F-35 is a good deal judging by cost-per-effect: think tank

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24480
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Jul 2020, 08:49

:doh:
:doh: Why the F-35 is a good deal judging by cost-per-effect: think tank :doh:
09 Jul 2020 Garrett Reim
"Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II generates lots of ugly headlines. :doh: Some reports focus on the type’s dozens of persistent deficiencies, such as danger to the fifth-generation fighter from lightning strikes and problems sustaining supersonic flight without damaging its stealth coating.

Other articles focus on the aircraft’s operating expense. The cheapest of the three Joint Strike Fighter variants, the conventional take-off and landing variant F-35A, costs a mere $44,000 per flight hour. When it comes to operating expense, however, think tank the Mitchell Institute argues that flight-hour costs are a red herring. A better way to judge F-35 expenses is by cost-per-effect. In other words, how much does it cost an F-35 to destroy a target?... [THEN AN EXPLANATION from the Mitchell Institute]

...The Mitchell Institute further notes that more aircraft means more MRO and logistics support, which also drives up cost..." [Then a B-21 comparison etc.]

Graphic: "Source: Mitchell Institute - Comparing stealth and non-stealth aircraft"
https://d3lcr32v2pp4l1.cloudfront.net/P ... 990999.jpg


Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing ... 09.article
Attachments
StealthLeverage.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2388
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post09 Jul 2020, 14:05

Salute!

Finally, a realistic measure of merit.

As I said before on another thread, our Thud folks were ecstatic after the first visual attack on Hanoi. And our pathfinder LORAN birds that followed us in after breaking off when the LORAN was not required had good words.

The consensus was there would have been many less POW/KIA if our strike planes had the A-7D computed weapon delivery, If you don't have to go back and you don't have to use more planes, then duuuhhhhhh!!! The LO component makes things even better.

So think not only about platforms, but PEOPLE !!!! We can crank out a new plane or part in weeks, but even the super duper flightline dude takes 20 years, minimum.

The graphic really says it all. Our big raids involved 200 planes!!! And the actual bomb trucks were a small percentage of the total.

Gums sends....
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post09 Jul 2020, 15:02

I wish someone would give the USN the memo.
Stealth has been around for 30+years and they still dont get it. Why does it matter if a F-35C costs 120mill
If you need. 3 or more F-18s to do the same job?!
The situation is compounded on a carrier since you can only embark so many planes.
2× F-18E to hit the target.
2x growlers to get them in.
And probably 2x F-18s buddy tanking.
Thats probably a job 2 F-35Cs can do.
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2388
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post09 Jul 2020, 18:47

Salute!

Yep, Jessmo, I am not close to the nasal radiators on a daily basis as I was twenty years ago, so maybe could find some down here near the "craddle of naval aviation" and talk.

My fear is the McCain/McSally syndrome is in operation. As much as I loved the Sluf, and the Dragonfly before it, having flown both in combat, I could see what was coming in mission capability and and the Viper looked like a good deal once it became multi-role and had super A2A capability plus decent A2G capability.

There has to be Bug mafia out there, like the Hawg mafia. Let the things go!!! If NAVAIR wants to keep a coupla Bugs around, great. But there's a lotta tradeoffs with capability and and mission support and logistics.

The doggone Bug and Super Bug suck gas and need serious refueling assets to even do a short range mission. I liked a lot about the cockpit and avionics when I had my chance to see for myself. Was better than the Viper, and about same as the F-20. But I could carry more iron further and using less gas in my Viper, much less the Sluf.

The one thing many of us agreed upon years ago was we would trade a coupla degrees/sec of instantaneous trun rate for a coupla more sustained rates and more gas after the few turns and outcome. Ditto for the Eagle, and I have seen them close up and appreciated their great performance.

