Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Last edited by falcon17 on Dec 25, 2011 - 11:18 PM; edited 2 times in total

Delays happen and I'm pretty sure cost increases do as well. Also the one design for three services concept sounds like it might be cheaper in the long run versus designing four individual aircraft to replace F-16s,18s,A-10s and harriers. And in all honesty I have faith in the program.

F-16.net Sponsor

A industrial report about developing new jets, mentioned, some years ago, it is not possible anymore nowadays to develop a new jet under a estimated $20-$50 billion range.
($20-$50 billion depending on how advanced a jet has to be)

So suppose developing a new Harrier type, F16/F18 or F15 and a A-10 will cost a lot more than one basic design.
Although, as far as I can see, only basically the design of the F35A,B and C is the same, but in fact are three different types.

What to think of maintenance costs, updating costs and spares for example with three totally different types? With one type, 80% in common, will save a tremendous lot of money.

falcon17 wrote:

Delays happen and I'm pretty sure cost increases do as well. Also the one design for three services concept sounds like it might be cheaper in the long run versus designing four individual aircraft to replace F-16s,18s,A-10s and harriers. And in all honesty I have faith in the program.

Short answer: no. It's not proceeding much worse than other modern fighters of similar types, but it has a much greater engineering challenge to achieve compared to most types.

It does however have the unfortunate situation of being the first major Western fighter that has to endure the scrutiny that the modern internet affords.

I'd have loved to have seen the same sort of scrutiny on the Eurocanards during their development, but alas, they are just a tad to old for that...

Conan wrote:

Short answer: no.

I agree with Conan here.

If you look at the history of the Tomcat, Eagle or even the Viper, they were all 'too expensive, too complicated, and unreliable' not to mention they would 'never deliver' as promised.

The Abrams MBT would never work in anything but a sterile cold environment where it's electronics wouldn't be fouled, and it's engine received nothing but cold fresh air.

The Apache helicopter will never be able to fight in hot conditions either.

Shall we mention what a boon-dogle the worthless M16 rifle will be if the Army continues to insist on it's use; CAL .223 what kind of round is that!?

Heck, maybe we should give up on aviation all together?

Simon Newcomb, professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, Side-lights on Astronomy and Kindred Fields of Popular Science, 1906 wrote:

The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any physical fact to be.

— Lord Haldane, Minister of War, Britain, 1907 (yes, 1907 more than 3 years AFTER the powered flight at Kitty Hawk!). wrote:

The aeroplane will never fly.

— Marshal Ferdinand Foch, professor of strategy, Ecole Superiure de Guerre, 1911 wrote:

Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.

— Sir Sam Hughes, Canadian Minister of Militia and Defence, to J.A.D. McCurdy, who had approached the minister with the idea of starting an air service, August 1914 wrote:

The aeroplane is an invention of the devil and will never play any part in such a serious business as the defence of the nation, my boy!

So as you can see my friends, there are always going to be 'nay-sayers' and 'experts' on any given topic who will quote themselves to sound important on the topic even if they have no true grasp of the situation.

Bottom line; give it a chance.

There are two things here that are 'pushing the limits'; change and sticker-shock. Neither can be avoided.

The LWF that the USAF didn't want and suffered horrible failures the first years of it's use has turned out to be one of the most successful international military fighter programs in history.

TEG

Well, we do have the option of restarting A-10 production (USAF keeps the tooling at DM). Other than that, I think the F-35 should be a decent replacement for Vipers and Hornets. The Harrier is rather dubious and the JSF will probably never have the A2A performance of an F-22, but it's definitely a step up from legacy 4th-gen fighters.

southernphantom wrote:

The Harrier is rather dubious

I'd wager Argentina would disagree. Rolling Eyes

Can't resist....

LtCol George A. Custer wrote:

There are not enough Indians in the world to defeat the Seventh Cavalry.

Talk about a bad quote... Doh

TEG

In agreement with everyone else, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find a revolutionary project in history that didn't have teething problems at start such as developmental issues and cost overruns. The F-35 will be no different. It is just the inflation of the dollar that makes the F-35 seem so special.

southernphantom wrote:

Well, we do have the option of restarting A-10 production (USAF keeps the tooling at DM). Other than that, I think the F-35 should be a decent replacement for Vipers and Hornets. The Harrier is rather dubious and the JSF will probably never have the A2A performance of an F-22, but it's definitely a step up from legacy 4th-gen fighters.

You mean the F-22 will never have the A2A capabilites of the F-35 as the F-22 still has to turn to fire while the F-35 does not.

Where F-35 is failing atm is cost - that needs to be brought under control because it is way over what was sold to Congress. The A-12, B-2, and F-22 died not because they were inferior, but because they were too expensive. Engineering challenges, particularly with the -A, seem to be surmountable.

maus92 wrote:

Where F-35 is failing atm is cost - that needs to be brought under control because it is way over what was sold to Congress. The A-12, B-2, and F-22 died not because they were inferior, but because they were too expensive. Engineering challenges, particularly with the -A, seem to be surmountable.

Where they failed was Congress.

IF the US GOV had purchased 132 B-2 bombers as originally expected, the untold Billions would have been spread over all 132, and parts needed (only produced in a few dozen for a total production run) would have NOT been so expensive.

Same IF the US GOV had purchased all 380 F-22s.

The A-12 (second one) I'll agree with.

The first A-12 Blackbird program was 'black' so it was none of congress or the press' business. The way I feel almost ALL of these contracts should be until they start showing up on flight lines.

