VanshilarOh whoops…thanks for pointing that out, I missed that while skimming through the docs.
VanshilarThe numbers given are basically weapon system costs, which are different than the flyaway costs typically used to compare aircraft.
Although not the final numbers, each force’s justification books give a better breakdown of the costs. For example, for FY2017, the Air Force’s justification book says:
F-35A: $4852 M for 48 planes flyaway ($101.1 M each), additional $605 M for support (ground equipment, simulators, ALIS, etc.), so $5458 M total
Also for FY2017, the Navy’s justification book says:
F-35B: $1909 M for 16 planes flyaway ($119.3 M each), which consists of $1909 M as recurring flyaway ($119.3 M each) and $123.8 M as non-recurring flyaway ($7.7 M each), additional $211 M for support, so $2244 M total
F-35C: $667 M for 4 planes flyaway ($166.8 M each), which consists of $474 M as recurring flyaway ($118.4 M each) and $194 M as non-recurring flyaway ($48.4 M each), additional $272 M for support, so $939 M total
As an aside, the Air Force doesn’t have non-recurring flyaway costs for the F-35A.
For comparison, for the Super Hornet, the Navy’s justification book says (for FY2017):
F/A-18E/F: $1833 M for 26 planes flyaway ($70.5 M each), which consists of $1636 M as recurring flyaway ($62.9 M each), and $198 M as non-recurring flyaway (7.6 M each), additional $619 M for support, so $2452 M total
VanshilarThat’s the STOVL performance. It only applies to the STOVL version. Do you really think the non-STOVL versions can take off with 549 feet of runway?
VanshilarThe range of the flight is 1239 km * 2 + 5% ANZ = 2478 km + 124 km = 2602 km
That’s your problem right there, you basically took the F-35A’s range and then multiplied it by (F-35A range / F-35B range). The range of the F-35B is 935 km, not 1239 km.
Why did you bother with the F-35B in the first place, when the SAR already gives the range of the F-35A? It’s with 2 missiles and 2 2000-lb bombs. You could remove them if you want, the same way you did for the F-35B. Even then it’s inaccurate; the F-35A would be carrying the bombs for only half the mission, plus it’s an air-to-ground profile, which isn’t as optimal as an air-to-air profile (which isn’t as optimal as a true ferry profile either).
VanshilarI’m confused. When an old SAR estimated that the F-35A range may only be 584 nm, people stuck to that like glue, but when the latest figure from flight tests is 669 nm, now the SAR is suddenly not reliable?
Well back when they relaxed some of the F-35’s requirements it meant that the F-35 obviously sucked and was worse than existing fighters, but now any reported numbers are just lies and LM and the US government can make up whatever numbers they want so you can’t count on official numbers. Too bad they couldn’t do that back then. Must be Trump!
I’m sorry, where does F-35A’s 3,760 km range come from?
From Paralay’s impeccable calculations. They’re more accurate than official test data.
VanshilarAgain, we’re re-hashing the same conversation, with Paralay saying his numbers are based on calculations but then not justifying those calculations nor their assumptions and forcing others to wade through his Excel spreadsheet: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137788-F-35-News-and-discussion-(2016)-take-III/page109
As mentioned before, the spreadsheet assumes:
1. Cruising efficiency (probably lift/drag ratio) is proportional to planform area (area viewed from above) divided by frontal area (area viewed from the front), which you call “fineness”. Thus the spreadsheet naturally assumes that “flatter” aircraft like the PAK FA has more efficient cruise than “stubbier” aircraft like the F-35. (And as already pointed out before, we’re talking about subsonic cruise here, where flatter is not always better.) A theoretical pancake (flat plate) would have infinite range under this assumption, ignoring the effect of things like wetted area, etc. on drag.
2. Same frontal area (i.e. same “fineness”) is used when the airplane carries external fuel tanks, when the frontal area most definitely increases with those tanks. You have various correction terms and numbers there, but no explanation of what they mean.
So when confronted with that your calculations are at odds with officially stated values, your go-to argument is…those official numbers must be wrong, not that maybe you should recheck your assumptions and try to justify your calculations? “Real-world testing must be wrong if they do not conform to my calculations”?
VanshilarThe most recent F/A-18E/F SAR is here: http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/F-A-18E-F_December_2012_SAR.pdf
It gives the radius for an interdiction mission as 444 Nm using 2 external tanks (retained), and 489 Nm using 3 external tanks (retained). This is assuming a payload of 2 AIM-9 missiles and 4 1000-lb MK 83 low-drag bombs on low-drag pylons, plus FLIR/NAVFLIR pod. So basically 2 missiles and 4000 lb of bombs. Yet its advertised ferry range is 1800 Nm.
And as already mentioned above, for the F-35, carrying 2 AMRAAM’s and 2 2000-lb bombs, the mission radius is 669 Nm on internal fuel. In other words, the F-35A on internal fuel alone has a demonstrated combat radius that’s 37% greater than that of the Super Hornet using internal fuel plus 3 external fuel tanks. We don’t know if the mission profile for the F/A-18E/F interdiction mission is exactly the same as that of the F-35A, but we know that both are air-to-ground missions so they likely have similar profiles. Again it also carries 2 missiles and 4000 lb of bombs.