Gums opines...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2714
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post09 Jul 2020, 20:02

When thinking about the logic/reasoning above, the following line comes into my mind:

"Elementary my dear Watson"
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2525
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post10 Jul 2020, 02:51

Gums, with the advent of these voonderveppons high-off-boresight missiles like the AIM-9X... has the turn game shifted back to trading a few degrees of sustained turn performance for a few more degrees of instantaneous turn performance... to unleash the Sidewinder soonest?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24480
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Jul 2020, 07:18

Report: Cost-Per-Effect Is Best Way to Compare Weapons’ Value [LONG ARTICLE best read at URL]
08 Jul 2020 John A. Tirpak

"The Air Force should replace traditional metrics like cost per flying hour and unit price when calculating the cost of weapon systems with metrics that instead account for weapons’ efficiency and effectiveness. By focusing instead on cost-per-effect, a new study argues, the Air Force can better compare options for how best to invest in the future.

AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies unveiled the paper—“Resolving America’s Defense Strategy-Resource Mismatch: The Case for Cost-Per-Effect Analysis”—at an online event July 8 that featured Brig. Gen. David A. Harris, head of the Air Force Warfighting Integration Capability, and William A. LaPlante, Mitre Corporation vice president and former Air Force acquisition executive....

...the Pentagon and Congress continue to use metrics that put “a premium on cheapness” rather than mission effectiveness, Deptula lamented. With budgets going down, he said, the Air Force needs to make every dollar count. It is already too small to carry out its National Defense Strategy obligations, Deptula said. Deptula’s co-author, Mitchell Executive Director Douglas A. Birkey, said USAF has “no elasticity to surge for war.” Its National Guard wings are already all-in on the every day missions the Air Force must sustain.

Citing the Air Force’s justification for buying the fourth-generation F-15EX, Deptula noted its unit cost is slightly higher than the fifth-generation F-35, yet the F-35 is pilloried for its higher cost per flying hour—$35,000 vs. a projected $27,000. The F-35, however, can collect more information, share it more readily and be more effective inside enemy air defenses—and survive, he said. Plus, he predicted, flying hour costs “are coming down.”... [more explanation]

...The Mitchell study recommends four actions, Birkey said:
--- • Recognize the problem.
--- • Add cost-per-effect as part of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) for new procurement decisions.
--- • Apply cost-per-effect analysis across all modernization and force management decisions.
--- • Plan like regional joint commanders, to whom “it doesn’t matter what service owns the capability,” Birkey said, and focus on relative value.

Birkey praised the Senate version of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act for calling on the Air Force to explain how it would apply cost-per effect analysis. “Progress is being made,” he said....

...Harris sees an opportunity for a “Joint Warfighting Integration Capability” to tackle issues like the A-10 vs. Apache debate. “We can look across services and see exactly what we’re doing, so we’re not redundant and we reduce some of the inefficiencies,” he said. “You have to look at costs DOD-wide.” The existing Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office tends toward a more business-based lens, he said. That “is why I’m a fan of AFWIC, where we focus on the warfighting aspect: the effect we want to achieve.”

LaPlante said it would be a “huge mistake” not to focus on effects, because “we’ll be penny-wise and pound-foolish.”

Deptula said a glaring problem right now is “encroachment” by rival services on each others’ roles and missions, which is bleeding resources unnecessarily. “It’s ridiculous” for the Army to pursue 1,000-mile weapons, he said. “Some say it’s good to have a variety [of capabilities],” he said. But that only works “in a world where you’ve got unlimited budgets.”

Source: https://www.airforcemag.com/report-cost ... ons-value/

Resolving America’s Defense Strategy-Resource Mismatch: The Case for Cost-Per-Effect Analysis [53 minutes]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8brx82EAFZU

Last edited by spazsinbad on 10 Jul 2020, 17:40, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2388
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post10 Jul 2020, 17:37

Salute!

@ Steve

Problem with the great instantaneous turn rate, and the immense gees you incur at 350 or 400 CAS knots and above bleed the big "e" more than you can imagine.
Hard to get back those 60 or 70 or 100 knots. But if that's your only shot, then take it, huh? Then figure out how to escape.
=============================
Seems many folks are trapped into the romantic dogfight scenario, and there some situations where that could happen. Besides avoiding those, then it is true we need a capability to at least avoid death and escape to fight again another day. But that should not be the primary driver of all the aero and mission requirements.

