Forum: F-35 Lightning II

beepa wrote:

in australia we have a federal election this year,if the current government loses[which is 50/50]then the new guys have said they dont want the f35 or the superbugs and may launch an enquiry why our prime minister didnt follow the already in place tender process[air 6000]but dropped the bombshell about the f35 after he had a holiday and visited loch mart...i wonder how many dollars went into his pocket!.. the opposition believes,as do many in defence that the raptor is the way to go[if its allowed out of the candy shop]all r watchin the japs with great interest in their bid for mighty raptor

Hi Beepa. Quite another kettle of fish there. Two major aircraft procurements and an ignored procurement roadmap. Interesting times. Technically the C-17 purchase was also off-plan but everyone seems to think that is a highly useful purchase so I guess the real dogfight will be with the politicians.

F-16.net Sponsor

asiatrails wrote:

Roscoe,

Sure, but the meaningless release of hot air reminds me that its "Sometimes it is entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledge-hammer!" - MAJ. Holdredge - USMC

A couple of better sayings for him to slow down and think about:

“On the edge of destiny, you must test your strength.” - Billy Bishop

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother." - Shakespeare

"Only the dead have seen the end of war" - Plato

"I know 5% more than the rest of you on the JSF deal." - Dr. Nelson Laughing

Meathook wrote:

Quote:

Fighter efforts show need for Raptor, JSF buys, Wynne says

By Michael Fabey, Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
03/20/2007

Greater Russian and Chinese efforts to sell their so-called fifth-generation fighter planes provide another example of why the U.S. Air Force needs to stick to its stated purchases of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), said Michael Wynne, Air Force secretary.

Speaking about the Russian and Chinese efforts, Wynne said, "They see what we're doing. "The so-called Chinese fifth-generation variant, Wynne pointed out, "looks like a European Tornado."

As for the Russian Sukhoi entries, "We have great respect for that," Wynne said March 19 at a breakfast speech on Capitol Hill.

The Russians and Chinese are attempting to shop the aircraft on the international market to countries like India.

Sukhoi are known for their so-called "Cobra" maneuvers at international air shows - where the aircraft slows and the nose comes up and nearly backward before quickly striking downward, like a snake strike.

During an in-flight demonstration for the DAILY in the fall, the Air Force showed the Raptor could also do the same maneuver.

But it's stealth, speed, precision and special radar capability that makes fifth-generation fighters, Wynne said. And, he added, the Air Force doesn't want to go back to its fourth-generation aircraft. That's why the service included the three JSFs, for about $180 million each, in its emergency supplemental requests.

The Air Force has lost aircraft in war operations and needs to replace them, Wynne said. But the service doesn't want the F-16s being made for the United Arab Emirates or the F-15s being made for Korea. There are not running lines for those aircraft suitable for American needs, he said.

Thus, the supplemental requests for the new aircraft, which have been denied.

The Air Force is fighting another battle for its F-22s. While the Pentagon has capped the buy at 183 aircraft, the service says it needs 381 - a number Wynne emphasized again March 19. The service has now bought 83, he said.

The aircraft are needed to replace previous stealthy aircraft such as B-2s and F-117s, which are dwindling in numbers or being retired.

Part of the reason for the larger buy, Wynne said, is to help keep the fifth-generation line running until the F-35s start being produced. The Air Force plans to buy 1,763 JSFs. "But we're not sure our arguments will be heard," he said. Wynne said he simply lacks the money to buy the number of aircraft he needs and wants to buy every year.

Wynnes a nice guy and all, and even with his faults, I liked Dr. Roche. But at the end of the day they are just more of the same temporary help that comes in ( Most serving Sec AFs )... who don't know a whole heck of a lot about the Air Force. If we wanted to save some money, we would eliminate the whole Sec AF Office. Service Secretarys don't bring much to the fight. Just more mouths to feed that have to be brought up to speed and conduct the ever ending war by PowerPoint.
Nothing said there is news. Add yet another thing. Today I talked to some precision attack people. We are so short of funds we won't be able to populate the squadrons with Sniper XR pods as we had hoped. With all the new capability Sniper XR gained with being able to send of feeds netcentrically and some other cool things ( it is a great pod ) the cost climbed a bit approaching $2 million per pod. Possibly even the low rate we bought them made them more expensive too although I do not know. At the end of the day I don't care. It's a great pod and worth the money. But our budget being super thin.... Buying of Sniper XR has stopped until we find some cash. Lantirn was good for it's day, but we need to replace them with newer tech ( easier maintenance ) stuff. Add that to the long list of war winning items going into fallow.

