Development Cost - Comparison w/ other fighter jet programs

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2013, 21:14
by g3143
The media keeps restating how the F-35 program is the most expensive defense weapon in U.S. history and they wont let your forget it. But I was wondering how much did it cost to develop and buy the F-16, Harrier, A-10, and the F/A-18 together? Is the cost of these programs combined greater, equal, or less then the f-35 cost? Sorry if this has already bin answered before on another thread.

RE: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2013, 21:20
by luke_sandoz
That is because no other procurement program in history used the 50+ year costing methodology.

Apply that methodology the CVN's and see what happens.

Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2013, 21:26
by lookieloo
g3143 wrote:The media keeps restating how the f-35 program is the most expensive defense weapon in U.S. history and they wont let your forget it. But I was wondering how much did it cost to develop and buy the f-16, Harrier, and the F/-18 together? Is the cost of these programs combined greater, equal, or less then the f-35 cost? Sorry if this has already bin answered before on another thread.
You forgot to include the A-10 on that list.

Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2013, 21:33
by g3143
lookieloo wrote:
g3143 wrote:The media keeps restating how the f-35 program is the most expensive defense weapon in U.S. history and they wont let your forget it. But I was wondering how much did it cost to develop and buy the f-16, Harrier, and the F/-18 together? Is the cost of these programs combined greater, equal, or less then the f-35 cost? Sorry if this has already bin answered before on another thread.
You forgot to include the A-10 on that list.


Sorry, almost forgot about the A-10 :oops:

Re: RE: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2013, 21:48
by XanderCrews
luke_sandoz wrote:That is because no other procurement program in history used the 50+ year costing methodology.

Apply that methodology the CVN's and see what happens.


especially since the latest class is slated to last 90 years. :shock:

Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2013, 21:52
by XanderCrews
g3143 wrote:The media keeps restating how the f-35 program is the most expensive defense weapon in U.S. history and they wont let your forget it. But I was wondering how much did it cost to develop and buy the F-16, Harrier, A-10, and the F/A-18 together? Is the cost of these programs combined greater, equal, or less then the f-35 cost? Sorry if this has already bin answered before on another thread.


I guess it would be all on how you measure it as well... do you count the YF-17 or AV-8C? how about development upgrades that made the F-16 and F-18 better multi- role aircraft?


:?:

Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2013, 22:01
by lookieloo
XanderCrews wrote:
g3143 wrote:The media keeps restating how the f-35 program is the most expensive defense weapon in U.S. history and they wont let your forget it. But I was wondering how much did it cost to develop and buy the F-16, Harrier, A-10, and the F/A-18 together? Is the cost of these programs combined greater, equal, or less then the f-35 cost? Sorry if this has already bin answered before on another thread.


I guess it would be all on how you measure it as well... do you count the YF-17 or AV-8C? how about development upgrades that made the F-16 and F-18 better multi- role aircraft? :?:
Yup, gotta include all the pods.

RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2013, 22:54
by the32notes
Media also loves to talk about how expensive it is to operate and maintain the Lighnings

So operating and maintaining cost ei? While where at it, we could also include the extensive use of KC-135s, AWACS, EW Support Assets, among others.

And above all that, what kind capability do you end up with. can the legacy platforms "manage China"? penetrate deep into Russia for instance? I know the F-35 can. The others.......I'd like to say yes, but....

Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2013, 22:57
by g3143
XanderCrews wrote:
g3143 wrote:The media keeps restating how the f-35 program is the most expensive defense weapon in U.S. history and they wont let your forget it. But I was wondering how much did it cost to develop and buy the F-16, Harrier, A-10, and the F/A-18 together? Is the cost of these programs combined greater, equal, or less then the f-35 cost? Sorry if this has already bin answered before on another thread.


I guess it would be all on how you measure it as well... do you count the YF-17 or AV-8C? how about development upgrades that made the F-16 and F-18 better multi- role aircraft?