This is a good original thread for introducing philosophical and tactical stuff, but prolly needs to go someplace else.

Gums sends....
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

lbk000

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 350
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post10 Jul 2020, 20:08

We've just invented the camouflage fatigue, but our dialogues remain mired in how it will allow us to get off better bayonet charges.
We're 19th century people looking at an image of a 21st century soldier, incessantly wondering about why his combat knife is so short.
"Oh the camouflage is to help bring him inside pike range"
"The short blade is so he can be quicker on the draw once he got close in"
"This camouflage uniform seems stupid, I would definitely see him before he got past my musket"

The idea of hiding under a bush with a laser rangefinder ("that doesn't look like a sword to me") and calling in an airstrike is just such an alien topic that nobody wants to think about it: "That's not fighting!"
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2525
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post11 Jul 2020, 05:09

Gums wrote:Salute!

@ Steve

Problem with the great instantaneous turn rate, and the immense gees you incur at 350 or 400 CAS knots and above bleed the big "e" more than you can imagine.
Hard to get back those 60 or 70 or 100 knots. But if that's your only shot, then take it, huh? Then figure out how to escape.
=============================
Seems many folks are trapped into the romantic dogfight scenario, and there some situations where that could happen. Besides avoiding those, then it is true we need a capability to at least avoid death and escape to fight again another day. But that should not be the primary driver of all the aero and mission requirements.



Further reflection suggests that the F-35 is so dangerous because the pilot has the option to play the E game, and keep his (or her) E high... but also has the option to cash in those E chips in a hurry, if it gives him the angles advantage to hose off an AIM-9X. And with that GREAT BIG MOTOR the pilots all like to rave about, it sounds like he can regain his E toot suite.

With so many players possessing high off-boresight missiles... it seems foolish (i.e. suicidal) to engage in a turning fight. But perhaps there is a place for one hard turn to gain angles to unleash a vunder Vinder... then blow through.

Dunno. I'm just spit ballin' outloud...
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24480
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Jul 2020, 06:37

'Steven of much wondrousness' several authenticated current serving fighter pilots have made it clear recently (over the last few years at least) that 'dogfighting per se' with missiles of today and with various helmet aiming devices is mutual suicide. The F-35 has the best combination of ALL OF THE ABOVE plus the situational awareness of bogies nearby. Just sneak up unseen in your F-35 and blast at the optimum range and say bye-bye or whatever. There are quotes out there.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3053
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post11 Jul 2020, 13:24

CPE largely conflates the ‘tactical‘ with the ‘strategic‘ and ignores the fundamental question of cost vs value by implicitly assuming that destruction of targets is the sole aim of any national security endeavor.

The next round of ‘battle for budget’ has begun.
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 510
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post11 Jul 2020, 14:21

I recall this graphic from some years ago
Attachments
A8DFED58-8F20-4DC4-B4B4-AFED2520C732.png
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24480
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Jul 2020, 15:18

:mrgreen: :applause: Thanks 'luke_sandoz' I was looking and looking for that graphic and you have found it - you bewdy. :mrgreen: :D

The PDF has been deleted at that URL: http://www.scribd.com/doc/51578291/Pres ... blue-FINAL

The TWO PDF Pages illustrated above have been attached below.

The COMPLETE PDF of 31 pages 51578291-Presentation-Deck-15-Mar-11-blue-FINAL.pdf is now also attached below.
Attachments
Canuck F-35 attack 51578291-Presentation-Deck-15-Mar-11-blue-FINAL cropPRNpp2.pdf
(278.36 KiB) Downloaded 44 times
51578291-Presentation-Deck-15-Mar-11-blue-FINAL.pdf
(977.22 KiB) Downloaded 47 times
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2388
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post11 Jul 2020, 23:23

Salute!

Thank you Luke

Maybe we can get the McCain/McSally folks and some old farts in Congress to look at the big picture.

I do not relish putting all our hopes in a few, highly capable platforms without a mix of low-end, high quantity ones. But $$$ are $$$ and then there's the threat and what is needed to meet the threat.

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Next

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests