FBW.. At the same time, the F-35 was more expensive than Boeing’s high tier product, the F-15K.
Was being the operative word here. The F-15 WAS cheaper than the LRIP lot 5. The F-35 won when the re-tender allowed Lockheed to use LRIP lot 7 pricing. They are now awarding lot 11 contracts, and APUC has decreased with each new lot.
FBWEastern Europe was left in the hand of the USSR.
If you don’t realize the difference between the USSR, Russia, and Russians, that is your problem, but there is no need to parade your ignorance so openly.
I think all here know that there is a difference between the USSR and Russia. Where people are making the connection is that some nations in Eastern Europe are wary of Russia due to events under the USSR, that was how it fit into the larger question over the current Russia-Ukraine relations.
I am sure you are at the forefront of Americans taking responsibility for the atrocities the US committed from its founding days up though…oh my, not so long ago really.
You end with a comment on “butthurt” but include this as a reference point. No where in my short post is there a disparaging remark about Russia. Events that happened under the USSR…. well happened (if it hurts the more sensitive amongst us to hear of past inequities committed by various nations, so be it). Were this a thread about Latin American aviation and conflict, I’m sure there would be extensive commentary about the U.S. policies that have left many Central and Latin American nations deeply mistrustful of the U.S., no?
Also lol @ prejudice against non-Russians. Poor Russians, died in highest numbers within the USSR, if only they knew how much worse everyone else had it 😀 !
I doubt that anyone would dispute that particular tiger ate her own. But does it change the rationale of the Poles, Lithuanians, some Ukrainians, and minorities from within the former USSR toward modern Russia?
But seriously, I thought this was an aviation, not political butthurt from all sides forum? Mods? Many posts around here have little to do with aviation.
Yes, it is an aviation forum but perhaps you’ve missed the last four pages of nationalistic drivel. If my post offended you, my apologies, but it was not disparaging Russia
Lastly, as I count you as discerning, intelligent poster, I’m sure you can agree that the drumbeat of sentiment (artificially propagated) portraying the U.S. and Russia as enemies leads to these highly charged discussions.
FBWI also hope that you can get the majority of the good old rusting US manufacturing back in some decent order. A huge country like US has some many excellent manufacturing companies but the average is tragically poor.
My recommendation is that you use your expertise closer to home
One, I’m not sure T-vip is from the U.S., but assumptions are always valid here, huh?
Second, what? Not sure what part of the U.S. you’ve viewed, or how you’ve come up with these conclusions. U.S. cars maybe? First off, most things considered “US products” are not made in the U.S. (Fords, Chevy’s,etc- very few models U.S. manufactured. What is made in U.S.: some BMW, Honda, Mercedes). Then look at the production facilities at Boeing, Lockheed, UTC, etc. Then I suggest you compare them to the video, and eat humble pie.
Addition- most low end products from U.S. corporations are produced overseas due to wage/union issues. Higher end tech and luxury products are US made, take Apple: iPhone was designed in Cupertino- built in China, the new Mac Pro- built in U.S.
FBWSERN nozzle? Also, I’m not aware of the F119 using active cooling for the nozzles.That’s the first time I’ve heard of that. Can you point me to a source? I’m rather curious.
I haven’t heard about the nozzle thing. Based on johnwill who worked on the F-111, for the tail it turned out that a blunt end is somehow less draggy than a sharp end as was found in wind tunnel testing. Rather interesting phenomenon, and I’m not sure if it’s due to the nozzle or some other effect.
Do you have further readings about the matter? I’m curious.
.
PAK-FA thread sorry about this aside commentary:
Rad- I don’t have many of the studies anymore but a quick google of “non axis symmetric 2-d nozzle” should yield some results. There is a particular one from NASA that researched the SERN nozzle and 2-d wedge nozzle (as well as others) that were studied prior to the ATF program. The F119 was eventually fitted with both in the YF-23 and YF-22 respectively. The F-111 rear fuselage and nozzles went through extensive iterations in testing. They never really solved the drag issue completely. An oft-repeated (not sure on the truth of it, not an aerospace engineer) was that removing the “tail feathers” from the F-15C resulted in a 3-5% increase in drag, just to give an idea of how critical nozzle shaping is.
As far as cooling, the research into active cooling of the LOAN nozzle is available, information on the F-22’s 2-d wedge nozzle’s cooling system is sparse (other than vague statements that the outer portions of the engine including the afterburner section and nozzle include active cooling measures to reduce IR signature).
Back to the PAK-FA thread- To one who does not visit the Russia aerospace forums very frequently, the arrest of the person posting information seems spurious, he was not releasing classified info from the surface reading of this. It reads like he was only posting unofficial updates on testing. Was this considered a security clearance breach?
FBWDo you really believe that? Then look up some videos of cheering Ukrainian crowds welcoming advancing Wehrmacht in 1941.. Your effort to blame it on Putin is moving but this thing is far bigger and older than him..