:?:


I guess the YF-17 and AV-8C would count as development for the Harrier and the F/A-18. And development upgrades for the F-16 and F-18 would also count too. I think the total life cycle cost of the F-35 also includes future upgrades too.

Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2013, 23:51
by lookieloo
g3143 wrote: I think the total life cycle cost of the F-35 also includes future upgrades too.
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they also tried to include the future costs of maintaining static displays in museums.

Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 00:04
by haavarla
the32notes wrote:Media also loves to talk about how expensive it is to operate and maintain the Lighnings

And above all that, what kind capability do you end up with. can the legacy platforms "manage China"? penetrate deep into Russia for instance? I know the F-35 can. The others.......I'd like to say yes, but....


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"

Think about it. At this point its a very difficult mission(consider F-35 is not in service), and lets go 5 years or 10 into the future. Do you know how many F-35 that will be on order or even in service around the world?

Do you know how the re-armament of VVS and PLAAF will look like at that timeframe?

Five years ago, folks on this forum downplayed both China and Russia AF.
Said the Flanker fleet was going to drop sharply and the F-35 would enter service in due time, and take over a large chunk of former Flanker market.
India was going to order F-35 and kill all Flanker production bla bla and what not.

Look at present time, the Flanker production has never been higher, there are both advanced Su-30SM and Super MKI on order. China will most likely order Su-35.
Hell, even Indonesia will order more Su-30/35:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... ws&rpc=401

Russia is likely to order around 100 Su-35S and 60 Su-30SM alone.



The more people claim future fighter prospect for certain...

Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 00:34
by battleshipagincourt
lookieloo wrote:I guess it would be all on how you measure it as well... do you count the YF-17 or AV-8C? how about development upgrades that made the F-16 and F-18 better multi- role aircraft? :?:
Yup, gotta include all the pods.[/quote]

And let's throw in all the production numbers as well. Supposing the F-35 fulfills its entire order with the US and foreign customers, its grand total would be roughly 3,000.

Now let's compare that to 4,500+ F-16's. About 1,500 F-18's. 716 A-10's. And about 350 AV-8B's.

Now if you simply compared the production costs of just the 4,500 F-16's, you'd have all these for just $135 billion @ $30 million each in 2012 dollars. That's opposed to the F-35's ~$300 billion for only 3,000. Assuming a favorable unit cost of only $100 million and not taking R&D into account.

In the end you'd find the F-35 is just the latest trend in increasingly more expensive fighters in ever decreasing quantities. Granted the F-35 is at least as capable as the fighters it's replacing and is vastly more capable in many ways, but the fact is that it's extraordinarily expensive... so much so that you may not be willing to replace three less capable fighters with one F-35.

Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 00:40
by lookieloo
battleshipagincourt wrote:...just the 4,500 F-16's alone, you'd get to about $135 billion... about $30 million each in 2012 dollars.
Eh, I know that's the number put out on wiki...

Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 01:14
by XanderCrews
haavarla wrote:
the32notes wrote:Media also loves to talk about how expensive it is to operate and maintain the Lighnings

And above all that, what kind capability do you end up with. can the legacy platforms "manage China"? penetrate deep into Russia for instance? I know the F-35 can. The others.......I'd like to say yes, but....


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"

Think about it. At this point its a very difficult mission(consider F-35 is not in service), and lets go 5 years or 10 into the future. Do you know how many F-35 that will be on order or even in service around the world?

Do you know how the re-armament of VVS and PLAAF will look like at that timeframe?

Five years ago, folks on this forum downplayed both China and Russia AF.
Said the Flanker fleet was going to drop sharply and the F-35 would enter service in due time, and take over a large chunk of former Flanker market.
India was going to order F-35 and kill all Flanker production bla bla and what not.

Look at present time, the Flanker production has never been higher, there are both advanced Su-30SM and Super MKI on order China will most likely order Su-35.
Hell, even Indonesia will order more Su-30/35:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... ws&rpc=401

Russia is likely to order around 100 Su-35S and 60 Su-30SM alone.