"Ding Dong the Witch is Dying..."

According to Defensetech.org who happens to get it more right than wrong, we can expect further cuts in the F-35 program. Perhaps the re-birth of the 2 engine sourcing route, which will cut into procurement rates of the unspectacular beast due to the costs of having 2 engine suppliers, and more multiyear contracts for the purchasing the F-22 Raptor.

What a joy to wake up to occasional good news.

asiatrails wrote:

Roscoe,

Sure, but the meaningless release of hot air reminds me that its "Sometimes it is entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledge-hammer!" - MAJ. Holdredge - USMC

A couple of better sayings for him to slow down and think about:

“On the edge of destiny, you must test your strength.” - Billy Bishop

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother." - Shakespeare

"Only the dead have seen the end of war" - Plato

As I recall the USMC guys used to have a saying, something like... "Cherish failure, because if you only ever succeed then you never tested your limitations."

Maybe we should relish in the fact that DoD has opted to throw 350 billion dollars out the window on a subsonic 2 bomb carrying airplane with some LO and better sensor integration than the F-117 (a subsonic 2 bomb carrying airplane from 30 years ago).

fox100 wrote:

As I recall the USMC guys used to have a saying, something like... "Cherish failure, because if you only ever succeed then you never tested your limitations."

Had a professor like that once Cool

Roscoe wrote:

fox100 wrote:

As I recall the USMC guys used to have a saying, something like... "Cherish failure, because if you only ever succeed then you never tested your limitations."

Had a professor like that once Cool

No, to many words for the USMC. "Pain is weakness leaving the body"

fox100 wrote:

Maybe we should relish in the fact that DoD has opted to throw 350 billion dollars out the window on a subsonic 2 bomb carrying airplane with some LO and better sensor integration than the F-117 (a subsonic 2 bomb carrying airplane from 30 years ago).

Since when is the F-35 a subsonic aircraft? By even the most conservative estimates the F-35 is a fighter with dynamic and agility performance similar to or exceeding that of the F-16 while having 2.5x the range, lower RCS than the F-117 and a sensor suite that is superior in to everything out there (including the F-22).

dwightlooi wrote:

...lower RCS than the F-117...

Where did this data come from?

playloud wrote:

dwightlooi wrote:

...lower RCS than the F-117...

Where did this data come from?

There is no "data" available to the public. But the RCS of the F-117 was described as being the size of a bird whereas the F-35's was described as the size of a golf ball. The size of a "bird" can somewhat from about 0.1sq-m for a chicken to about 0.001 for a humming bird. But a typical smaller sized avian like a swallow is about 0.01 sq-m in 2D or roughly 10x10cm. This is where the common estimate of 0.01 sq-m for the F-117 came about. The F-35 was officially claimed to have an RCS of a golf-ball. A golf-ball is 0.0427 m in diameter. The 2D sectional area is exactly 0.0014 sq-m.

fox100 wrote:

"Ding Dong the Witch is Dying..."

According to Defensetech.org who happens to get it more right than wrong, we can expect further cuts in the F-35 program. Perhaps the re-birth of the 2 engine sourcing route, which will cut into procurement rates of the unspectacular beast due to the costs of having 2 engine suppliers, and more multiyear contracts for the purchasing the F-22 Raptor.

What a joy to wake up to occasional good news.