..
That is true, they did see the Wehrmacht as liberators, but why? Have you ever researched the Holodomor?
Having said that, given enough time, every culture seems to whitewash genocides. The Soviet system and the institutional prejudice against non-Russians was a bit too recent for many in eastern Europe to forget.
FBWBased on plans for substantial cooperation on defense with Sweden, Gripen is a strong contender.
It would make sense. The critical issue is if Finland decides to stay unaligned. Sweden and Finland would be able to pool defense resources. Finland has been leaning more and more toward the collective European defense (leaving politics out of this), hence the F-35 having a 50/50 shot in this. The Finns seem to be very happy with their F-18’s as well, so there is always a chance that their positive experience with U.S. suppliers also influences them toward the newest U.S. offering.
Overall, despite the noise over the F-35 being rumored to be the preferred choice, this race is a toss up and would not be surprised in the choice of the Gripen E/F, or F-35.
FBWEnergo at Norwegian forum “milforum.net” says he believes the huge differences between Norwegian and Danish life cycle cost estimates are because the Danes have made calculations using “present value” whereas in Norway they use an estimate which is adjusted for inflation instead. In 2008 Norway also used present value, and at that time the figure was 145 billion NOK (which corresponded to 254 billion NOK when adjusted for inflation).
…
This was one part I posted as well. If you read the part about comparative costs, it seems to point to the cost discrepancy was that (it appears) that Denmark used the cost estimates for 2020 in 2014 values. So, the F-35 (TY) value in (CY) prices is cheaper than competitors. But, as the report states, there is a great deal of risk in the cost assessments. The report states that the F-35 could cost up to 25% more than estimated.
It would seem like they are playing fast and loose with the numbers, and that assessment could be supported by their estimates. But, consider that only one of the contenders is in LRIP, the other two will face dwindling economies of scale. Second, the Typhoon faces uncertainty over upgrades. Realistically, if the partner nations in the Typhoon project seem reluctant to budget for the timely upgrades to the AESA, improved sensor fusion, and clear future software and hardware improvements, who would feel good about choosing the Typhoon for their only platform for the next 30+ years, ditto for the Shornet. Those considerations certainly seem to have played a role in the valuation (they mention the lack of upgrades to the Typhoon’s simulator, for one).
FBWYou might have missed that Eurofighter test pilot has claimed the F-35 stood no chance against Typhoon… Something tells me that he’d know much more about it than you..
No, what he said was that there was no way the F-35 would outperform the Typhoon in typical air superiority performance. He went on to state that the Typhoon would out accelerate and turn the F-35 at high speeds. Statements that I doubt anyone would disagree with. What he, nor any other pilot who has not flown both aircraft could say, is how the sensors and weapon systems matched up. The Typhoon is, without a doubt, an impressive performer (especially at supersonic speeds), but the MMI has been criticized many times, and the upgrades to DASS and other key systems has been slow and underfunded. Sorry to say, electronic performance, not kinetic performance, is the difference maker in actual operations (not my opinion, pilot have stated this many times, it is the armchair aviator crowd that misses this point).
BTW, Billy Flynn is the only pilot in the F-35 fleet that has flown both aircraft that I’m aware of (RCAF test pilot in both F-35 and Typhoon programs). It was he that made the controversial claims that the F-35 could match or better the performance of any aircraft including the Typhoon.
FBWYou also have to consider that the SH and Typhoon prices are likely higher above cost than the F-35 since Denmark didn’t join the SH or Eurofighter programs in development as a partner like they did the JSF program; the US DoD will want to get back some of the money they invested in the development of the F/A-18F should a foreign military purchase it.
Meh, not so sure that makes up the price discrepancy. FMS sales have 1.2% CAS surcharge, and a proportional amount of non-recurring RDT&E for the F-18E/F. That is not going to make it significantly more expensive to order compared to the a tier 3 F-35 partner.
FBWI’ve seen figures with 4-6% thrust loss for square Nozzle
The F119 has been fitted with SERN nozzle, two-dimensional non-axis symmetric con-di nozzle, and LOAN nozzle. The difference for the SERN nozzle (as would have been fitted to the F-23) was something like 1.5%. The actual thrust vectoring non-axis symmetric con-di nozzle has little impact on thrust, with the caveat that altering the pitch angles does reduce efficiency. Take a look at the SERN nozzle on the F119 fitted to the YF-23, truly bizarre. The SE611, and SE614 variants that powered the two JSF x-planes the asymmetric LOAN nozzle and do produce more thrust, but are different from the F119 in having an extra stage and larger fan.
The studies indicated that the traditional con-di nozzle had a 10% advantage over non-axis symmetric con-di when considering nozzle weight. Then, when the optimal shape ( illustrated by the F119 engines) was compared with cooling requirements, the non-axis symmetric nozzle was within 1% of the standard con-di nozzle.