The more people claim future fighter prospect for certain...


He said while making claims such as "is likely" and "most likely" :roll:

The Flankers looking great!! What will it be in 5 to 10 years? 35? 40 years old? Thats something the Flanker really has on the F-35, being designed in the 1970's and all, its here now. And where is the F-35? huh still be developed instead of upgraded for the thousandth iteration. I can't wait to see the Ultra Flanker WXYZ. Its just a wonderful aircraft that keeps on going.

RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 07:42
by haavarla
My point is, you blame the media for picking up on all the F-35 problems now.
Funny, i did not hear any complaints 5 years ago when the media painted the F-35 up in the sky..

The cost overrun of F-35 and its comparison to other jets are very much a reason we still see Asian countries still ordering Sukhois like never before. Lots of bang for the bucks.
But reading your post, I guess you know much better than the various AF around the world and what kind of requrements they need.

Just admit it, LM shot them self in the foot and the future F-35 prospect as less than rose red.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 08:29
by popcorn
haavarla wrote:My point is, you blame the media for picking up on all the F-35 problems now.
Funny, i did not hear any complaints 5 years ago when the media painted the F-35 up in the sky..

The cost overrun of F-35 and its comparison to other jets are very much a reason we still see Asian countries still ordering Sukhois like never before. Lots of bang for the bucks.
But reading your post, i guess you know much better than the various AF around the world and what kind of requrements they need.
Just admit it, LM shot them self in the foot and the future F-35 prospect as less than rose red.


So which Asian countries are buying Sukhois like never before because of F-35 cost overrun?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 08:39
by gtx
haavarla wrote:a reason we still see Asian countries still ordering Sukhois like never before.


And which Asian countries would that be exactly?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 08:58
by haavarla
Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, India. They all are in Asia right?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 09:02
by gtx
haavarla wrote:Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, India. They all are in Asia right?


And when exactly did they last order any in significant numbers? Moreover do you seriously believe any of these are influenced by the F-35 as you have stated?

Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 09:03
by haavarla
XanderCrews wrote:
haavarla wrote:
the32notes wrote:Media also loves to talk about how expensive it is to operate and maintain the Lighnings

And above all that, what kind capability do you end up with. can the legacy platforms "manage China"? penetrate deep into Russia for instance? I know the F-35 can. The others.......I'd like to say yes, but....


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"

Think about it. At this point its a very difficult mission(consider F-35 is not in service), and lets go 5 years or 10 into the future. Do you know how many F-35 that will be on order or even in service around the world?

Do you know how the re-armament of VVS and PLAAF will look like at that timeframe?

Five years ago, folks on this forum downplayed both China and Russia AF.
Said the Flanker fleet was going to drop sharply and the F-35 would enter service in due time, and take over a large chunk of former Flanker market.
India was going to order F-35 and kill all Flanker production bla bla and what not.

Look at present time, the Flanker production has never been higher, there are both advanced Su-30SM and Super MKI on order China will most likely order Su-35.
Hell, even Indonesia will order more Su-30/35:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... ws&rpc=401

Russia is likely to order around 100 Su-35S and 60 Su-30SM alone.



The more people claim future fighter prospect for certain...


He said while making claims such as "is likely" and "most likely" :roll:

The Flankers looking great!! What will it be in 5 to 10 years? 35? 40 years old? Thats something the Flanker really has on the F-35, being designed in the 1970's and all, its here now. And where is the F-35? huh still be developed instead of upgraded for the thousandth iteration. I can't wait to see the Ultra Flanker WXYZ. Its just a wonderful aircraft that keeps on going.


You say 30-40 years old fighter design, true.
Then explain why US offered 30-40 years old fighter design in the Indian MMRCA tender?
Ofcourse, when it comes to US 30-40 year old fighter design, they are more than potent.
And when we see the latest pimped up flankers on the market, they are relics.. riiight.. gimmi a break.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 09:14
by haavarla
gtx wrote:
haavarla wrote:Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, India. They all are in Asia right?