What is amusing is GAO puts out a report on the JSF program cost rising and then releasing another report later on that says more money should be thrown down the toilet and go for the second engine vendor. Their idea of "accounting" seems to depend on what day of the week it is.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bi ... le=release

Department of Defense Releases Selected Acquisition Reports

(Source: US Department of Defense; issued April 09, 2007)

The Department of Defense (DoD) has released details on major defense acquisition program cost, schedule, and performance changes since the September 2006 reporting period. This information is based on the Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs) submitted to the Congress for the December 2006 reporting period.

- F-22A
Program costs increased $2,692.7 million (+4.3 percent) from $62,600.0 million to $65,292.7 million, due primarily to a revised estimate for the replan of Increments 3.1 and 3.2 (+$1,987.1 million), the additional of funding for the first year of multiyear procurement (+$1,416.5 million), an increase in peculiar support for two operating locations (+$311.1 million), and the application of revised escalation indices (+$197.1 million). These increases were partially offset by reductions in development funding for the modernization program (-$110.0 million), revised estimates for the second and third years of multiyear procurement (-$980.6 million), and an acceleration of the annual procurement buy profile from a 4-year to a 3-year schedule (-$161.1 million).

- F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter)
Program costs increased by $23,365.2 million (+8.5 percent) from $276,458.9 million to $299,824.1 million, due primarily to a decrease in the annual procurement quantities and a stretch-out of the production buy schedule from fiscal year 2027 to fiscal year 2034 (+$11,207.8 million), revised estimate for airframe materials due to commodity market increases (+$5,472.8 million), increase due to revised assumptions based on contractor LRIP I proposals and methodology (+$8,307.1 million), and support increase due to aircraft configuration update, revised procurement profile, and methodology changes (+$6,423.2 million). These increases were partially offset by revised assumptions for prime and subcontractor labor rates (-$3,576.3 million) and revised assumptions for subcontractor costs (-$5,201.4 million).

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

dwightlooi wrote:

fox100 wrote:

Maybe we should relish in the fact that DoD has opted to throw 350 billion dollars out the window on a subsonic 2 bomb carrying airplane with some LO and better sensor integration than the F-117 (a subsonic 2 bomb carrying airplane from 30 years ago).

Since when is the F-35 a subsonic aircraft? By even the most conservative estimates the F-35 is a fighter with dynamic and agility performance similar to or exceeding that of the F-16 while having 2.5x the range, lower RCS than the F-117 and a sensor suite that is superior in to everything out there (including the F-22).

The F-16XL had impressive performances 25 years ago.. about twice the range of the F-16, supercruise etc..

And the F-110 thrust is now about 32-34000lbs. GE has even talked of the possibility of 37000lbs.

An improved F-16XL with better engines, new avionics and lower RCS would have been close to an F-35 at a much lower cost. It would also already be in service.

I'm sure for less than 4 billion of R&D the Air Force could have developped an advanced XL. The avionics was already available - the avionics of the block 60 -. They could have used either the F-110-GE-132 or a new variant. The GE-132 would have been sufficient to supercruise at M1.2 or so. They could have fitted the FLIR of the block 60 as well as the TVC of the F-110. Building the new airframe would probably not have been so expensive.

Remember that the F-18E cost about 5 billion to develop which is not much.

Apart from that, I'd rather buy F-22s in 2025 than F-35s because by then potential enemies will have improved significantly. The F-22 can remain dominant for much longer due to its better stealth and dynamic performances.

And your argument that you can get 3 F-35 for 1 F-22 doesn't make sense. If you compare spending those 300 billion on MORE F-22s than on R&Ding and purchasing the F-35, you would get a much smaller difference I'm sure. Also operating 2 "low-cost" fighters costs more than operating 1 "high cost" fighter. All this taken into account, you would probably not get more than 1.5 F-35 for each F-22.

I'd say an improved F-16XL and more F-22s would have been more cost-effective than the F-35.

Anyways.. Smile

Viperalltheway wrote:

The F-16XL had impressive performances 25 years ago.. about twice the range of the F-16, supercruise etc..

And the F-110 thrust is now about 32-34000lbs. GE has even talked of the possibility of 37000lbs.

An improved F-16XL with better engines, new avionics and lower RCS would have been close to an F-35 at a much lower cost. It would also already be in service.

