Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Last edited by spazsinbad on Oct 25, 2011 - 08:13 PM; edited 1 time in total

How Much for That Stovl Capability? by Bill Sweetman at Oct/25/2011

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

"A good question that nobody asked as the F-35B made its first public at-sea takeoffs and landings last week: What has it cost, and what will it cost in the future, to provide this capability?...

...Now, does anyone want to start talking about the frugal Marine Corps, always doing more with less?"

How much is that doggie in the window? The one with waggley tail...?

http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/games/songs/c ... uchmid.htm

"How much is that doggie in the window? (arf! arf!)
The one with the waggley tail
How much is that doggie in the window? (arf! arf!)
I do hope that doggie's for sale..."

F-35B Lift System Animation: high band - low band

http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/gal_video.htm#

http://www.jsf.mil/video/x35/stovl_video_clip_high.wmv (1Mb)
OR
http://www.jsf.mil/video/x35/stovl_video_clip_low.wmv (0.2Mb)

F-16.net Sponsor

Eh, you can be angry at Sweetman for this article, but its the truth. The STOVL variant has not been good for the JSF program. In fact, one could call it the original sin of this program.

The JSF program, today, is not 3 different variants of the same fighter, its 2 variants off of a STOVL fighter. That extreme demand forced substantial compromises on the A and C versions. Were we to go back and do the program again, it would be undoubtedly better just to have made the A/C variants completely separate from the B variant.

Final point, to those who say "The F-35 program will create advanced, wonderful, fighters," the problem is simple, if the JSF program cannot be made economically, than all the capabilities won't matter. There is such a thing as too expensive, and the JSF has to be careful it doesn't cross that line.

arkadyrenko said: "Eh, you can be angry at Sweetman for this article,..." Did I say that?

arkadyrenko wrote:

Eh, you can be angry at Sweetman for this article, but its the truth. The STOVL variant has not been good for the JSF program. In fact, one could call it the original sin of this program.

I understand where you're coming from but if they can pull it off, and it looks like they will unless something goes badly wrong or it gets cancelled then they've come up with one hell of an aircraft. A stealthy supersonic 5th generation Harrier sure doesn't sound like a bad thing does it.

Back to the article though - Is this the only line of attack Billy has left now? It sure would seem that way. Grasping at straws if you ask me.

Shep, I agree that if they can pull it off it'll be good, but that doesn't mean that it was worth it. The problem with the F-35B was that it dramatically and negatively affected the other two variants. If they could have made a stealthy, STOVL aircraft separately from the A/C variant, then that wouldn't be a problem. Those two airframes could have lived and died on their own, without affecting the other. As Sweetman noted, with the B variant separate, the A/C variant could have already begun production. Think of how different the debate would be if the A/C variants were nearly complete. It was the demand for the B variant and the demand that that variant be finished first that really threw the schedule out of order.

In short, the problem with the F-35B is that it necessarily dominated the F-35A and C. In retrospect, it should have been built completely separately, with different requirements. Perhaps an even lower range requirement, for example, or lower thrust / speed requirements. But, because all three variants were rolled together, they all cost more and are less effective than they may have been otherwise.

Its not really a line of attack any more, as even Bill acknowledges, the costs are sunk and we shouldn't consider them going forward. He is pointing out, however, that the STOVL airframe has been really bad for the JSF program.

arkadyrenko wrote:

Shep, I agree that if they can pull it off it'll be good, but that doesn't mean that it was worth it.

On the contrary. If they "pull it off" they will have created the most capable all round fighter in history and they will have created Carrier, CTOL and STOVL variants of this world beater. Equipping the entire US aviation services with the most lethal all round fighter capability ever devised.

How could one honestly not expect a high price for such a capability?