And when exactly did they last order any in significant numbers? Moreover do you seriously believe any of these are influenced by the F-35 as you have stated?


Significant numbers?? Why does it have to be in significant numbers?
Vietnam recieved their latest batch of Su-30MK2, same with Indonesia, more on order too.
i would not be surprised if Malaysia order up more Flankers.

India, over 40 new MKI on order. The notion was then they would go for a stopgap with superbugs, and then order F-35, just like RAAF.

There are talks that Bangladesh will soon throw out a fighter tender, or perhaps not.. Maybe just order up new Mig's or Sukhoi's on the fly.

No i don't think the F-35 influenced these countries much, but other here seemed to believe so 5 years ago.. the F-35 would come cheap and F-16 cost level to operate.. well..
As i pointed out.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 09:54
by gtx
"still ordering Sukhois like never before." would imply you mean that people are ordering in "significant numbers". In reality the orders have been in drips and drabs for years now. The last time anyone placed a new Flanker order has been years ago.

You talk about Indonesia? They have less then 10 and the largest order (in 2010) was for 6! Hardly worth mentioning.

Malaysia WILL NOT be ordering anymore.

To use your own words: gimmi a break. You made absurd claims and then try to back it up by clutching at straws!

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 10:10
by spazsinbad
Recent news about Indonesian Sukhoi order confirms above claim by 'gtx'.

More Sukhoi Fighters for China, Indonesia AIN Defense Perspective » February 22, 2013 by Vladimir Karnozov

"...Earlier this month, another top Russian official confirmed that Indonesia is placing a firm order for six more Sukhoi Su-30MK2 two-seaters. Anatoly Isaikin, director general at weapon-sales agency Rosoboronexport, told the media that the deal also includes an unspecified number of Saturn AL31F engines and other equipment. The Indonesian air force already operates five Su-27SK /SKM single-seat and five Su-30MKK/MK2 twin-seat fighters...."

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... -indonesia

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 11:10
by haavarla
gtx wrote:"still ordering Sukhois like never before." would imply you mean that people are ordering in "significant numbers". In reality the orders have been in drips and drabs for years now. The last time anyone placed a new Flanker order has been years ago.

You talk about Indonesia? They have less then 10 and the largest order (in 2010) was for 6! Hardly worth mentioning.

Malaysia WILL NOT be ordering anymore.

To use your own words: gimmi a break. You made absurd claims and then try to back it up by clutching at straws!


Not quite.

In December 2011, a contract has been signed for the delivery of 6 additional Flankers to TNI-AU in order to established a complete 16 ship squadron.
They recieved two more Sukhoi's recently, making their inventory 12 units.

Vietnam: 30 December 2011 - Russia’s Sukhoi aircraft manufacturers have dispatched another batch of four Sukhoi SU-30 multipurpose fighters to Vietnam. The previous set of four fighters was delivered to Vietnam in june. All in all, 12 SU-30 aircraft along with $1bln worth of armaments, equipment and spare parts will be supplied to Vietnam under the contract.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/12/30/63161174/

India: Dec 24/12: Super-30s contract. Russia signs over $4 billion worth of defense contracts with India, including the deal for 42 “Super 30? upgraded SU-30MKIs. Key Super 30 upgrades are reported to include a new radar (probably AESA, and likely Phazotron’s Zhuk-AE), improved onboard computers, upgraded electronic warfare systems, and the ability to fire the air-launched version of the Indo-Russian BrahMos supersonic cruise missile.


Bangladesh: http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_11_15/Bangl ... -aircraft/

And why would Malaysia not order more Sukhois?
http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99 ... -deal.aspx

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 11:44
by haavarla
Regarding small orders for small AF, Sure. Be realistically. But its a wise decision. The Flanker production lines are at all time high, so small orders it wont rise the procurement cost any. Got to keep their budget in check i guess.
Which makes the F-35 even more out of the question.