I'm sure for less than 4 billion of R&D the Air Force could have developped an advanced XL. The avionics was already available - the avionics of the block 60 -. They could have used either the F-110-GE-132 or a new variant. The GE-132 would have been sufficient to supercruise at M1.2 or so. They could have fitted the FLIR of the block 60 as well as the TVC of the F-110. Building the new airframe would probably not have been so expensive.

Remember that the F-18E cost about 5 billion to develop which is not much.

Apart from that, I'd rather buy F-22s in 2025 than F-35s because by then potential enemies will have improved significantly. The F-22 can remain dominant for much longer due to its better stealth and dynamic performances.

And your argument that you can get 3 F-35 for 1 F-22 doesn't make sense. If you compare spending those 300 billion on MORE F-22s than on R&Ding and purchasing the F-35, you would get a much smaller difference I'm sure. Also operating 2 "low-cost" fighters costs more than operating 1 "high cost" fighter. All this taken into account, you would probably not get more than 1.5 F-35 for each F-22.

I'd say an improved F-16XL and more F-22s would have been more cost-effective than the F-35.

Anyways.. Smile

(1) Supercruise is WAY LESS important than stealth. So choosing marginal supercruise (plus perhaps a small dose of extra agility) over stealth is basically building a Rafale -- something that is not survivable in the coming decades. Choosing Mach 2 supercruise over stealth is building the Concorde. Lets put it this way, speed has been a defeated mode of defense. The SR-71 is no longer survivable at Mach 3.2+ cruise which is why it is retired. Basically, if the SAM batteries can find you they can shoot you down regardless of how high you fly or how fast you can go.

(2) All supercruise are not created equal. Mach 1.2 is not the same as Mach 1.7. And Mach 1.2 cruise doesn't do much for survivability over near Mach 1 cruise typical of 4th generation types. The USAF is not interested in supercruise per say (as in going faster than Mach 1 w/o after burners), but in going almost 2x as fast as traditional jets on dry thrust. If it is marginal supercruising you are after, there is a very good chance the F-35 will do it just as is. Remember, the F-35 is a very sleek and clean airframe with 28,000 lbs of rated dry thrust -- thats almost 2x as much as an F-16 and it is not going to be 2x draggier than an F-16.

(3) The unit cost of the F-35 is currently expected to be LOWER an F-18E or F-16 block 60. You cannot buy a Block 60 sixteen for the projected $48 million price tag of an F-35A. This is largely because a lot more is expected to be built so R&D costs per unit becomes relatively tiny. But it also shows that the platform itself is not an expensive one to build. The F-35 is designed to be CHEAPER to build than the F-16 or F-18 for that matter. And if you choose to use a 4th generation platform, you'll still need to spend the better part of that $40 billion R&D budget earmarked for the Lightning on mission systems to keep them viable anyway.

(4) Spending the same amount of money that we are planning to spend on the F-35 on the F-22 will indeed yield 1/3 as many aircrafts. Let's put it this way, the development cost of ~$40 billion is small compared to the program cost of ~$280 million. Each F-35 is expected to cost around $35 million 2005 dollars to build. Each F-22 will cost about $100 million 2005 dollars to build. Spending the entire F-35 budget on F-22s will yield an 800 fighter air force with the Navy and the marines flying obsolete F-18Es and AV-8s. It'll not meet the mission requirements of the US armed services.

dwightlooi wrote:

Viperalltheway wrote:

The F-16XL had impressive performances 25 years ago.. about twice the range of the F-16, supercruise etc..

And the F-110 thrust is now about 32-34000lbs. GE has even talked of the possibility of 37000lbs.

An improved F-16XL with better engines, new avionics and lower RCS would have been close to an F-35 at a much lower cost. It would also already be in service.

I'm sure for less than 4 billion of R&D the Air Force could have developped an advanced XL. The avionics was already available - the avionics of the block 60 -. They could have used either the F-110-GE-132 or a new variant. The GE-132 would have been sufficient to supercruise at M1.2 or so. They could have fitted the FLIR of the block 60 as well as the TVC of the F-110. Building the new airframe would probably not have been so expensive.

