission requires a given range, carrying all the fuel needed to achieve said range is the most efficient way of doing it.
Non do prevent an aircraft designer to built a stubby fighter with more internal fuel? When going behind some design limits you have to pay a price.
If the range requirement for the F-35 was greater, it likely would have been a bit larger & carried more internal fuel…
So far the optimum value is a fuel fraction of 0.3. :diablo:
Not if the required range can not be achieved…
When some special circumstanes do demand something higher you can rise that fraction for part of the mission by ETs or do a air-refueling.
But longer range than 4th generation “competators” IS NOT some special circumstane, it is the TYPICAL COMBAT MISSION.
Sign In
