Forum: Program and politics

Really, the debate over the F-35 has more to do with things like Workshare, Politics, and National Pride than any real shortcomings in its Design. Funny, how few people talk about the vast money that will be made by all sides? Do you see any JSF Partners leaving the Program? NO... Oh, of course you hear talk but what of it? Its has more to do with the Partners (and Counties) jockeying for position to get more work! Let's put it in perspective... so take the most successful Western Fighter of the last 30 years the F-16 Fighting Falcon or Viper if you like. Think of all of the numbers sold, the factories built, assembly lines, the jobs created, and the list goes on and on. Now take that and times it by ten! Shocked

That what you have with the F-35 JSF and everyone wants a piece of it. On the otherhand if they can't get a piece they want its demise! (and for good reason) While, some may thing it will not be that big. Just think of the types to be replaced and/or retired in the next 10-15 years and its humbling... AV-8, A-10, F-4, F-5, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Mirage III/V/2000, Tornado, Mig-21, Mig-29, Su-20/22, Su-27, etc. etc. etc. "Now add them all up" Staggering isn't it! Surely, every type won't be replaced one for one nor will the Lightning win every contract. Yet, to win half of that market would make it the most successful fighter (i.e. in term of dollars) in the last 60 years! While some may claim the Lightning won't get that much of the market I would surely disagree. Right now the Rafale has exported nothing, the Gripen a little, and the Typhoon alittle more? Why because everyone is waiting for the Lightning. At which time all of this politics will mean nothing... IMO Cool

Note: I apologize in advance if I stepped on anyone toes.. Sad

F-16.net Sponsor

F-35, the successor of F-16, F-18, and AV-8B, will definitely be the No1 sale in the period of 2015~2045, just as what F-16 has achieved during 1980~2010. I think no one is able to deny this fact.

The main threat for F-35 project and its final productional number isn't from foreign customers' requirement, but from the attitudes of USAF, USN, GAO / Congress, and Pentagon towards this plan. It seems that USAF would like to sacrifice part of F-35A project to buy more Raptor and to develop and procure a long range striker (or UCAV) that will enter service in 2018, and USN may also use J-UCAS to replace F-35C for long-range striking mission after 2018. As for GAO and Congress, it seems that the persons there are more and more worry about the arising cost of JSF project..........

toan wrote:

F-35, the successor of F-16, F-18, and AV-8B, will definitely be the No1 sale in the period of 2015~2045, just as what F-16 has achieved during 1980~2010. I think no one is able to deny this fact.

The main threat for F-35 project isn't from foreign customers' requirement, but from the attitudes of USAF, USN, GAO/Congress, and Pentagon. It seems that USAF would like to sacrifice part of F-35A project to buy more Raptor and to develop and procure a long range striker (or UCAV) that will enter service in 2018, and USN may also use J-UCAS to replace F-35C for long-range striking mission after 2018. As for GAO and Congress, it seems that the persons there are more and more worry about the arising cost of JSF project..........

Oh, I agree but the politics is so deep and so complex that its almost mind boggling! With each side playing against the other...........Just as many JSF Partners threaten to pull out to get more workshare. The US Military Branches do the same................hoping to get more money for other military programs. Like you said the USAF wants more Raptors, the USN more Ships, and so on............ Idea

It's odd how the Russians try to push their stuff like a persistent crack dealer. The US says, "You want in? We're doing this." And half of Europe jumps on board as well as some others. The thing will be an amazing success, but it's got to get off the ground first (literally, I talked to a Lockheed guy today who was talking about having to push the first flight of AA1 back). Delays on these major products keep hurting the program. There's always some buffer built it, but they just run right over that. I think only the Super Bug came in early amongst modern projects. Then again, I'm not the most informed, I just listen to what people say on the boards mostly.

A couple points of note, some of those fighters won't be phase out for a good while. I know the A-10 is in until 2028, and a few more will stay around a long time as well. It's very possible we'll start retiring the 16 and 15 fleet early, but that depends on more factors than I care to list or even know of. The F-4 and the F-16, have been our major FMS for a long time.

Think about this for a second, there are only about 8 major aerospace design companies left in the US.
Planes and more: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman
Missiles: ATK, Raytheon
Engines: GE, Pratt and Whitney, Rolls Royce
Avionics: Whatever I don't deal with avionics

There's probably more to the list, especially in the missles. Avionics has a lot... I don't know any of them. This means any competition is in a very small world. Lockheed and Pratt have won almost everything recently. The others are none too happy about this, the problem there is that we're not running 20 different airframes anymore. We're reducing the number, this means that NG and Boeing are losing chances to be competitive. Hopefully this won't lead to a lazy monopoly of the fighters.

Anyway, I'm off topic, way off topic

LordOfBunnies wrote:

It's odd how the Russians try to push their stuff like a persistent crack dealer. The US says, "You want in? We're doing this." And half of Europe jumps on board as well as some others. The thing will be an amazing success, but it's got to get off the ground first (literally, I talked to a Lockheed guy today who was talking about having to push the first flight of AA1 back). Delays on these major products keep hurting the program. There's always some buffer built it, but they just run right over that. I think only the Super Bug came in early amongst modern projects. Then again, I'm not the most informed, I just listen to what people say on the boards mostly.

