Development Cost - Comparison w/ other fighter jet programs

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

the32notes

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 102
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2013, 21:01

Unread post22 Mar 2013, 18:22

haavarla wrote:The only thing you know about F-35 is what LM Adv claim.
So pls rephrase it to; " i know LM claim F-35 can penetrate deep into Russia and China"



Not LM actually, The reason for me believing in that is because, the F-35 was designed from the onset to penetrate highly contested air space.

Thats the Pentagon's diplomatic way of saying, "We're designing it to get into Russia or wherever and do what not and come back to do it again later"

The F-35 program is far from perfect but its capabilities will make the game very interesting.

I may have concerns about the F-35s air-air abilities against near peer oponents, but when it comes to its A-G role, I'm preaty sure nothing comes close.

For Russia to hint that their S-300 systems are vulnerable to the F-35, thats saying something.
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 878
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post22 Mar 2013, 19:49

maus92 wrote:
firstimpulse wrote:
The Su-35 is fourth-gen Haav. AKA 5th gen food. "Not surviable" to put it in USAF terms. Not exactly cost effective to buy cannon fodder.

Regardless what the USAF says, it is not settled law, and not agreed upon within the US defense establishment.

firstimpulse wrote:And no, "various AF around the world" know pretty well what they need.
Japan, Singapore, Israel, UK, and various others have stated the need for the F-35.


But not as a total fleet, unlike what the USAF envisions as necessary.

The approach in your cited countries (Japan, Singapore, Israel, UK) is a mixed fleet: Japan replaces its F-4s, yet still has its F-15s; Singapore replaces its F-5s, yet still retains its F-16s and F-15s; Israel adds F-35, yet retains F-16s and F-15s; UK replaces its Harriers and Tornados, yet retains its Eurofighters.

So it looks like these allies and partners envision having some stealth capability, but recognize that it is not always required or cost effective for an entire fleet.


Maus92 you can't made broad brush assumptions about every single country. Most can't justify a simply retiring an existing fleet of aircraft with usable life just to buy another fighter. However in each of those cases the F-35 is cheaper to purchase than the aircraft it might replace (Eurofighter or F-15E derivative). It says nothing about the required nature of stealth or the F-35 being less costly than a non-stealth alternative.

The UK MoD would love nothing more than to get rid of their Eurofighters and go with F-35s given the former's very high costs and low operational utility. Yet they must continue using the Eurofighter because its what they have in hand. That's just the mechanics of budgets and working with the government bean counters and the multilateral agreement they made with the other partners. However by 2030 its likely they will go to an all F-35 fleet.

Japan will likely replace their F-15s with F-35s as many of those aircraft are now reaching 30 years... that's why the initial win was so critical for the F-4J Kai. The F-35 will likely slowly replace the F-15s, and then the ATD-X/F-3 (another stealth fighter) will replace the rest.
Offline

firstimpulse

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 314
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2012, 18:21

Unread post22 Mar 2013, 20:06

maus92 wrote:
firstimpulse wrote:The Su-35 is fourth-gen Haav. AKA 5th gen food. "Not surviable" to put it in USAF terms. Not exactly cost effective to buy cannon fodder.

Regardless what the USAF says, it is not settled law, and not agreed upon within the US defense establishment.


The fact that any non-5th generation aircraft will have significantly more trouble with any air defense system is obivious. It is a "settled law" of physics. Stealth is better than not stealth. And would you honestly rather go up against a Pac-3 or S-400 battery with a Flanker instead of an F-35? :lol:
Knowledge fuels imagination.
Offline

firstimpulse

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 314
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2012, 18:21

Unread post22 Mar 2013, 20:12

hb_pencil wrote:The F-35 will likely slowly replace the F-15s, and then the ATD-X/F-3 (another stealth fighter) will replace the rest.


I was very interested with the "F-3" when the mockup first appeared, but it seems to be more of a political tactic than a serious program. Sorry to get off topic, but does anyone have any recent manufacturer info on the ATD-X?
Knowledge fuels imagination.
Offline

gtx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 21:52
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Unread post22 Mar 2013, 20:25

hb_pencil wrote:
maus92 wrote:
firstimpulse wrote:
The Su-35 is fourth-gen Haav. AKA 5th gen food. "Not surviable" to put it in USAF terms. Not exactly cost effective to buy cannon fodder.