People forget when you cut the numbers costs sky-rocket. (Not save money)

The GOV sometimes has to pay to cancel contracts, after spending all the money up front (or the vast majority) for the contract in the first place. It would have been cheaper to accept delivery of the product/service without interruption and simply destroy/dispose/sell it after the fact!

Which congressional budget does that figure out better for the US Taxpayer?

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Conan wrote:

falcon17 wrote:

Delays happen and I'm pretty sure cost increases do as well. Also the one design for three services concept sounds like it might be cheaper in the long run versus designing four individual aircraft to replace F-16s,18s,A-10s and harriers. And in all honesty I have faith in the program.

Short answer: no. It's not proceeding much worse than other modern fighters of similar types, but it has a much greater engineering challenge to achieve compared to most types.

It does however have the unfortunate situation of being the first major Western fighter that has to endure the scrutiny that the modern internet affords.

I'd have loved to have seen the same sort of scrutiny on the Eurocanards during their development, but alas, they are just a tad to old for that...

Pretty odd ehh ...Typhoon in the UK: some 70 operational, flying costs per hour €70,000 and expected to be fully multi role (dropping bombs) in 2018.

Imagine the scrutiny when a F35 would be fully multirole, some ten to thirteen years after being operational! 10-13 years. Lets say 2026 - 2028/2031.

Gripen E/F (NG) praised as suburb and cost effective, but not a single one is flying yet.
Only a demonstrator exists. The jet still has got to be developed (last year even characteristics were not yet known). To some extend Dassault was right, the E/F still is a paper plane.

Sweden should develop 'super jets': MPs
http://www.thelocal.se/37688/20111201/

Quote: A Defense committee majority has reached an agreement that Sweden should develop up to ten of the E/F model Jas if “Brazil or any other country” places an order for the fighter jet.

Cheap? Swiss deal: 22 Gripens, $3,29 billion > $149,5 million per Gripen (all in).
Because the Swiss have no bombs etc. in their arsenal anymore (since 1995?), the jet will be a air defense version only and therefore cheaper than a multi role version.

When the Swiss will order the E/F (NG), not sure yet, they are and will have to invest in development. They intend to build them in Switzerland. Setting up a production line for only 22 Gripens is a hell a lot of money.
With development and production costs included the E/F will be a lot more expensive for the Swiss than $149,5 million per jet.

What development costs of the NG will be?
Quote: “Developing ten planes will cost tax payers enormous amounts of money.”

Quote: However, the Greens want Sweden to upgrade the existing Gripen fighter jet and argue that the new E/F model would be too expensive.

Hope for Sweden the Swiss will order the E/F, or may be Brazil, otherwise it's probably over and out for the Gripen E/F.

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

IF the US GOV had purchased 132 B-2 bombers as originally expected, the untold Billions would have been spread over all 132, and parts needed (only produced in a few dozen for a total production run) would have NOT been so expensive.

Same IF the US GOV had purchased all 380 F-22s...

People forget when you cut the numbers costs sky-rocket. (Not save money)

The costs would have been less per plane but more in total.

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

The first A-12 Blackbird program was 'black' so it was none of congress or the press' business. The way I feel almost ALL of these contracts should be until they start showing up on flight lines.

There's a lot more "testing" on this one to try to hide. I've been wondering why, though. Why does it need such a vast series of "test" flights spread out over so much time? Maybe (speculation alert!) some of it's just from bloating the program, and a less public one would have had a shorter list of "required" tests and been done quicker.

delvo wrote:

I've been wondering why, though. Why does it need such a vast series of "test" flights spread out over so much time? Maybe (speculation alert!) some of it's just from bloating the program, and a less public one would have had a shorter list of "required" tests and been done quicker.

Here's a novel idea. How about applying some thought to the problem. 1. There are THREE variants to test, including a carrier capable version and a STOVL version. 2. There are just a few more systems onboard than a vanilla F-16 or F-4. 3. The whole stealth aspect of it requires it's own test flights. and 4. Maybe they learned from prior experience that, "hey, maybe we should have done more flight testing up front". Consider that the F-15 program had TWENTY test aircraft and that was for a relatively benign, CTOL-only, aircraft, and they still didn't catch the failing longeron problem or the engine lifespan issue.

m wrote:

Pretty odd ehh ...Typhoon in the UK: some 70 operational, flying costs per hour €70,000 and expected to be fully multi role (dropping bombs) in 2018.

Imagine the scrutiny when a F35 would be fully multirole, some ten to thirteen years after being operational! 10-13 years. Lets say 2026 - 2028/2031.

Yep, but the Typhoon gets a lot of love from the Internet warriors and journos, maybe it's as simple a case that theEurofighter Consortium just hands out the best "press packs" eh?

Nah, shoddy, biased and inconsistent journalism couldn't possibly occur when free lunches, travel, press packs, inspection tours, simulator and actual fighter jet rides etc are given out to obliging journalists, could they?

L-M might have simply missed a trick here. They haven't got any twin seat JSF's unfortunately, but they've got a great simulator, the CATBIRD and those nice twin seat chase Hornets and F-16's...

Very Happy

It's a joke really. The JSF gets a ton of bad press and every time the world might as well be ending. Any good news is invariably written off in one of several ways:

"Too little too late" (schedule complaints - Bill Sweetman's favourite).

"Doesn't matter JSF can't stand up to the threat anyway" (capability complaints - APA's and by default Eric Palmer's favourite), or

"Damn, how much extra is this going to cost us?" (cost complaints - American Audit authorities favourite complaint).

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Is the F-35 really that bad?