A couple points of note, some of those fighters won't be phase out for a good while. I know the A-10 is in until 2028, and a few more will stay around a long time as well. It's very possible we'll start retiring the 16 and 15 fleet early, but that depends on more factors than I care to list or even know of. The F-4 and the F-16, have been our major FMS for a long time.

Think about this for a second, there are only about 8 major aerospace design companies left in the US.
Planes and more: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman
Missiles: ATK, Raytheon
Engines: GE, Pratt and Whitney, Rolls Royce
Avionics: Whatever I don't deal with avionics

There's probably more to the list, especially in the missles. Avionics has a lot... I don't know any of them. This means any competition is in a very small world. Lockheed and Pratt have won almost everything recently. The others are none too happy about this, the problem there is that we're not running 20 different airframes anymore. We're reducing the number, this means that NG and Boeing are losing chances to be competitive. Hopefully this won't lead to a lazy monopoly of the fighters.

Anyway, I'm off topic, way off topic

The F-35 Lightning won't start to enter service until 2012-2014 at this rate and maybe later if the politics doesn't change! Besides with so many types in need of replacement it would take decades to replace all of them.......... Shocked

The main focus of the F-35 is to get the aircraft into IOC. This is the goal they need achieve.

skrip00 wrote:

The main focus of the F-35 is to get the aircraft into IOC. This is the goal they need achieve.

Oh, it will happen....................but it will take more time and more money!

Politics is very costly........... Confused

http://www.f-16.net/news_article1966.html

USAF considers cutting 72 F-35s

September 10, 2006 (by Stefaan Vanhastel) - The United States Air Force considers cutting 72 F-35 Lightning II aircraft from its 2008 six-year spending plan (covering FY2008 through FY2013) due to cost overruns, according to Inside The Air Force.

The proposed cut of 72 aircraft allows the air force to keep the current production schedules and projected cost, by sacrificing one wing to cover unexpected costs that arose in 2005. The total price tag increased by nearly $19 billion in 2005.

toan wrote:

http://www.f-16.net/news_article1966.html

USAF considers cutting 72 F-35s

September 10, 2006 (by Stefaan Vanhastel) - The United States Air Force considers cutting 72 F-35 Lightning II aircraft from its 2008 six-year spending plan (covering FY2008 through FY2013) due to cost overruns, according to Inside The Air Force.

The proposed cut of 72 aircraft allows the air force to keep the current production schedules and projected cost, by sacrificing one wing to cover unexpected costs that arose in 2005. The total price tag increased by nearly $19 billion in 2005.

There is no way $19 billion is actually spent during 2005. That will be 8~24 times the annual F-35 R&D funding since its inception!!!

What happened in 2005 is that the GAO re-did their inflation and dollar value estimates for the next 30 years. And they expected the total acquisition costs to go up by $19 billion over the life of the program. Even if not one additional penny was spent in 2005, this would still have happened by their math!

toan wrote:

http://www.f-16.net/news_article1966.html

USAF considers cutting 72 F-35s

September 10, 2006 (by Stefaan Vanhastel) - The United States Air Force considers cutting 72 F-35 Lightning II aircraft from its 2008 six-year spending plan (covering FY2008 through FY2013) due to cost overruns, according to Inside The Air Force.

The proposed cut of 72 aircraft allows the air force to keep the current production schedules and projected cost, by sacrificing one wing to cover unexpected costs that arose in 2005. The total price tag increased by nearly $19 billion in 2005.

Fixed.

Just like the proposed plans to drop the number of F-22As to 183 right?

Nothing conclusive, just smoke and mirrors.

The problem is much of it is smoke and mirrors.......................

Well, it aint over till the fat lady sings...

skrip00 wrote:

Well, it aint over till the fat lady sings...

You got that right! Confused

toan wrote:

http://www.f-16.net/news_article1966.html

USAF considers cutting 72 F-35s

September 10, 2006 (by Stefaan Vanhastel) - The United States Air Force considers cutting 72 F-35 Lightning II aircraft from its 2008 six-year spending plan (covering FY2008 through FY2013) due to cost overruns, according to Inside The Air Force.

The proposed cut of 72 aircraft allows the air force to keep the current production schedules and projected cost, by sacrificing one wing to cover unexpected costs that arose in 2005. The total price tag increased by nearly $19 billion in 2005.

From reports I have seen, there have been STAGGERING cost increases within the F-35 program... The news of which was revealed in 2005/6. I don`t know the dollar amount but the use of the word staggering speaks for itself I think, whether it is over 5 or 30 years. The program is going to cost a whole lot more than anyone imagined, which actually isn`t unusual with millitary hardware!!!!

Remember that this is an AIRFORCE proposal, not something some other body is trying to ram down their throats....Maybe the airforce was being pro-active ... It looks like the airforce is perfectly willing to sacrifice numbers to protect the program as a whole. Don`t be surprised if it actually happens....and then some.

Just the usual politics...................with the USAF just trying to twist the arm of the US Congress. All the while hoping to get funds for other projects."Nothing New" Also, I have never heard "Staggering Cost Increases"? May I ask from what sources did you get that from............ Question

Forum: Program and politics

Politics and the F-35 debate...