Forum: General F-35 Forum

warwolf1 wrote:

if congress does cancel the f35 due to being over budget. and to save trillions on the American defense budget.what in reality should Britain get from the us as compensation.

You can't save "trillions" by cancelling the F35 because it's not going to cost "trillions". If F35 didn't happen you'd have to recapitalise the entire fleet somehow and that'll cost money.

You can either spend billions fixing the existing fleet, billions replacing the existing fleet with F35 or spend a fortune on making something new.

F-16.net Sponsor

cola wrote:

count_to_10 wrote:

Why does it seems like you have to be more of an expert to evaluate the relative costs of aircraft than to evaluate which is actually more effective?

You don't have to be an expert, but you still need to invest a minimal effort in reading what has been written, unlike this Thumper tool here, did.

In Congressional reports, you get the cost breakdown on items (URF, TF, WS).
U(nit)R(ecurring)F(lyway) is a production cost of a plane and is being broken down into individual components (airframe, engine, avionics, etc...).
Program price generally contains RDT&E and Procurement costs and stands at $395.7b, as of Feb '12, for the US' F35 fleet.
NAO classifies stuff quite similarly to the US and the table in question gives a forecast program cost figure for 160 EFs in RAF service, of ~£22b in '10-'11, revised down to ~£18b in '12.

To conclude this, here are some official data on EF:
http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter- ... story.html
T2 contracted cost is ~€55m per plane (T1 ~€47m), which is ~$68m at current exchange rates (probably URF), so what Italians were talking about was probably something in TF/WS price class.

Figures are always interesting, but the main and simple question; How many jets (plus etc.) can or will be offered within a budget?

For example the Swiss:
o Typhoon: 22 > $4.5 billion > $204.5 million per Typhoon (all in)

Offered to the Danes and the Dutch, for instance a exact comparable Swiss situation and offer by EADS ($204.5 million per Typhoon)
Within a range, 22-30 jets, these offers would not differ that very much from an offer to the Swiss

o The Danes, planned 30 jets, would need a budget of: ± $6.1 billion
o The Dutch in that case would have been offered (budget $5.5 billion): ±27 Typhoons

Probably offers to the Danes and the Dutch would have been even more expensive per Typhoon?
The Swiss don’t need a jet for A2G. They don’t have bombs anymore since the nineties.

It will be at least 2018, the Typhoon will be some kind of a multirole.
In Libya the Typhoon could drop only one bomb type (1000 lbs) and needed a Tornado to bomb a target.

A lot of negative criticism about the F35. But in case for instance 70 F35’s “operational flying” in the RAF and only one 1000 lbs bomb type could be delivered, with assistance of another jet?

m,
I'm not here to debate F35's capabilities (although I suspect you made another erroneous claim), but to point out to your (non)comprehending of prices and the resulting conclusions, which are wrong.
NL will end up paying program price for the F35 too, but in separate checks as opposed to a single check when buying off the shelf and that's the only difference.
So, is there a point in your post, regarding invalid price comparisons?

Last edited by jayraptor on Aug 22, 2012 - 06:26 PM; edited 1 time in total

neurotech wrote:

Politically the F/A-18E/F would be "temporary". I still think we're going to see another purchase of F/A-18E/F from someone other than the USN, as a "stop gap" purchase.

The X-32 was designed around being a STOVL jet. The F/A-18E/F can handle the CTOL & CATOBAR or short-field ops fine for the majority of customers. Ski-Jump is still possible. I'm not sure why you think the F-32 would be the fighter to "save" the JSF program, because I don't think it has the growth potential of the F-35, and the same or greater technical challenges in bringing it to production.

The X-32 & X-35 were only a shell of a production fighter. Less than 20% complete relative to a production fighter. They flew with basic avionics only.

The F/A-18E/F Avionics package is mature, with upgrade potential. The engines have some growth potential as well. The weapons qualification is extensive already.

There would be the possibility of doing a VLO upgrade of the F/A-18E/F with conformal fuel and weapons stations for less money than a X-32 to F-32 program.

Hi neurotech,
Since the US is on tight budget, they will preserve as much cash as possible for future fighters. So far no aircraft getting phased out in large numbers, less likely they'll place further order. The upgraded remake F-15/16/18 are mainly for export market with trade in package if it's Boeing's products. Yes, you could add CFT and even TVC to them but things need to advance, that is why the Congress prefer something new. Besides, people prefer large internal tank nowadays.