I don’t know why it’s so hard to understand, the “>” in “>2200 km” means “greater than”, meaning the actual amount could be 2201, or 2600, or 5000, or whatever. All it does is set a floor on the possible values. They probably just never bothered to update that value. But if it already has a demonstrated mission radius of 669 Nm, while carrying missiles and bombs, meaning that it can fly at least 2408 km on a single tank, and likely significantly farther than that if it’s flying an optimum cruise profile (as opposed to air-to-ground where it has to go down lower) and not having to carry weapons (i.e. ferry flight). Its radius is also given as 760 Nm for air-to-air, which is closer to optimum cruise, so its ferry range is somewhere over 2800 km. I don’t know why this is so hard for you to understand.
VanshilarNot this again. When the US flies its planes across the ocean, it’s not out to set “longest distance on a single tank” records. It’s looking to ensure the plane can reach the destination safely, or failing that, can reach an alternate airstrip safely if something goes wrong. So the plane’s fuel tanks are kept fairly topped off, so that at any point during the flight it can reach an airstrip (and likely an additional alternate airstrip) with some loiter time built in with whatever fuel is remaining. People already discussed with you on specifically this point less than a year ago: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137788-F-35-News-and-discussion-(2016)-take-III/page108
So why do you bother to bring it up again?
VanshilarSeeing as how you think it’s from the F-35’s wing loading and “small” control surfaces, seeing as how the F-16 has similar wing loading and if anything has smaller control surfaces (or at least, less authority) than the F-35, then it stands to reason that the F-16 loses energy even worse based on your logic.
Vanshilarbut needed hence the energy loss. (which is normal with high wing loading and small control surfaces.
Learn something new every day, apparently the F-16 isn’t an energy fighter.
VanshilarIts very unclear to me..
Is this still the $85mill WITHOUT engine figure?
I don’t know why this keeps getting brought up. Since LRIP-9, quoted F-35 prices have included the engine. They’re now talking about (presumably) LRIP-12, LRIP-13, and LRIP-14, and you’re still asking about if the price includes the engine?
VanshilarA read an article recently that described that the F-35 project is a failure!! I have briefed the article here – What Happened to F-35 Project from Lockheed Martin?
Um why don’t you actually read up on the program before trying to write about it? I stopped reading after this passage:
With nearly US$ 1.5 trillion already spent, it has gone on to become one of the most expensive defense program in the world before it is phased out in 2070.
Obviously someone who has no clue what’s going on with the F-35 program and just reading clickbait.
VanshilarHe included Long Lead, Development, IOT&E, Partner unique (ie paid for by partners and NOT the US), Support, O&M costs for every F-35 ever built (Concurrency & Block 3F updates), and even LL items for Lot 10 into his “airframe only” Lot 9 Procurement “calculations”.
Actually he says the costs include “engines, fixes, retrofits and upgrades” and also includes “cost of fixes, modifications and other post-delivery costs that are not specifically attributed to Lot 9, but which were awarded since September 2014 under a Lot 9 secondary contract reference (N00019-14-G-0020)”. So basically, anything he could find related to the F-35 program. One of them is even for Lot 15, but he included it because it was awarded under contract reference N00019-14-G-0020.
That’s vastly different than the flyaway cost being announced by the JPO.
I wonder if DA will ever do a similar cost analysis of the Rafale? They just announced they’ll be working on Block 4 in March, think he’ll try to put together all the costs related to a Block 4 Rafale, including administrative overhead (which he included for the Lot 9 F-35) and long lead items for future Rafales?
VanshilarSimply because numbers did not seem to fit. And to post the info. No more
Yeah the numbers don’t fit, in fact the cited contract even says:
This order combines purchases for the Air Force ($315,500,000; 23 percent); Marine Corps ($128,925,000; 9 percent); Navy ($43,509,000; 3 percent); non-U.S. DoD participant ($524,446,000; 38 percent), and foreign military sales customers ($364,622,000; 27 percent).
In other words, of the $1377 million contract, only $316 million is related to Spudman’s post.
VanshilarLockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a not-to-exceed $1,377,002,000 advance acquisition contract for long-lead time materials, parts, components, and effort for 130 low-rate initial production Lot 12 F-35 Lightning II aircraft for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, non-U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) participants, and foreign military sales customers. In addition this contract provides long-lead time materials, parts, components, and effort for 110 Lot 13 and 14 F-35 Lightning II aircraft for the non-U.S. DoD participants and foreign military sales customers.
Um the quote itself says that it covers not just Lot 12 but also some of Lot 13 and Lot 14 so unless they’re all happening in FY 2019, then the $1.377 billion is actually covering multiple years of procurement, not just one. (On the other hand, it doesn’t cover the U.S. production for Lots 13 and 14, only non-U.S. production.)
Sign In