It looks like more countries will have to settle for driblets..

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... e10081027/

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 14:30
by popcorn
Which Asian countries can realistically qualify to acquire F-35s? A country would have to demonstrate a legitimate need for such an advanced aircraft, have the financial means and organizational expertise to own,and operate them and lastly, pass diplomatic muster. To-date, Japan, South Korea and Singapore meet the criteria. India is also cleared to consider the jet if they so wish, unlikely as it may be in the foreseeable future. Malaysia is the only other Asian state IMO that could possibly be added to the list in the future.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 15:40
by XanderCrews
i did not hear any complaints 5 years ago when the media painted the F-35 up in the sky..


I must have missed that 'golden era.'


But reading your post, I guess you know much better than the various AF around the world and what kind of requrements they need.


uhh...OK

Just so I understand the logic-- not every country in the whole world is ordering the F-35 so its a failure because the usual suspects prefer Eastern Equipment? Is the Flanker a failure because its not going to be sold to Canada?

haavarla wrote:Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, India. They all are in Asia right?


We were trying to sell the F-35 to all of these countries?

haavarla wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
haavarla wrote:
the32notes wrote:Media also loves to talk about how expensive it is to operate and maintain the Lighnings

And above all that, what kind capability do you end up with. can the legacy platforms "manage China"? penetrate deep into Russia for instance? I know the F-35 can. The others.......I'd like to say yes, but....


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"

Think about it. At this point its a very difficult mission(consider F-35 is not in service), and lets go 5 years or 10 into the future. Do you know how many F-35 that will be on order or even in service around the world?

Do you know how the re-armament of VVS and PLAAF will look like at that timeframe?

Five years ago, folks on this forum downplayed both China and Russia AF.
Said the Flanker fleet was going to drop sharply and the F-35 would enter service in due time, and take over a large chunk of former Flanker market.
India was going to order F-35 and kill all Flanker production bla bla and what not.

Look at present time, the Flanker production has never been higher, there are both advanced Su-30SM and Super MKI on order China will most likely order Su-35.
Hell, even Indonesia will order more Su-30/35:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/ ... ws&rpc=401

Russia is likely to order around 100 Su-35S and 60 Su-30SM alone.



The more people claim future fighter prospect for certain...


He said while making claims such as "is likely" and "most likely" :roll:

The Flankers looking great!! What will it be in 5 to 10 years? 35? 40 years old? Thats something the Flanker really has on the F-35, being designed in the 1970's and all, its here now. And where is the F-35? huh still be developed instead of upgraded for the thousandth iteration. I can't wait to see the Ultra Flanker WXYZ. Its just a wonderful aircraft that keeps on going.


You say 30-40 years old fighter design, true.
Then explain why US offered 30-40 years old fighter design in the Indian MMRCA tender?
Ofcourse, when it comes to US 30-40 year old fighter design, they are more than potent.
And when we see the latest pimped up flankers on the market, they are relics.. riiight.. gimmi a break.


The F-18E/F prototype first flew in 1995. And the MMRCA didnt feature the Flanker either. :roll: Thus by your rules the flanker is a failure because it wasn't selected--It wasn't entered of course. (Also its hard for the F-35 to win in a contest it never entered)

We get it-- someone had the nerve to imply that Russia's vaunted airspace could be easily penetrated by something other than a German teenager in a Cessna, and you like flankers.

The whole basis of your arguement is "sure the F-35 is going to sell 3,000 units to multiple countries, but we are going to sell a hand full to a few countries too!" checkmate alright.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 16:03
by firstimpulse
haavarla wrote: still see Asian countries still ordering Sukhois like never before. Lots of bang for the bucks.
But reading your post, I guess you know much better than the various AF around the world and what kind of requrements they need.