I don't favour the X-32B STOVL but I do like the X-32A CTOL variant with TVC because it performs better than the F-35 in terms of maneuverability, aerodynamic, weaponry and possibly maintenance wise. Though under Boeing now, Mc'D's DNA is still in it. It should be feasible to bring this plane into production model. The large fat belly, futuristic delta and pretty large air intake below nose radome seems ideal for replacing F-16s. If congress doesn't want it, maybe countries that did not invest in F-35 program would want to buy it.

Dear stobiewan,
If the F-32 is proven feasible and would generate revenue, why not revive it then if there are buyers that would want to buy? Put someone on the moon without mining equipment is 1 expensive tour that doesn't bring profit.

Anyway, F-35 program will not be cancelled as the US doesn't want to end up paying compensation to NATO countries that have invested. Violating the contract would end up making investors happy. Should the cost of a single F-35 getting too high, LM will reduce components and parts to cut selling price further. You want $60million for single F-35, I'll remove some of the gadgets, stealth panel layers, etc or I'll give you base plain model with additional addon that you are willing to pay depends on package.

Thumper3181 wrote:
Why not Super Hornets? They flew F-4’s for 30 years and where very happy with them. Remember we are talking about a very unlikely event that if it does happen, it will be because of cost. The F-18 is a perfect choice as an F-16 replacement. It is very versatile (everything from air superiority to EW), there is a hot assembly line, it is mature yet there is still room for plenty of growth. It is cheap.

>>> F-16 and F/A-18 falls under same generation. F-16 replaced by F-18? That won't make much difference as the US fly the F-16C/D Block 50/52 for ground attack role escorted by F-15C fighters.

Fyi, the F-4 did not perform better than the F-15/16/18 and they aren't that happy with F-4 compared to F-15. Taking the rates of getting shot down, F-15 has the least losses to enemy.

jayraptor wrote:

I don't favour the X-32B STOVL but I do like the X-32A CTOL variant with TVC because it performs better than the F-35 in terms of maneuverability, aerodynamic, weaponry and possibly maintenance wise.

I'd love to see a source for this claim.

Quote:

Anyway, F-35 program will not be cancelled as the US doesn't want to end up paying compensation to NATO countries that have invested. Violating the contract would end up making investors happy. Should the cost of a single F-35 getting too high, LM will reduce components and parts to cut selling price further. You want $60million for single F-35, I'll remove some of the gadgets, stealth panel layers, etc or I'll give you base plain model with additional addon that you are willing to pay depends on package.

Just which gadgets do you suppose could be done away with? There's no real cost savings to be had from deleting options, when you compare the costs of late model 4th Gen fighters. Significantly degrading the signature reduction, would be an even bigger waste of money, as there are no Chevrolet level stealth skins available to replace the Cadillac skins. Once the F-35 reaches FRP, the average recurring fly away cost will be ~$70m in any event, so making significant changes now, when the gadgets have already been designed, and long lead items have been purchased/have production lines.

Just to answer the question posed by the OP, the cancellation of the F-35 would be disastrous to the utmost degree. It would put countless people out of jobs and the 3 branches of our armed forces will be forced to make due with ever aging aircraft that will only just get older and more of a pain to maintain over time. We've already come so far with the development of the F-35 and it already offers so much in the way of capabilities that if we cancel it now it would set us back several decades in terms of making a viable strike fighter that can allow the US to remain a relevant military force in modern times. With the advent of the J-20 and T-50, would bringing in a souped up F-15 really be that well advised?

The most wasteful thing possible at this point would be canceling the F-35.

wrightwing wrote:

I'd love to see a source for this claim.
Just which gadgets do you suppose could be done away with? There's no real cost savings to be had from deleting options, when you compare the costs of late model 4th Gen fighters. Significantly degrading the signature reduction, would be an even bigger waste of money, as there are no Chevrolet level stealth skins available to replace the Cadillac skins. Once the F-35 reaches FRP, the average recurring fly away cost will be ~$70m in any event, so making significant changes now, when the gadgets have already been designed, and long lead items have been purchased/have production lines.