Regardless what the USAF says, it is not settled law, and not agreed upon within the US defense establishment.

firstimpulse wrote:And no, "various AF around the world" know pretty well what they need.
Japan, Singapore, Israel, UK, and various others have stated the need for the F-35.


But not as a total fleet, unlike what the USAF envisions as necessary.

The approach in your cited countries (Japan, Singapore, Israel, UK) is a mixed fleet: Japan replaces its F-4s, yet still has its F-15s; Singapore replaces its F-5s, yet still retains its F-16s and F-15s; Israel adds F-35, yet retains F-16s and F-15s; UK replaces its Harriers and Tornados, yet retains its Eurofighters.

So it looks like these allies and partners envision having some stealth capability, but recognize that it is not always required or cost effective for an entire fleet.


Maus92 you can't made broad brush assumptions about every single country. Most can't justify a simply retiring an existing fleet of aircraft with usable life just to buy another fighter. However in each of those cases the F-35 is cheaper to purchase than the aircraft it might replace (Eurofighter or F-15E derivative). It says nothing about the required nature of stealth or the F-35 being less costly than a non-stealth alternative.

.


Exactly! It's not like Air Forces do a clean sheet change over whereby one day they fly one thing and the next another. Even the USAF is not doing this. The USAF WILL have F-35s flying alongside F-16s, F-15s, F-22s, and most likely UCAVs in the future. The majority of the fleet will be F-35s though.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6471
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post22 Mar 2013, 21:13

gtx wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:
maus92 wrote:
firstimpulse wrote:
The Su-35 is fourth-gen Haav. AKA 5th gen food. "Not surviable" to put it in USAF terms. Not exactly cost effective to buy cannon fodder.

Regardless what the USAF says, it is not settled law, and not agreed upon within the US defense establishment.

firstimpulse wrote:And no, "various AF around the world" know pretty well what they need.
Japan, Singapore, Israel, UK, and various others have stated the need for the F-35.


But not as a total fleet, unlike what the USAF envisions as necessary.

The approach in your cited countries (Japan, Singapore, Israel, UK) is a mixed fleet: Japan replaces its F-4s, yet still has its F-15s; Singapore replaces its F-5s, yet still retains its F-16s and F-15s; Israel adds F-35, yet retains F-16s and F-15s; UK replaces its Harriers and Tornados, yet retains its Eurofighters.

So it looks like these allies and partners envision having some stealth capability, but recognize that it is not always required or cost effective for an entire fleet.


Maus92 you can't made broad brush assumptions about every single country. Most can't justify a simply retiring an existing fleet of aircraft with usable life just to buy another fighter. However in each of those cases the F-35 is cheaper to purchase than the aircraft it might replace (Eurofighter or F-15E derivative). It says nothing about the required nature of stealth or the F-35 being less costly than a non-stealth alternative.

.


Exactly! It's not like Air Forces do a clean sheet change over whereby one day they fly one thing and the next another. Even the USAF is not doing this. The USAF WILL have F-35s flying alongside F-16s, F-15s, F-22s, and most likely UCAVs in the future. The majority of the fleet will be F-35s though.


Its the same story, "if you don't need stealth, Eurocanards have a chance!!"
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2642
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post22 Mar 2013, 21:17

My question is how good is the current & upcoming generation of Russian / Chinese / Iranian / North Korean land radar systems.

Cause Stealth is great if you plan on penetrating to do damage.

If not, then just destroy the radar systems as you see them in a Blitzkrieg attack.

Stealth only matters if you want to go past the radar systems to take out their aircraft while they're on the ground and destroy their runways.
Offline

gtx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 21:52
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Unread post22 Mar 2013, 21:34

kamenriderblade wrote:My question is how good is the current & upcoming generation of Russian / Chinese / Iranian / North Korean land radar systems.

