Forum: Program and politics

An Academic paper has just come to my attention weighing up all the possibilities for the RAAF. They recommend a legacy jet (F-15, typhoon.etc) equipped with the latest sensors etc is a better choice than the F-35 right now for them.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2 ... 06rn32.pdf

Andy

Quote:

The F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter) Project: progress and issues for Australia

Information, analysis and advice for the Parliament 9 June 2006, no. 32, 2005–06,

The need for new aircraft to replace the ageing F/A-18 and F-111 was formally identified in the Defence 2000 White Paper. At that time, the Australian Government foreshadowed that about 100 new aircraft would be purchased and should be in service in 2012.1 Since then, the estimated cost of the purchase, designated Project AIR6000, has increased from about $10.5 billion to between $12 billion and $15.5 billion.2 The uncertainty about future growth in the final cost of the aircraft makes it difficult to gauge the total budgetary impact of this project.

The decision to purchase new aircraft raised two major questions: what to purchase and how much to pay. Initially, the Government set up a competitive evaluation process to examine its options. In June 2002, it dispensed with this aspect of Project AIR6000 and signed up to the developmental phase of the United States-led Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, at a cost of $195 million.3 The F-35 JSF is a new-generation stealth aircraft - specifically designed to carry out both the fighter and strike aircraft roles - and thus able to replace both the F/A-18 and F-111 in those two respective roles.
[...]

Full article: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2 ... 06rn32.pdf

F-16.net Sponsor

You gotta wonder at what point does the cost/performance/timeline of the JSF make it a worse deal than pursuing the F-22? Sure the JSF carries 2000lb weapons internally vs. the F-22's 1000lb, but with the flyaway cost of the F-22 coming down and with JSF cost and delay estimates seemingly increasing daily, it should be getting close. The White paper teases about getting STOVL JSFs for the Aus Navy, but that would seem to be the only reason to go JSF.

How hard would it be to integrate strike software and a L/O designator of some kind onto the Raptor and make it as multirole as the JSF? Raptor production spots should be available in 2010, while Aus JSFs would come off the production line in what? 2012 at the absolute earliest?

IMHO, Austrailia is the perfect candidate for the Raptor- Large area to cover (overland and coastal waters), a perceived threat from advanced aircraft (China, possibly Indonesia SU-30s), great military relationship and long history with the US.

Well, that all depends on what version Australia is eyeing. The F-35A costs $45 million as compared to the F-22's whopping $338 mill. Shocked

Actually the number for the F-22 is much lower - something between 120-180 mil.

Last F-22 quoted was $143m to build so approx 3 times JSF.

By the way, the assumption that F-22 has a particularly long range is false. If that is key, Australia would be better off with JSF.

Nobody should be suprised that the flyaway cost of F-35 and F-22 are converging. Flyaway cost is driven by the costs of touch labor, airframe and the installed systems. There is not a significant difference when it comes to assembling the two airplanes because there is not a significant difference is airframe size. F-35 has everything F-22 has except for a second engine and thrust vectoring. F-35 adds an EO targeting system and HMD that F-22 doesn't have. I would be very suprised if the cost differential is more than $5-8M when the dust settles.

$45m vs $143m is not converging. That's a difference of $100m. You're nuts if you think that will close to $8m

You are nuts if you think JSF is going to be $45 mil. Time alone will tell, but I'd be shocked if it was under $80 mil. (Especially given rumors of 50% cuts to the program)

RonO wrote:

Last F-22 quoted was $143m to build so approx 3 times JSF.

By the way, the assumption that F-22 has a particularly long range is false. If that is key, Australia would be better off with JSF.

With an all up fuel load of 36,000+ pounds of fuel how do you figure? Even internal only is around 21,000lbs.

I don't see the cost narrowing that much between the F-22 and F/A-35. Also, cost has as much to do with the numbers built and the JSF will be produced in very large numbers. While the Raptor will only be procured in limited numbers "at best"..............Of course you need to consider things like Logistics, Support, etc. etc. Your not going to get a Rolls Royce for the price of a Cadillac! Confused

sferrin wrote:

RonO wrote:

Last F-22 quoted was $143m to build so approx 3 times JSF.

By the way, the assumption that F-22 has a particularly long range is false. If that is key, Australia would be better off with JSF.

