Forum: General F-35 Forum

This is a nice little article which spells out (from a 3rd party) the worries that I have about the F-35:

1) Lack of performance; its a step backwards from what we fielding in the Raptor

2) Unknown performance while we're buying the god damned POS

3) Thin skins and lack of ruggedness for the battlefield

4) Jack of all trades and master of nothing other than being a hangar queen

5) Costs ain't gonna be what is being publicized

We're about to build, in my humble opinion, the F-111 of the 21st century.

For the teeth of the USAF I reccomend: IMHO, we need to double the tooling capacity of the F-22 and build more than silver bullet fleet, build new Strike Eagles, replace the F-16 with a mod'd Superhornet on a 1:1 basis, double up the B-2 fleet, and if the tooling hasn't completely rusted away then build the B-1R. (I'm not including the actual weapons for those platforms)

For future development, the hypersonic intercontinental bomber needs to be pursued (in quantity this time), as well as the FB-22 concept. "The Attack of the Drones" fleet needs to be built up, ala, the NG Navy concept, the Boeing concept.

I can show anyone with a high school shop class under their belt how to build a plasma stealth RC airplane for dirt cheap and for not much money and in a simple 1 page schematic... (well, controling it from the ground may pose a problem for RC controlling) Hell, the average homebuilder of kitplanes has the ability and tools to build a plasma stealth LSA. My point is there is better tech out there then what we're getting with this "Maginot Line" of F-35's.

Here is the link:

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4082&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=37&from_page=index.cfm

Remember, we're all on the same side here.

F-16.net Sponsor

CDI as in "Center For Dis-Information"? Consider the source and the motive. The article is riddled with dishonest statements, half truths and in some cases even outright false information. Point being it is not a competent analysis of the F-35 program but more akin to the weekly Sprey BS articles... They preach to the quire.

There are a few good points about that CDI piece ( i.e. program cost control and engineering challenges ) I don't see how, unless congress grows a pair on funding, that it will be able to avoid cost bloat.

I do think it will work as long as people put on their reality had and know that this program is really difficult to do and that there are a lot of really really high talent people working on it.

The article is DEAD wrong stating that there isn't a air superiority threat out there. The writer shows a significant inability to even grasp the full definition of air superiority.

What's wrong with letting the F-22 Master the skies while the F-35's roam around as a "jack of all trades" type of platform? That setup has seemed to work pretty well with the F-15 and F-16. I see your point about doing just that, but use the modded F-18's and more F-15E's but still...I'd like to see tax dollars going torwards development of technologies and not simply construction of current technology. For someone so against the buliding of the F-35 I don't understand how in the world you could back the B-1R?!? B-1's are the C-5's of the bomber fleet! Those pigs spend more time on the ground than a rock! Evil or Very Mad

Of course if we are going to talk about the B-1 and C-5, it would be nice if sustainment was properly funded for them in the first place. Laughing

Good point...

fox100 wrote:

This is a nice little article which spells out (from a 3rd party) the worries that I have about the F-35:

1) Lack of performance; its a step backwards from what we fielding in the Raptor

2) Unknown performance while we're buying the god damned POS

3) Thin skins and lack of ruggedness for the battlefield

4) Jack of all trades and master of nothing other than being a hangar queen

5) Costs ain't gonna be what is being publicized

(1) Performance is expected to be better than the F-16 and the F-18 which means it is at least on par with everything else it is fighting. Don't expect to out accelerate an F-35 in an SU-30 and don't expect higher practical combat speed either. That for all intents and purposes is good enough.

(2) Same as (1)

(3) By all publicised statements, ruggedness and maintenability will be significantly better than the Raptor and in fact several times better thanthe teens.

(4) The other way to look at it is that it promises to be a jack or all trades and master of all. A super fighter for a fantastically low price.

(5) The costs are very well controlled compared to any and all previous fighter programs. It is projected to be BELOW that of the F-18E. $48.5 million is fantastically cheap and there is no evidence or indication that this will change. This is not according to some F-35 fan club or L-M. It is according to the GAO which is a critic of the program. The only thing that they were able to pull out to inflate the program cost significantly is "revised inflation estimates for the next 30 years".

dwightlooi wrote:

It is projected to be BELOW that of the F-18E. $48.5 million is fantastically cheap and there is no evidence or indication that this will change.

Are there newer numbers available than the 12/2005 ones in GAO-07-406SP?

IMHO from everything I have read (DL feel free to point me in the direction of something that says otherwise) is going to be a bit on the low side. Conversely CBO report updated 7/07 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf
121 million/ac number is taken out of context and the entire report really should be read.

We have been comparing unit cost and the number given is total (incl R&D and development costs). We have not been doing that for EF or F-22.

Much of the final unit price will depend on how many are built, how quickly they will be built and ala F-16 will the learning curve be such that the manufacturing costs of future AC come down.

Further if you read the report, like the Eurofrauder, there is more at stake than merely buying the least expensive AC. It's about protecting our industrial base, preserving jobs and having the best fighter available for export. This in addition to it being the premier A2G jet and AC second only to the Raptor in A2A at a still fairly affordable price.

The report also goes on to state that it F-35B is a major driver in cost increase.

MechFromHell wrote:

What's wrong with letting the F-22 Master the skies while the F-35's roam around as a "jack of all trades" type of platform? That setup has seemed to work pretty well with the F-15 and F-16. I see your point about doing just that, but use the modded F-18's and more F-15E's but still...I'd like to see tax dollars going torwards development of technologies and not simply construction of current technology. For someone so against the buliding of the F-35 I don't understand how in the world you could back the B-1R?!? B-1's are the C-5's of the bomber fleet! Those pigs spend more time on the ground than a rock! Evil or Very Mad

Well, that "pig" of a B-1B sure had the Russians pissing their pants. Of course the B-1R if had it been pursued would have had more robust avionics and not been so much of a hangar queen as it was.

