FBWYou can’t use DSCA notifications of FMS to calculate weapon system costs as has been discussed here many times. First, they are estimates, and second they include support, training, and logistics costs. Not to mention non-recurring expenses associated with a new operator or new version.
Hold on, I’ll post the justification book costs for the Aim-120D
In FY 2018, the Navy spend 197 million procuring 120 Aim-120D, or 1.64 million apiece.
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/19pres/WPN_Book.pdf
FBWNot sure how what I wrote could be construed as “hyper-defensive”. Just stating facts. I certainly don’t take any of this personally. Perhaps your projecting, or the language barrier leads to misunderstanding my direct communication style.
Anyway, the remarks from Angelo Tofalo do constitute a 180 from the Five Star movement’s election promise. The program of record has not changed, only a hint of delivery slowdown possible.
FBWTo be fully onest the absolutely majority of them are not customers but development patners
In other words, they benefit more than an FMS customer. And that is somehow negative?
Anyway, Japan, Korea, Israel, Belgium, Singapore (soon) as “customers”, pretty robust sales for an aircraft declared failed and dead many time over in the media and on defense forums such as this.
The perception vs reality dissonance is most clearly demonstrated by your own nation. The Five Star Movement was openly hostile to the F-35, announcing publicly that if elected, they would end Italian participation in the program. Now as they part of the coalition government, we seeing a very public 180 coming out about the F-35. Perhaps hearing briefings from the military and seeing the industrial participation changed some minds?
FBWSo let’s sum up. Germany is out, and Uk dubious didt hey get the notice about low life expectancy
could be worse, the aircraft could have been in production for 18 years and only produced ~170 aircraft and a handful of exports. That would constitute an embarrassing failure for a signature national aerospace defense project. Meanwhile the fools at L-M will produce 130 aircraft in 2019 for an expanding portfolio of international rubes. Go figure.
FBWhttp://www.defense-aerospace.com/art…A-iot%26e.html
Mmm… how does that come about? Design or execution flaws in structure? Wonder how much it will cost to fix (if reported reduction in service life hours is true). Also wonder if LM would be paying.
That’s why they do fatigue testing. The bulkhead issue in early “B” models has been known for years (hangover from SWAT). I don’t recall the wing carry through structure being mentioned before in previous reports, but I’ll have to go back and look.
Truth be told, the report doesn’t state if the issue affects: 5, 10, 20+ early “B” models. If it’s only a small number, I’ll doubt if they will bother to modify them as most will end up as static maintenance trainers and the like.
I was most surprised by the continuing depot issues considering the rhetoric from up high about increasing mission capable rates. That and mean time to repair requirements being relaxed.
FBW: as with the idea that F-35 is super expensive, actual facts don’t really matter… it’s just the public opinion or image.
Eagle hits the nail on the head. This factor makes the F-35 an unlikely choice for Switzerland. Even in the US, while the services are united in support for the F-35 (ignoring the schizophrenic USN procurement decisions) public opinion is decidedly negative.
In part, this is due to the 4th estate’s influence as they recycle old new stories and seem generally proud of their ignorance on defense issues. If John Q. Public had a say on defense procurement in the US, we’d be buying F-16/-15 for the next 20 years.
The Swiss market is tailor made for the Gripen E/F, capabilities be damned. IMO, this is a two horse race: Gripen/Rafale. The shame is that there are probably Typhoon tranche 1 that could be available for lease (looking at Spain, Germany), that would meet Swiss needs at the fraction of the cost of a new procurement.
FBW6th generation….. courtesy of Bill Sweetman. He alone can label fighter generations. Facts not withstanding that there is no consensus among the various nations and services to what characteristics will define the next generation of fighters.
Who needs that when you can just slap a label on a warmed over design from the 1980’s with COTS (though current and modern) avionics, and software. Personally, I would view the titular “sixth generation fighter” as possessing next generation technology expanding the boundaries of what is possible today (and at low technology readiness levels), not the best of what is mature and available today.
FBW[USER=”1416″]Scooter[/USER]
Note: The upgrades listed above are for the Block I version of the current P&W F135. This shouldn’t be confused with the “ACE”. Which, will be used in future versions of the F-35 and one or both 6th Generation Fighters being developed for the USAF and USN. (i.e. PCA and NGAD)
The program is AETP, both PW and GE were downselected from ADVENT/ then AETD demonstration programs to develop the adaptive cycle engine.
ACE is the name of the GE adaptive cycle engine (from ADVENT program I believe, B-I-O can probably fill in more information on that). Those were F135 sized engines (one or both used the F135 core), but it was stated they were too wide for the F-35 engine bay.
As I stated previously, the AETP program was divided last year. The 45,000lb thrust class replacement engine for the F-35, and a separate engine program for whatever platform(s) come out of PCA (distinction is a bit fuzzy right now).
B-I-O can probably fill in the blanks better than I can on the rest.
FBWFirst of all, we do not know if F-35 will have an ADVENT engine (SCAF will btw)
Actually, yes we do. The question is timeline (10 years give or take). And it’s not ADVENT, its AETP. Between then and now, there are several growth plans for the current F135 under consideration. Should the USAF adopt these options, there could be F-35s within 2 years with 10% greater thrust and 5% better fuel burn, 4 years if they adopt growth option 2.0 with added thrust and better thermal management.
Development was split last year between the 45,000lb thrust class AETP for future F-35 engine, and funding and design for future air superiority platform engine.
CUDA is officially launched?