With an all up fuel load of 36,000+ pounds of fuel how do you figure? Even internal only is around 21,000lbs.

If Stevenson’s Specific Range figures are correct for the Raptor then the breakdown is as follows:

F-35A
18,498lbs

Range ~ 1,200nm (officially)

F-35B
13,326lbs

Range ~ 900nm

F-35C
19,624lbs

Range ~ 1,400nm

F-22A
20,649lbs

Range M0.9 1,569nm (empty the tanks, no reserves)
Range at M0.9 w/ 5000lbs of reserve/combat fuel - 1,189nm

Range M0.80 (estimated SR) – 1,692nm
Range M0.80 (ditto) 5000lbs reserve/combat- 1,283nm

That being said the USAF has officially said the ferry range is 1,724 miles- note they do NOT stipulate NM or SM. I’m wagering that’s SM and it is 1,499nm. A SR of 0.082 nm/lb of fuel at M0.80 would give this ability, assuming a nominal 2,500lbs of fuel for recovery. Incidentally there is no way that the ferry range is with drop tanks, at worst at M0.9 that’s 2,700nm+.

I could see that the F-35C having more range on internal gas as the F-22 simply because of the lower mach point optimized engine and wing. It has been said by P&W that the F119 gives up a bit in subsonic cruise compared to previous engines. On the subject of the F-119, I’d have to find it but a P&W program manager (IIRC) stated that the F-119 has approximately double the dry thrust of the F100-PW-229. I suspect that this is in the high altitude high cruise regime rather than double static SL dry thrust, which would be around 34,000lbs.

Brad

What rumours of 50% cuts?? balony

The big debating point is when and how to transition from JSF development into production and most of that is politics rather than technical. All services are standing pat on numbers and QDR agrees.

'All services are standing pat on numbers and QDR agrees'. Ooh really? In December 2006, the JSF members will sign the Production Sustainment and Follow-on Development Memorandum of Understanding. So it is not very sound to decrease US F-35 procurement numbers before this date, because the JSF program is (quite) controversial in some JSF-partner countries. The QDR is made of paper, facts aren't.

Loren Thompson, a military analyst for the Lexington Institute, who has extensive Pentagon contacts, said that the USAF has an internal plan to ultimately reduce the number of F-35s from 1.763 to somewhere between 1.000 and 1.200. USAF spokesman Doug Karas said he could not confirm the plan but acknowledged that "the ultimate number will be less".

http://www.antenna.nl/amokmar/JSF/Z2006 ... 09_02.html

The first part is in Dutch, 2nd part is English, by the way: at the left side of this site page, you will see a red icon "Kahn Case". This gives some interresting info, about how the Pakistani put their hands on nuke-u-lar technology.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/14296748.htm

F-35 program total now at $276.5 billion By BOB COX

STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER

The Pentagon reported Friday that the total estimated cost of Lockheed Martin's F-35 joint strike fighter program has risen by $20 billion, a 7.7 percent increase in the last year.

In a quarterly "selected acquisition report," Pentagon analysts now estimate that it will cost $276.5 billion to develop three versions of the F-35 and build about 2,400 of the planes for the Air Force, Navy and Marines.

That's up from the $256 billion figure last given for the program.

$276 billion is old news toan not a new increase and it's not an increase in what the aircraft wil cost to purchase but an increase in cost to design & develop. Here's some clippings from a press release this week. I have edited to make it small enough to post:

"WASHINGTON, June 15 (Reuters) - The United States and eight partners have agreed in principle to a long-term plan for Lockheed Martin Corp.'s (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) $276 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet, the costliest weapons program ever, a Pentagon official said on Thursday.

Britain would buy more of the aircraft than any other U.S. partner. But it threatened in March to withdraw from the program, absent a deal that would also let it maintain its existing aircraft and arm them without relying on the United States or a U.S. defense contractor.

Included in a draft pact reached last week were statements of intent by the non-U.S. countries, including Britain, to buy a total of 710 radar-evading F-35s, said Kathy Crawford, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon program office.

Following are the projected F-35 purchases of the other co-development partners, subject to approval by their parliaments, according to the Pentagon program office:

UK, 138
Italy, 131
Netherlands, 85
Turkey, 100
Australia, 100
Norway, 48
Denmark, 48
Canada, 60

Forum: Program and politics

Oz wobble over F-35