Cause Stealth is great if you plan on penetrating to do damage.

If not, then just destroy the radar systems as you see them in a Blitzkrieg attack.

Stealth only matters if you want to go past the radar systems to take out their aircraft while they're on the ground and destroy their runways.


That is an overly simplistic view.

The combination of technologies/techniques/tactics that is commonly referred to as Stealth or Low Observability (LO) is nothing new.  Almost as long as there have been fights, people have been looking for ways to gain an advantage over their counterparts.  When we were relying on visual detection methods only, we relied on technologies such as camouflage or misleading paint schemes or tactics such as diving out of the sun.  When radar became more prevalent, the idea of flying below the radar gained popularity.  Now days, when we are applying these new LO technologies we are doing so because they remove some of the limitations of the past – therefore a modern combat aircraft with modern LO technologies applied is able to fly at medium altitude which increases range and also reduces pilot fatigue or potential for attack by guns/flak.  So in essence, modern LO technologies are not in fact compromising a platform, rather they are in actual fact expanding its potential/capabilities/usefulness!
 
To go even further, one needs to revisit the concept of the OODA loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop) - the operator (pilot or just as equally SAM operator or Tank Commander or Infantry soldier or Submarine Captain or…) who is able to Observe the enemy first, and who are able to Orientate themselves first and then Decide faster before finally Acting, all faster then their enemy, will win the engagement.
 
So what does this have to do with LO/Stealth?  Well, if the enemy can't see you or if they are not able to fully discern which way you are headed or whether you are friend or foe until it is too late then that could provide the few extra minutes or even seconds necessary to get in a first shot.  The OODA Loop is what it is really all about here!


Now to take your scenario a little further, stealth may let an Air Force decide whether or not they need to attack a certain target or not. It allows for a more refined approach rather then the head on assault you appear to suggest is the only alternative.
Last edited by gtx on 22 Mar 2013, 21:39, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6471
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post22 Mar 2013, 21:36

kamenriderblade wrote:My question is how good is the current & upcoming generation of Russian / Chinese / Iranian / North Korean land radar systems.

Cause Stealth is great if you plan on penetrating to do damage.

If not, then just destroy the radar systems as you see them in a Blitzkrieg attack.

Stealth only matters if you want to go past the radar systems to take out their aircraft while they're on the ground and destroy their runways.


I am going to disagree with you on this and let others explain why better than I can
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2642
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post22 Mar 2013, 21:42

gtx wrote:
kamenriderblade wrote:My question is how good is the current & upcoming generation of Russian / Chinese / Iranian / North Korean land radar systems.

Cause Stealth is great if you plan on penetrating to do damage.

If not, then just destroy the radar systems as you see them in a Blitzkrieg attack.

Stealth only matters if you want to go past the radar systems to take out their aircraft while they're on the ground and destroy their runways.


That is an overly simplistic view.

The combination of technologies/techniques/tactics that is commonly referred to as Stealth or Low Observability (LO) is nothing new.  Almost as long as there have been fights, people have been looking for ways to gain an advantage over their counterparts.  When we were relying on visual detection methods only, we relied on technologies such as camouflage or misleading paint schemes or tactics such as diving out of the sun.  When radar became more prevalent, the idea of flying below the radar gained popularity.  Now days, when we are applying these new LO technologies we are doing so because they remove some of the limitations of the past – therefore a modern combat aircraft with modern LO technologies applied is able to fly at medium altitude which increases range and also reduces pilot fatigue or potential for attack by guns/flak.  So in essence, modern LO technologies are not in fact compromising a platform, rather they are in actual fact expanding its potential/capabilities/usefulness!
 
To go even further, one needs to revisit the concept of the OODA loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop) - the operator (pilot or just as equally SAM operator or Tank Commander or Infantry soldier or Submarine Captain or…) who is able to Observe the enemy first, and who are able to Orientate themselves first and then Decide faster before finally Acting, all faster then their enemy, will win the engagement.
 
So what does this have to do with LO/Stealth?  Well, if the enemy can't see you or if they are not able to fully discern which way you are headed or whether you are friend or foe until it is too late then that could provide the few extra minutes or even seconds necessary to get in a first shot.  The OODA Loop is what it is really all about here!