Consider the B-2: it lives in the f*cking hangars. Leave it outside a little too long, oops, there's goes its radar signature.

Using a modded F-15 in place of the F-22 was a non-starter. Boeing quoted a price that was astronomical considering the techology. The F-22 wasn't that much more expensive per unit than the Eagle. While I don't have the history, I suspect the same was true for using the F-18E/F in lieu of the F-35, which BTW the Super bug isn't that great an airplane either...significantly less range, survivability, and avionics capability.

An aside...the B-2 was only 20% more expensive than the Bone when measured per warhead...bizarre stat but makes sense when you look at it that way. Unfortunately, that was before the buy was cut from 172 to 21, which by the way only saved $20B because the R&D was already spent. OK off my horse Smile

.

Quote:

Consider the B-2: it lives in the f*cking hangars. Leave it outside a little too long, oops, there's goes its radar signature.

Crap. That statement has no merit.

Thumper3181 wrote:

IMHO from everything I have read (DL feel free to point me in the direction of something that says otherwise) is going to be a bit on the low side. Conversely CBO report updated 7/07 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf
121 million/ac number is taken out of context and the entire report really should be read.

We have been comparing unit cost and the number given is total (incl R&D and development costs). We have not been doing that for EF or F-22.

Much of the final unit price will depend on how many are built, how quickly they will be built and ala F-16 will the learning curve be such that the manufacturing costs of future AC come down.

Further if you read the report, like the Eurofrauder, there is more at stake than merely buying the least expensive AC. It's about protecting our industrial base, preserving jobs and having the best fighter available for export. This in addition to it being the premier A2G jet and AC second only to the Raptor in A2A at a still fairly affordable price.

The report also goes on to state that it F-35B is a major driver in cost increase.

Not only that...

In articles critical of the F-35, they tend to cite unit cost as total program cost divided by total airframes. You WILL get a number in access of $120 million in that case. However, one needs to understand that the nature of inflation is such that the F-35s coming off the line in 2012 will cost a lot less than $120 million and those coming of the line in 2032 will cost a lot more! The F-16 was $7 million initially now you'll be lucky to be able to get a $35 million deal on a new one. Why? Inflation over the past 25 years, thats why.

Does this mean that the jet has gotten more expensive? Not really if you look at it in constant year dollars.

dwightlooi wrote:

However, one needs to understand that the nature of inflation is such that the F-35s coming off the line in 2012 will cost a lot less than $120 million and those coming of the line in 2032 will cost a lot more! The F-16 was $7 million initially now you'll be lucky to be able to get a $35 million deal on a new one. Why? Inflation over the past 25 years, thats why.

An inflation of 400% over the past 31 years would work out to a yearly inflation of about 13%. Sounds unreasonable.
According to the CPI the F-16 would really be at about $24m in 2006 after inflation, so it looks like there are some other factors figuring into it as well.
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/

It grew nearly perfectly in line with nominal GDP per capita though if it's really at $35m today, so the updates should have figured into that and some carefully balanced pricing increase might have taken place.
Assuming that the F-35 will see updates and further development or integration, I would not expect it to become cheaper in relation to inflation, at least if the F-16 is anything to go by.

Nice site Satorian. For the most part I like it. I think you are mistaken however in what you are comparing against. CPI is not a good indicator because that is based on a market basket of consumer products. It is also a very artificial construct. I would suggest you look compute it using the Relative Share of GDP. This provides a constant benchmark that allows you to compute how much of the nations wealth is being spent.

If you plug 7million in for 1981 and compute out to 2006 you will see that you need just under 30 million 2006 dollars to equal that same share of national wealth in 1981.

Add in the fact that the current iteration of the F-16 is much more potent than the 1981 model and you account for much of the difference.

Going by the F-16 then the F-35 may not be cheaper in the future but it will not be much more expensive and it will be a more capable bird than the 2010 model.

More:

As of 2006 the AF estimates for JSF unit costs:

F-35A $48M
F-35B $62M
F-35C $63M

Much cheaper than a Typhoon at $95M or a F-22 at 120-130M.
While the Raptor is the better A2A platform the Typhoon is clearly inferior in terms of avionics, stealth, and if the F-35 meets it's stated performance goals, performance.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Sept2006/0906altitude.asp

(1) Let's put it this way. The point is not whether cost will increase under, at or over the rate of inflation.

The point is that using the estimated total program cost divided by the total airframes projected is a ridiculous way of trying to arrive at the cost of the aircraft a customer will pay in 2010 or 2012.

Right now the cost of the F-35A aircraft is estimated at $48.5 in 2005 dollars. It will cost more in 2012 because 2012 dollars is not 2005 dollars. Assuming that the dollar value trends in the last 7 seven years is repeated in the next seven years, it should cost roughly $64 million 2012 dollars which is roughly still $48.5 million in 2005 dollars. Get it? And BTW, if you buy an F-22 or F-16 it'll inflate by roughly that amount as well.

(2) BTW, 4% inflation equates to roughly 324% cost increase over 30 years. In other words $157 million in 2035 is roughly $48.5 million in 2005. Think about it for a second... how much is that $26,000 family sedan in 1977? Does $8000 sound reasonable? Of course inflation for homes, cars, fighters and chocolate bars are different. But the example helps put things into perspective.

(3) At this time <b>there is no indication that the F-35 unit cost will significantly blow the 2005 estimate of $48.5 million in constant year dollars.</b>

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Vindication in my F-35 Worries