The major advantage seldom mentioned is that the 2-d wedge nozzle offers a significant reduction in drag. The nozzle is a significant source of aerodynamic drag. The F-111 is a great example of this: the designers chose the nozzle that offered the highest thrust potential (uninstalled), unfortunately the nozzle had a significant performance penalty installed (one reason for the “turkey feathers” on the F100). The 2-d wedge con-di also offered advantages in dry thrust settings.
So, in no simple terms: While the symmetric con-di may be more efficient (ceteris paribus) on a test stand, it is not when installed, especially considering the original studies included a large (up to 600lb) penalty for the non axis symmetric nozzle.
Back to the Pak-fa, why not flat nozzles? Perhaps because the designers wanted thrust vectoring on the pitch and yaw axis, or maybe because they did not want to basically redesign the entire afterburner assembly, jet pipe, for an interim engine.
FBWThat Danish document showing the expected pricetags is basically proof of how politics are king in sales like this. First the key people are courted or perhaps bought. They are made to believe pricetags as shown in the document are true. Then those people “decide” which is better – based on false numbers.
There doesn’t have to be a conspiracy. No one is being made to believe anything. You are looking at the charts and making assumptions that somehow Lockheed is lying to the Danish government. No, the Danish government is generating the cost estimates based on their own research.
I mean, seriously? 82 million dollars per procured f35a? By 2020? Very, very unilikey, given the current price drop curve which is pointing more towards the 90-95 million range. As we also know – those are prices US is paying for the flyaway plane. Without anything else.
Very much depends what figures the study is using for costs. The costs are projected into then-year values based on RBI responses
Can Denmark really be expected to pay the same pricetag as US?
Depends, I’ve not seen the details of the expected contract. If Denmark buys them through FMS, they will pay what the U.S. pays for orders in those production lots.
Furthermore, the report in the very same comparison graph says procurement per superhornet costs 122 million. Huh?? Even though US pays something like 60-ish million per their flyaway superhornet? Lets remember the f35a price was clearly flyaway too, so these prices must be apples to apples comparison. Either that or F35a flyaway price for denmark is in reality 40 million, half of what us will be paying. Right.
The above makes no sense, the SH is not 60 million. It is, as Spitfire posted below, closer to 80 million with government furnished equipment like the radar. And again, the report is projecting lifetime costs. Not to mention, the report states that there is considerable uncertainty for the cost estimates for the SH and the F-35. The report further states that the price per F-35 may end up being 25% higher than what is reported. The lifetime costs seem to be in 2014 values (according to the explanation of the methodology)
They seem to be using URF prices (if I am reading this correctly) for 2020, projected in 2014 values. The study states that the SH is cheaper than the F-35 now.
The report also states that the use of simulators reduces the needed flight hours for the F-35, hence lifecycle cost reductions.
If these figures have been presented to danish key people as fact then it’s no wonder they selected f35a. they’ve been fooled like no other. Who knows what else has been fabricated for those people. And god knows how much power lockheed martin really has within us government when it clearly managed to shut up another powerful US firm, Boeing, from making a fuss about this.
I very much doubt the “key Danish people” are being duped by Lockheed. It is those key Danish people in government that are generating this report. Instead of jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon, cut and paste the study into google translator to read the methodology.
FBWround is more efficient,
on reliability, round is stronger structurally, but i dont think it impart any significant reliability difference,
the added weight also is too small to be significant
Na Na Na, wrong on all accounts. It does not significantly effect thrust. Just adding thrust vectoring does impact reliability (more moving parts, added complexity), and, yes, it is heavier due to active cooling (in the case of the F119).
FBWRead this carefully. There are still glitches and system crash.
READ_THIS_CAREFULLY: don’t read Defense Aerospace for anything other than news on the Rafale…… Read the posts I put up last week regarding the newest versions of 3i.
Thanks (know your source)
FBWMaybe.. the whole system of updates, ALIS, connectivity, pooled parts etc. is rather apalling to me.. I personally don’t like the idea of someone constantly sticking nose into my matters – not even manufacturer of the product I have bought. For my own money I prefer to have 100% and total control over when and how I use it. If the manufacturer or the country of origin has a problem with that, ok, no problem, there are other options regd. what to buy..
That is a rather superficial understanding of ALIS. The F-35 can operate AND complete missions without connectivity, this myth was debunked. There are several different levels to the ALIS system. Some are needed for the logistics, some to update the MDS, others to analyse data collected on missions. Do you complain about not having source code for your iPhone? You can still download what you want, and use it however you want. That is the functionality that the U.S. has given Israel on the F-35. They can adapt the mission systems, and add their own software that is comparable. But, it is reasonable to secure the code that runs the fusion engine, NCTR, detection algorithms, and comms.
FBWNice try..
They still have rebooting/startup problems when the jet are doing pre-flight system check.
Really? I think that report is a day late and a dollar short, see above post. The 3i configuration was cleared this week. So… No.
Sign In