Now to take your scenario a little further, stealth may let an Air Force decide whether or not they need to attack a certain target or not. It allows for a more refined approach rather then the head on assault you appear to suggest is the only alternative.


I'm not disagreeing that stealth gives you more time to make judgement calls, and expands your attack options.

But not everybody is going to be like the US / NATO who values surgical precision strike.

There are other militaries who just care about going in, blowing everything up and get stuff done in a blunt Blitzkreig style.

Not everybody values the stealth approach as much as the US / NATO.
Offline

gtx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 21:52
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Unread post22 Mar 2013, 21:47

I doubt there are too many these days who take such a view. Moreover, as I indicated in my last post, this is nothing new. Look back over the entire history of air combat and you will see such tactics applied. To portray it as something new and only applying to the US/NATO is wrong.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6471
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post22 Mar 2013, 21:50

kamenriderblade wrote:
gtx wrote:
kamenriderblade wrote:My question is how good is the current & upcoming generation of Russian / Chinese / Iranian / North Korean land radar systems.

Cause Stealth is great if you plan on penetrating to do damage.

If not, then just destroy the radar systems as you see them in a Blitzkrieg attack.

Stealth only matters if you want to go past the radar systems to take out their aircraft while they're on the ground and destroy their runways.


That is an overly simplistic view.

The combination of technologies/techniques/tactics that is commonly referred to as Stealth or Low Observability (LO) is nothing new.  Almost as long as there have been fights, people have been looking for ways to gain an advantage over their counterparts.  When we were relying on visual detection methods only, we relied on technologies such as camouflage or misleading paint schemes or tactics such as diving out of the sun.  When radar became more prevalent, the idea of flying below the radar gained popularity.  Now days, when we are applying these new LO technologies we are doing so because they remove some of the limitations of the past – therefore a modern combat aircraft with modern LO technologies applied is able to fly at medium altitude which increases range and also reduces pilot fatigue or potential for attack by guns/flak.  So in essence, modern LO technologies are not in fact compromising a platform, rather they are in actual fact expanding its potential/capabilities/usefulness!
 
To go even further, one needs to revisit the concept of the OODA loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop) - the operator (pilot or just as equally SAM operator or Tank Commander or Infantry soldier or Submarine Captain or…) who is able to Observe the enemy first, and who are able to Orientate themselves first and then Decide faster before finally Acting, all faster then their enemy, will win the engagement.
 
So what does this have to do with LO/Stealth?  Well, if the enemy can't see you or if they are not able to fully discern which way you are headed or whether you are friend or foe until it is too late then that could provide the few extra minutes or even seconds necessary to get in a first shot.  The OODA Loop is what it is really all about here!


Now to take your scenario a little further, stealth may let an Air Force decide whether or not they need to attack a certain target or not. It allows for a more refined approach rather then the head on assault you appear to suggest is the only alternative.


I'm not disagreeing that stealth gives you more time to make judgement calls, and expands your attack options.

But not everybody is going to be like the US / NATO who values surgical precision strike.

There are other militaries who just care about going in, blowing everything up and get stuff done in a blunt Blitzkreig style.

Not everybody values the stealth approach as much as the US / NATO.


you get less done and use more resources just securing the air in that case than targeting objectives that aid in the resolution of the conflict. Blitzkreig by definition is bypass what slows you down and strike deep. it is also targeting (Schwerepunkt) a focal point, rather than everything. Its not "blowing everything up" its blowing up what you need and where you need it, anything else is a waste of time.

SAM and radar hunting slows you down. Without the F-117 no one is doing strikes in downtown Baghdad on the first day. probably be weeks before that happens without LO
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2642
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post22 Mar 2013, 22:43

So you're saying every potential opponent we would be facing in the future (Iran, China, North Korea) would care about surgical precision (Military Targets only), they wouldn't hurt civilians by mass area bombings if given the chance to hurt American Civilians?