USAF is funding a demonstration program for CUDA. While that is not a definite sign that CUDA is “launched”, the USAF is showing interest the project has moved beyond a L-M self-funded project.
FBWExcept for new F-35 IRST to replace the obsolete one (teasing but true)
Obsolete wouldn’t be the correct term as they are not obsolete, nor are the Sniper XR systems they were developed from (still used operationally and effectively, will be for some time). But they certainly aren’t state of the art, how about “mature”? .
FBW“Low bypass turbofan”….
First off, as far as current Russian turbofans likely to fit into a UCAV, the AL-31F has a comparatively high bypass ratio (if indeed that is what is fitted). No definitive numbers for the -117 series though one would assume they have a lower bpr.
Second, it likely a demonstrator. Why wouldn’t they use exsisting turbofan for a development/test airframe? It’s unlikely to retain afterburning section and con-di nozzle as a production vehicle, excess weight and signature issues.
The irony- typical arguments on here:
“”New Russian UCAV isn’t stealthy, look at nozzle and finish etc.””
or
””UCAV is mature technology and will be in service next month because Russia builds smarter and faster””
Neither, reminds me of the early arguments over the Su-57. Those of us who argued early prototypes pointed to a gradual evolutionary maturation and refinement proved prescient. I’d say the same applies here. The Okhotnik may just be a technology demonstrator, a “granddaddy” of future combat UCAV. Either way, I wouldn’t expect an entry into service in the near future, and will probably evolve considerably between then and now.
FBWBut only benefit from faceted IRST is drag. .
Tiresome repetition of falsehoods…
The faceted face of EOTS has ZERO to do with drag reduction, try reading the quotes from the designers. The housing had to meet optics and signature requirements.
Not to mention (again- as you seem to try to repeat this junk every few months), the only parts of the EOTS assembly that are exposed is the A-focal lens and elevation lens in a composite assembly.
RCS benefit is very low almost non existing because glass doesn’t reflect radar waves well
NO- first of all “glass”? what glass? Second, attenuation and reflection depends on what the “glass” is made of and RF wavelength.
Aluminum treated silica fibers are used for radar chaff for goodness sake.
, much bigger problem is IRST mechanism then dome shape, and Russians concluded IRST mechanism impact RCS a lot so when they want to be as stealthy as possible OLS will not be in used, its back side would be presented to enemy radars and that is composite RAM structure
And how thick does that RAM on the front of the housing have to be to absorb all RF energy? Right, no worries about shaping, just cover it in RAM and “Voila”!
In all seriousness, the justifications for defending the Su-57’s IRST housing are as unsupportable as making a blanket declaration that the Su-57 isn’t LO due to the IRST design.
FBWTo put an instantaneous end to all nonsense spewed in this thread, let’s have a look to a simple, objective data: average age of different fighters/interceptor/ tactical bomber fleet.
While I agree that looking at average fleet age is simple, it is far from being an objective measurement of capability, or even modernity of a fleet. It has little value for several reasons: size of fleet, designed service life, modernization of existing aircraft, capabilities of fleet.
The average age of the Iraqi fighter force is what? 1-2 years? Are those F-16IQ cutting edge? They may be among the newest F-16’s produced but they are hardly the most capable.
Russia was forced to replace a fleet that not only had a shorter planned service life, but was neglected in both maintenance and modernization throughout the decade following the collapse of the Soviet Union. As a result, they were facing both block obsolescence, and serviceability issues of combat fleet. As a result, Russia accelerated replacing the existing fleet. That accelerated replacement cycle resulted in purchasing: three different Su-30 variants, 2 Mig-29 variants, Su-35s, Su-34. The U.S. had the luxury of both having a fleet with sufficient flight hours remaining, or possible with SLEP ( though the F-35 program delay is going to lead to the SLEP of more F-16’s than originally planned), and having been constantly updated and maintained. They’ve consistently resisted the calls and urge to order new build F-15’s or F-16”s. The results of that are both positive and negative, but as a result, the USAF is getting the aircraft it wants.
Let’s put this another way, the Russian armed forces have received ~380 combat aircraft since 2008 (excluding yak-130 as they are primarily trainers), the US has received ~320+ F-22 and F-35’s alone (that does not even count F-18 E/F/G), yet in that time, the fleet age of the USAF actually increased by something like 3 years.
In other words, while measuring the average age of a fleet is objective data, it has little relevance on the context of the discussion taking place (and I don’t mean Scooter’s deliberate trolling comments and the kneejerk responses)
FBWI was under the impression that two of those 3 squadrons are F-15E squadrons.
There are for the 48th. What he was saying was that there are 3 USAF F-15C squadrons; 1 at Lakenheath with the 48th FW and 2 in Okinawa with the 18th wing.
Currently two F-35A squadrons will join the 48th starting in 2020-21. The F-15C squadron was to be cut, but received a reprieve due to Ukraine crisis. Likely, the F-15C squadron will depart when the F-35A squadrons are stood up, no definite word on the F-15E squadrons at Lakenheath (they may stay).
FBWTBH, i do not know about F-22 or 35, but F-117 was PERFECTLY visible and trackable from Evreyx afb 19 cms radar ADN from OTH radar during balkans war
Why wouldn’t they be detectable by a OTH radar like Nostradamus? “Perfectly trackable”- to hundreds or perhaps dozens of meters accuracy.
I don’t think anyone would argue that OTH radars can’t detect LO targets (aircraft, cruise missiles) at long range. Does that have tactical implications? Does it negate the employment of LO aircraft?
In other words “who cares?”
Sign In