Quote:

The problem with the F-35B was that it dramatically and negatively affected the other two variants. If they could have made a stealthy, STOVL aircraft separately from the A/C variant, then that wouldn't be a problem. Those two airframes could have lived and died on their own, without affecting the other. As Sweetman noted, with the B variant separate, the A/C variant could have already begun production. Think of how different the debate would be if the A/C variants were nearly complete. It was the demand for the B variant and the demand that that variant be finished first that really threw the schedule out of order.

In short, the problem with the F-35B is that it necessarily dominated the F-35A and C. In retrospect, it should have been built completely separately, with different requirements. Perhaps an even lower range requirement, for example, or lower thrust / speed requirements. But, because all three variants were rolled together, they all cost more and are less effective than they may have been otherwise.

Its not really a line of attack any more, as even Bill acknowledges, the costs are sunk and we shouldn't consider them going forward. He is pointing out, however, that the STOVL airframe has been really bad for the JSF program.

Maybe, perhaps, what if...

Maybe if they'd tried to develop individual piecemeal solutions, the whole lot would have been cancelled and in 2030 the USA would have had the bulk of it's TACAIR comprising the remaining few flying F-16C/D, F/A-18C/D and AV-8B Harrier II, just as they are in 2011?

Um, the A,B, and C have already begun construction, or did you mean FRP?

One of the lifetime cost savers is the commonality of LRUs in the 3 variants. All the the engines, radars, avionics, EHA, maint, support, etc are common between the three. By taking the B out of that equation you lose a lot of savings.

btw, How has the B really affected the design of the A/C?

1. Single engine: That would have been the way it went anyways. The USAF (the biggest purchaser) would not go for a twin engine replacement for the F-16 as it costs too much in lifetime support.

2. Fat, lifting body design: This would be the same layout given the single engine and the need for internal bays to hold 2k JDAMs.

3. SWAT: The A & C also benefited from SWAT and would have had lower performance numbers today had it not happened.

One of the biggest delays has been the software, and that would not have changed much by going with 2 models. While you may save some dev time with two programs, it would definitely cost more to develop. You would have two of everything (CATB, software labs, flight test programs, airframe dev programs, etc.).

Agreed Ark. The USAF and USN probably could have come up with a simpler design built around a central weapons bay (1 or 2x2K and 2xBVR) that used either a 2xF414 or 1xF119 powerplant. They might have even been able to add TVC and supercruise, but adding STOVL to the mix was just reaching a little too far. That said, there would have been little incentive to build a supersonic, LO STOVL fighter independently (only the UK and the USMC were interested enough to pay at the time).

Still, I have a feeling that the F-35B stands a better chance at gaining more customers in light of recent developments. I suspect that a few Pacific Rim nations might be looking for ways to match the PLAN without the crushing expense of building full-sized carriers, but the Bee is gonna have to find a way to survive with only the USMC first.

IIRC the Italians are also ordering the F-35B.

SpudmanWP wrote:

IIRC the Italians are also ordering the F-35B.

All anyone can say is that they are probably gonna buy some kind(s) of F-35 in some kind of numbers. I was unable to find anything definite about their intentions, so I didn't mention it, seems they never say the same thing twice. We only know that they are a partner in the program and that their new carrier was designed with the F-35B in mind. I've also heard that the Spanish might also be interested. Hell, pretty much everyone with a flight-decked ship or two is probably interested; but no one wants to get stuck helping with the development costs, so they're all gonna just sit on their hands and watch until they can have the thing at close to flyaway price.

Edit: This is the best I can do for now, doesn't look good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_M ... ment#Italy

1st503rdsgt wrote:

Agreed Ark. The USAF and USN probably could have come up with a simpler design built around a central weapons bay (1 or 2x2K and 2xBVR) that used either a 2xF414 or 1xF119 powerplant. They might have even been able to add TVC and supercruise, but adding STOVL to the mix was just reaching a little too far. That said, there would have been little incentive to build a supersonic, LO STOVL fighter independently (only the UK and the USMC were interested enough to pay at the time).