If given the chance, I'm pretty sure all 3 governments wouldn't mind mass bombings of major US cities on their way towards a military target.

It's not like their civilians can do anything about their dictatorship of a government, their governments pretty much hate's the US and all of NATO despite whatever platitudes they may say or try to hold back their tongue on insulting the US.
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 878
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post22 Mar 2013, 23:51

kamenriderblade wrote:So you're saying every potential opponent we would be facing in the future (Iran, China, North Korea) would care about surgical precision (Military Targets only), they wouldn't hurt civilians by mass area bombings if given the chance to hurt American Civilians?

If given the chance, I'm pretty sure all 3 governments wouldn't mind mass bombings of major US cities on their way towards a military target.

It's not like their civilians can do anything about their dictatorship of a government, their governments pretty much hate's the US and all of NATO despite whatever platitudes they may say or try to hold back their tongue on insulting the US.


Mass bombing requires an essential element: mass. Why send 100 bombers to carpet bomb a target when you can send 1 to hit the same target? You need pay for the crews aircraft and bombs for little purpose.

What spurred on the employment of PGMs in the 1970s? It was the horrible cost in men and material being spent on bombing raids over Vietnam that were having little effect. Instead of sending 100 aircraft strike packages, they could send 10.

For example, Paul Doumer bridge was struck by five different times between 1965 and 1972, usually 30~50 F-105s escorted by a number of other jammers, fighters, and decoys. They succeeded in dropping a few spans at a time, but the bridge was usually repaired within a few months. It only took 4 Phantoms armed with 3000 and 2000 lbs paveways to drop the entire bridge span on one side and render it unusable for a year.

So why would we want to send hundreds of bombers when we can do the same effect in one aircraft? It makes no sense at all except for blind violence and revenge.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2642
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post23 Mar 2013, 01:36

hb_pencil wrote:
kamenriderblade wrote:So you're saying every potential opponent we would be facing in the future (Iran, China, North Korea) would care about surgical precision (Military Targets only), they wouldn't hurt civilians by mass area bombings if given the chance to hurt American Civilians?

If given the chance, I'm pretty sure all 3 governments wouldn't mind mass bombings of major US cities on their way towards a military target.

It's not like their civilians can do anything about their dictatorship of a government, their governments pretty much hate's the US and all of NATO despite whatever platitudes they may say or try to hold back their tongue on insulting the US.


Mass bombing requires an essential element: mass. Why send 100 bombers to carpet bomb a target when you can send 1 to hit the same target? You need pay for the crews aircraft and bombs for little purpose.

What spurred on the employment of PGMs in the 1970s? It was the horrible cost in men and material being spent on bombing raids over Vietnam that were having little effect. Instead of sending 100 aircraft strike packages, they could send 10.

For example, Paul Doumer bridge was struck by five different times between 1965 and 1972, usually 30~50 F-105s escorted by a number of other jammers, fighters, and decoys. They succeeded in dropping a few spans at a time, but the bridge was usually repaired within a few months. It only took 4 Phantoms armed with 3000 and 2000 lbs paveways to drop the entire bridge span on one side and render it unusable for a year.

So why would we want to send hundreds of bombers when we can do the same effect in one aircraft? It makes no sense at all except for blind violence and revenge.


I get it, we (US / NATO) care about collatoral damage, we care about efficiency, we care about winning in the most lop sided fashion as possible (e.g. Desert Storm).

That being said, our potential future enemies (Iran, China, North Korea) could probably care less.

Yes there is a place for Stealth, it's the arms race, they have to compete on every front or risk being shot down before even seeing the enemy.

But if given the chance to strike the US and do severe damage, they would come out and carpet bomb all our major cities if given the opportunity to find a way past our defenses.

All because we behave resonably (relatively) when it comes to fighting, doesn't mean our opponents will. I'm advocating that we employ Stealth and other advance technology for our forces, but you got to look at the enemy and what they are willing to do.

Iran, China, North Korea all don't value human lives. The sheer atrocities they inflict on their own citizens is proof of that. They probably could care less about any other people around the world. If given an opening, they will invade and conquer if left unchecked.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 13 guests