LM shot them self in the foot and the future F-35 prospect as less than rose red.


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.
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.

The Flanker is shaping up to be the best 4th gen aircraft available to those who won't do business with the United States, and it's prospects are good considering that.
But their are far more nations lining up for the next generation than for something designed a decade or two before I was born.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 16:24
by maus92
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 16:35
by Lightndattic
Better yet, compare the projected F-35 program costs to the B-52. It's been around for 50 years and has numbers available for the whole time.

Just a 5 minute search shows $642M from 2000 through 2011.

That doesn't even touch:
Aircraft acquisition costs (700+ airframes).
Construction of facilities (HUGE numbers during the cold war).
Fuel use over the last 60 years (how many hours of airborne alert and Chrome Dome missions were flown?).
Personnel costs to fly and maintain it.
MANY deficiencies and problems throughout it's development and service lifetime.
Any upgrades prior to 2000 (all the structural corrections for low level flying, all the various weapons modifications).
Research and testing of 8 different models (X/Y prototypes through H model).

I don't think it's too much of a leap to the program cost is more than $1T in today's dollar.

It also went through many of the same teething problems the F-35 is going through right now (Engines, Hydraulics and controls, cockpit environmental, repeated groundings, numerous component redesigns, threat of cancellations, concurrent production and testing, incorporating new materials and technologies into the aircraft

Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 18:22
by the32notes
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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 19:49
by hb_pencil
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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 20:06
by firstimpulse
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:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 20:12
by firstimpulse
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?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 20:25
by gtx
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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 21:13
by XanderCrews
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!!"

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 21:17
by KamenRiderBlade
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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 21:34
by gtx
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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 21:36
by XanderCrews
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

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 21:42
by KamenRiderBlade
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 21:47
by gtx
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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 21:50
by XanderCrews
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

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 22:43
by KamenRiderBlade
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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2013, 23:51
by hb_pencil
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.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 01:36
by KamenRiderBlade
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.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 05:20
by gtx
No I don't think you do get it.  You seem to be confusing yourself as you go especially as you mention of precision strikes and collateral damage.

The whole issue of stealth is that it makes one more survivable.  Therefore one can actually complete a mission and do so efficiently.  Even the most uncaring malicious warlord would jump at the chance of having a weapon that would allow 1 man/plane do the same job that 100 or 1000 do...even if this is just because he could send out these to strike 100 or 1000 targets rather then 1.  

Rather then focussing on aircraft, think of it in simple terms:  if you had the ability to make a soldier/assassin invisible.  Wouldn't that soldier be more likely to slip in to kill your enemy then sending 100 of your toughest men against his defences?  Why would you send the 100?  Unless you simply wanted to kill the 100?

Bringing it back to the likes of Iran, Nth Korea china etc that you have mentioned.  If these are so uncaring about stealth why do they even paint camouflage on their aircraft?  Why not send them in to battle in hi viz schemes covered in anti-imperialist slogans?  Why?  Because they do care about these actually completing the missions set to them.  Painting camouflage is one of the most basic means of achieving stealth.

And even if one were to accept your premise then it simply makes the job of dealing with such an enemy all the easier.  All one has to do is make sure one has plenty of bullets/cannon rounds/missiles because there is going to be a turkey shoot a happenin'

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 06:23
by KamenRiderBlade
gtx wrote:No I don't think you do get it.  You seem to be confusing yourself as you go especially as you mention of precision strikes and collateral damage.

The whole issue of stealth is that it makes one more survivable.  Therefore one can actually complete a mission and do so efficiently.  Even the most uncaring malicious warlord would jump at the chance of having a weapon that would allow 1 man/plane do the same job that 100 or 1000 do...even if this is just because he could send out these to strike 100 or 1000 targets rather then 1.  