2 F414s would likely cost more to operate due to the fuel usage, logistics, maintenance, and a single F-119 wouldn't provide the efficiency that the F-135 does.

wrightwing wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

Agreed Ark. The USAF and USN probably could have come up with a simpler design built around a central weapons bay (1 or 2x2K and 2xBVR) that used either a 2xF414 or 1xF119 powerplant. They might have even been able to add TVC and supercruise, but adding STOVL to the mix was just reaching a little too far. That said, there would have been little incentive to build a supersonic, LO STOVL fighter independently (only the UK and the USMC were interested enough to pay at the time).

2 F414s would likely cost more to operate due to the fuel usage, logistics, maintenance, and a single F-119 wouldn't provide the efficiency that the F-135 does.

I was referring to a smaller/lighter design that might have been possible without the STOVL requirement. The F-16 made due quite well with a single F-15 engine, and it would have been nice to continue that trend with the F-22/F-35. As for the 2xF414 arrangement, you're right, but the USN would have liked it better and the USAF was able to adapt another 2 engined fighter (F-4) from the Navy without too much fuss.

Yes, we are going to buy some 40 B's and 60 A's ...
Today we have 16 Harrier AV-8B Plus, to be used on two mini-Aircraft carrier ( Cavour and Garibaldi ) that can carry up to 24 and 12 aircraft respectively ( so 36 in total, but sacrificing pratically all the helicopters ).
That means that the F-35B will be used by italian navy not only on the ships ( like today ) but even from the normal air force ai bases. So we will have 100 F-35 at all times, and we will, on the other hadn have always a full complement of F-35 on our ships.

I think that going with two different programs ( USN and USAF ) would have bben a tremendous mistake, because the costs wuould have gone crazy.
The USMC has entered the program only because it was their only chance to get a new plane ( NOT a stealth one, just a replacement for the aging Harriers ) that can keep up with the legacy fighters of today. Italian Navy, Spanish navy and probably all the navy around the world that has a little ship with a full deck for helicopters has understood the importance of that, and has entered the program beause, like the USMC, it was their only chance to get a seirous seaborne aircraft.

The B has "damaged" the A and C ? Probably yes. Not too much, but it surely has affected the two other version, and with a very little gaining for the two non STOVL version. But, without the B, USMC, Italy spain and probably some other nations will not have a new plane.

And don't forget that the F-35 is one of the best plane around. F-22 it's in a class of it's own, like usaf says, and F-35 should not be compared with it.
F-22 has other roles on the battlefield, and other plans. F-35 i't the new F-16, and if you compare F-16 with the Eagle ( the old Eagle with the old Falcon ) you will find it's like comparing F-22 and F-35. Mach 1.7/1.8 supercruise like the F-22 has, it's something exeptional, and not something that can be re-achieved again easly or without compromise.
Except for the F-22, F-35, Rafale and Thyphoon there's no in service aircraft with stealth ( or LO ), supercruise, multirole capability, full systems integration and a seious sensor pack. F-35 is marching quikly towards IOC.

P.S. : I'm sorry for my english. I hope you have understood everything! Very Happy

A bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush.. it's hatched and there's no putting it back in the egg. I'm curious to see what Sweetman will think of next.

From my experience with the 26th MEU in the Summer of 1999 when our Harriers dropped ordinance on targets of opportunity over Albania, the platform is one that never earned the level of needing to be replaced to begin with. If the Corps had a legit attack helicopter going back to when the Army got their Apaches, they wouldn't need Harriers in the first place. Maybe the AH-1Z will be "legit," but the Corps could have had Block III Apaches 5 years ago and not have had to give Bell an economic stimulus to R&D the Zulu model.

If they cancel the F-35B, then they are going to have to put a for sale sign up on the new LHA-6 USS America, because it's a modern straight deck aircraft carrier and no where near the LHA it pretends to be. I heard Russia was trying to buy some French helo carriers as they missed the opportunity to wield attack helos from off shore Georgia back when they were thumping heads over there.