If you followed the news since the JSF program + contenders revealed in late 90's until early 2000's, it was stated over and over that the X-32 is lighter, faster and more maneuverable. It was reported at that time, the X-35 could fly max Mach 1.5+ whereas the X-32 is Mach 1.6+. Everyone looked high upon the X-32 thinking that it is winning but not until the V/STOL variant for both came up for test flight.

The production model F-35, if things really get too expensive for fly away cost eg. breaching $80million, where the investors especially the not so rich, complain too much. Lockheed could always come up with totally empty F-35 stripped off everything the entire stealth panel layer, remove targeting pod, radar, avionics, etc.

Example poor NATO country ABC Land, they'll buy the totally stripped F-35A at $50million, then get to choose high tech AN/APG-81 or cheaper lower tech AN/APG-73. Also comes optional full stealth panel gen2 layer or simple radar absorbent material or older gen1 stealth layer. If they could still afford to pay more, they could opt for SNIPER targeting pod, jammer, etc.

jayraptor wrote:

If you followed the news since the JSF program + contenders revealed in late 90's until early 2000's, it was stated over and over that the X-32 is lighter, faster and more maneuverable. It was reported at that time, the X-35 could fly max Mach 1.5+ whereas the X-32 is Mach 1.6+. Everyone looked high upon the X-32 thinking that it is winning but not until the V/STOL variant for both came up for test flight.

Well looking back, the X-32 wasn't lighter, more agile, or faster, so that pretty much throws that theory out. Additionally, the F-35 has already flown M1.6+, 9.9Gs, and is getting ready to explore the post stall envelope.

Quote:

The production model F-35, if things really get too expensive for fly away cost eg. breaching $80million, where the investors especially the not so rich, complain too much. Lockheed could always come up with totally empty F-35 stripped off everything the entire stealth panel layer, remove targeting pod, radar, avionics, etc.

The F-35 would have to be significantly more expensive than $80m, before customers would start radically changing their orders. I can assure you, that they would end up buying fewer aircraft, before buying stripped down aircraft.

Quote:

Example poor NATO country ABC Land, they'll buy the totally stripped F-35A at $50million, then get to choose high tech AN/APG-81 or cheaper lower tech AN/APG-73. Also comes optional full stealth panel gen2 layer or simple radar absorbent material or older gen1 stealth layer. If they could still afford to pay more, they could opt for SNIPER targeting pod, jammer, etc.

This is an entirely unrealistic scenario. An MSA radar is completely out of the question on a stealth aircraft, and there is no option of using gen1 stealth. A- the current RAM coating isn't what's causing pricing anxiety. B- older generation stealth would be more expensive to use, due to the amount of maintenance required/durability. Different avionics packages are out of the question. The F-35 doesn't use older generation federated avionic architectures. All of its avionics are electronically fused, and the amount of software programming required to change to a completely different system would offer no cost savings(not to mention lower capability).

I also agree that cancellation is simply NOT going to happen. The USAF and USN need to recap their fleets. The DoD wants next generation aircraft. It has repeatedly chosen to take fewer next generation aircraft over more current aircraft.

In addition, allies have come to same conclusion. They see the current 4th generation becoming obsolete soon and if they MUST invest in new aircraft they're choosing 5th generation.

Finally, the logistical costs savings between spares, maintenance, training and upgrades are too good for everyone to pass up. Save a few dollars now, spend vastly more later? Why is that a wise decision? Especially when it also leaves you with a reduced capability.

Jay keeps harping about Boeing/Northrup not being given enough time to complete their STOVL entrant and other nonsense, when really what happened is they could not deliver within the competitive time-frame granted to all competitors. Competitions have limits for a reason, to try to keep the field level. Now he will probabaly fabricate myriad reasons why the competition was slanted towards LM.

So, I understand the lamenting for the lost YF-23 on an emotional level -- the plane was just amazing to look at and had certain aspects of it that were superior to the YF-22.
I don't get why someone would pine for the X-32.

Maybe it's the nickname, F-32 Monica Smile

spazsinbad wrote:

The question is: "what would happen if the f35 does get canceled"

The answer is: The sky will fall in.

Yes, clearly. There will be locust. Famine. Seven-headed monsters. The drought will extend for 6 more years. Pearl Harbor will undoubtedly be hit again and destroyed this time.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

What would happen if the F-35 does get canceled?