Rather then focussing on aircraft, think of it in simple terms:  if you had the ability to make a soldier/assassin invisible.  Wouldn't that soldier be more likely to slip in to kill your enemy then sending 100 of your toughest men against his defences?  Why would you send the 100?  Unless you simply wanted to kill the 100?

Bringing it back to the likes of Iran, Nth Korea china etc that you have mentioned.  If these are so uncaring about stealth why do they even paint camouflage on their aircraft?  Why not send them in to battle in hi viz schemes covered in anti-imperialist slogans?  Why?  Because they do care about these actually completing the missions set to them.  Painting camouflage is one of the most basic means of achieving stealth.

And even if one were to accept your premise then it simply makes the job of dealing with such an enemy all the easier.  All one has to do is make sure one has plenty of bullets/cannon rounds/missiles because there is going to be a turkey shoot a happenin'


Look, I do understand the value of Stealth, I'm not against it, in fact I'm for it. Any technology that allows our forces to be more survivable is worth it IMO. If we can have Star Trek level cloaking technology now, we would employ it for our forces.

That being said, not all enemies will fight in the same manner.
Yes Stealth is a huge aspect to offense, but for a force like North Korea who doesn't have Stealth technology, they have something called MASSIVE numbers, they can zerg rush the enemies on land, air, and sea and cause massive damage to South Korea before NATO / US can come in to back them up.

Yes the South Korean's are watching with radar and other sensors, but all the sensors in the world can't stop a massive wave of military force unless you have brute force on your end to keep them at bay.

Luckily South Korea has decent numbers, but better technology than the North Koreans. What's not so lucky for everybody in the area is Kim Jong Un and his Saber Rattling with that underground nuke test.

Should Kim Jong Un ever become foolish enough to launch a full scale invasion of South Korea and have China / Russia help out with supplies for whatever reasons, things will get very ugly. After that Stealth will only help to such a degree, after that raw power is needed to deal with the situation, that's something the US / NATO has plenty of on top of Stealth.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost compari

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 06:46
by gtx
I think the days of China and Russia helping out Nth Korea in such a situation are long, long gone...

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost com

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 08:36
by KamenRiderBlade
gtx wrote:I think the days of China and Russia helping out Nth Korea in such a situation are long, long gone...


For our sake, I hope you're right, I want you to be right, but always prepare for the worst IMO.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 09:26
by geogen
Great thread, and very happy to help out with the 'cost comparison' response...

First off, for argument sake, let's leave out the A-10. The upgraded F-16 today (and tomorrow) can do virtually anything an F-35A could do vis-a-vis the A-10 mission, as a replacement for the A-10... and perhaps even better (given the CFT + EFT endurance advantage, not to mention the ability for a back-seat operator and ability to hang a next-gen Litening SE pod)!

Next, let's estimate the R&D Programs of the Hornet, the Harrier and the F-16. OK, do those 3 R&D Programs combined equal $60-65B? Probably not, but we can discuss that further, no problem.

Finally, estimate procurement costs of 3,100 combined units (total compared procurement of F-35 units being procured) worth of F/A-18 Hornets, AV-8B and F-16!

Thus, for comparison sake, compare the most recent 2,500 worldwide F-16 units ever procured (unit Weapon System cost + initial spares) + most recent 450 Hornets procured + most recent 150 AV-8B. Totals equal 3,100 units to fill an optimal 1-for-1 replacement numbers requirement.

Do those 3,100 combined legacy unit procurement costs equal more, or less than 3,100 combined F-35 Procurement (weapon system + initial spares)?

I thought so.

Not even a question requiring fact checking on Wiki...

So yes, very unfortunately... the most expensive US acquisition Program (2,440 units worth + majority of development) in history.

Next.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 10:28
by haavarla
XanderCrews wrote:
haavarla wrote:Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, India. They all are in Asia right?

We were trying to sell the F-35 to all of these countries?

India sure, but There are no interest from them.

Indonesia and Malaysia no, perhaps in the future, far into the future, since the Flankers are pretty much out of the box. Or so i heard people state 5 years ago..