Remember that the F-18E cost about 5 billion to develop which is not much.

Apart from that, I'd rather buy F-22s in 2025 than F-35s because by then potential enemies will have improved significantly. The F-22 can remain dominant for much longer due to its better stealth and dynamic performances.

And your argument that you can get 3 F-35 for 1 F-22 doesn't make sense. If you compare spending those 300 billion on MORE F-22s than on R&Ding and purchasing the F-35, you would get a much smaller difference I'm sure. Also operating 2 "low-cost" fighters costs more than operating 1 "high cost" fighter. All this taken into account, you would probably not get more than 1.5 F-35 for each F-22.

I'd say an improved F-16XL and more F-22s would have been more cost-effective than the F-35.

Anyways.. Smile

(1) Supercruise is WAY LESS important than stealth. So choosing marginal supercruise (plus perhaps a small dose of extra agility) over stealth is basically building a Rafale -- something that is not survivable in the coming decades. Choosing Mach 2 supercruise over stealth is building the Concorde. Lets put it this way, speed has been a defeated mode of defense. The SR-71 is no longer survivable at Mach 3.2+ cruise which is why it is retired. Basically, if the SAM batteries can find you they can shoot you down regardless of how high you fly or how fast you can go.

(2) All supercruise are not created equal. Mach 1.2 is not the same as Mach 1.7. And Mach 1.2 cruise doesn't do much for survivability over near Mach 1 cruise typical of 4th generation types. The USAF is not interested in supercruise per say (as in going faster than Mach 1 w/o after burners), but in going almost 2x as fast as traditional jets on dry thrust. If it is marginal supercruising you are after, there is a very good chance the F-35 will do it just as is. Remember, the F-35 is a very sleek and clean airframe with 28,000 lbs of rated dry thrust -- thats almost 2x as much as an F-16 and it is not going to be 2x draggier than an F-16.

(3) The unit cost of the F-35 is currently expected to be LOWER an F-18E or F-16 block 60. You cannot buy a Block 60 sixteen for the projected $48 million price tag of an F-35A. This is largely because a lot more is expected to be built so R&D costs per unit becomes relatively tiny. But it also shows that the platform itself is not an expensive one to build. The F-35 is designed to be CHEAPER to build than the F-16 or F-18 for that matter. And if you choose to use a 4th generation platform, you'll still need to spend the better part of that $40 billion R&D budget earmarked for the Lightning on mission systems to keep them viable anyway.

(4) Spending the same amount of money that we are planning to spend on the F-35 on the F-22 will indeed yield 1/3 as many aircrafts. Let's put it this way, the development cost of ~$40 billion is small compared to the program cost of ~$280 million. Each F-35 is expected to cost around $35 million 2005 dollars to build. Each F-22 will cost about $100 million 2005 dollars to build. Spending the entire F-35 budget on F-22s will yield an 800 fighter air force with the Navy and the marines flying obsolete F-18Es and AV-8s. It'll not meet the mission requirements of the US armed services.

Everything is defeatable. Stealth (EM/IR) are defeatable. Since day one of wood and fabric airplanes, tactics have been hit and run. There is no such thing as an invisble plane. Wonder Woman's jet isn't real. Anything sighted can be shot to put it simply. The future is faster, higher, further (yeah the doctrine from the 50's). The future is not slow and low and 10 coats of RAM and some ceramics/metals coatings on nozzels.

There are massive programs which compute the optimal radar signature, ir signature, ect ect.. But you're not invisible when someone simply see's you and if you don't have the performace to CHOOSE to get out of Dodge or slug it out, then you're the guy who's not in the catbird seat.

Supercruise isn't black magic and voodoo and neither is stealth. We're living in the age of the computer geek who can't see past his own simulations to whats outside in the real world. Supercruise and stealth are also not one or the other decisions... Of course you can't talk openly about what is and is not possible.

Some guys need to re-learn what was learn't decades and decades ago.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 cost overruns