The F-18E/F prototype first flew in 1995. And the MMRCA didnt feature the Flanker either. :roll: Thus by your rules the flanker is a failure because it wasn't selected--It wasn't entered of course. (Also its hard for the F-35 to win in a contest it never entered)

Did I say the SH was that old?
Wasn't There an F-16I or F-16V model also on the MMRCA Tender?

The whole basis of your arguement is "sure the F-35 is going to sell 3,000 units to multiple countries, but we are going to sell a hand full to a few countries too!" checkmate alright.

Are you claiming 3000 F-35 on Export alone!?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 15:59
by hobo
India sure, but There are no interest from them.

Indonesia and Malaysia no, perhaps in the future, far into the future, since the Flankers are pretty much out of the box. Or so i heard people state 5 years ago..


The F-35 was never evaluated for India. The timelines just didn't match up with what they wanted for their MMRCA competition. (Though as things are turning out it likely could have been available in time...)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 19:38
by count_to_10
First off, for argument sake, let's leave out the A-10. The upgraded F-16 today (and tomorrow) can do virtually anything an F-35A could do vis-a-vis the A-10 mission, as a replacement for the A-10... and perhaps even better (given the CFT + EFT endurance advantage, not to mention the ability for a back-seat operator and ability to hang a next-gen Litening SE pod)!

The F-35 will have a large SA advantage over the F-16 that will be of particular importance in the CAS mission. That, and I'm not sure that CAS won't be swallowed completely by Army drones and surface launch weapons early in the service life of the F-35.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 19:55
by firstimpulse
kamenriderblade wrote:That being said, not all enemies will fight in the same manner.
Yes Stealth is a huge aspect to offense, but for a force like North Korea who doesn't have Stealth technology, they have something called MASSIVE numbers, they can zerg rush the enemies on land, air, and sea and cause massive damage to South Korea before NATO / US can come in to back them up.


If you actually look at the numbers of servicable aircraft in the Chinese/Russian/DPRK aresenals, and the tactics they practice, this "MASSIVE" wave of aircraft as an opponent in the near term is not realistic. In twenty years perhaps, but even if half of China's airforce and the entirety of the North Korean's MiGs boldly flew south of the DMZ, the current forces US/SK forces in place would still have missiles left over after shooting two at each enemy airplane. And in twenty years we'll have perfected Cuda, and things will get even worse for the swarms.

Even if a hundred guys armed with pitchforks and knifes rush a machine gun nest, the machine gun is still going to win. Technology at work.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost compari

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 00:36
by KamenRiderBlade
How many SAM sites / missiles are located on the SK DMZ?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 02:34
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:Great thread, and very happy to help out with the 'cost comparison' response...

First off, for argument sake, let's leave out the A-10. The upgraded F-16 today (and tomorrow) can do virtually anything an F-35A could do vis-a-vis the A-10 mission, as a replacement for the A-10... and perhaps even better (given the CFT + EFT endurance advantage, not to mention the ability for a back-seat operator and ability to hang a next-gen Litening SE pod)!

Next, let's estimate the R&D Programs of the Hornet, the Harrier and the F-16. OK, do those 3 R&D Programs combined equal $60-65B? Probably not, but we can discuss that further, no problem.

Finally, estimate procurement costs of 3,100 combined units (total compared procurement of F-35 units being procured) worth of F/A-18 Hornets, AV-8B and F-16!

Thus, for comparison sake, compare the most recent 2,500 worldwide F-16 units ever procured (unit Weapon System cost + initial spares) + most recent 450 Hornets procured + most recent 150 AV-8B. Totals equal 3,100 units to fill an optimal 1-for-1 replacement numbers requirement.

Do those 3,100 combined legacy unit procurement costs equal more, or less than 3,100 combined F-35 Procurement (weapon system + initial spares)?

I thought so.

Not even a question requiring fact checking on Wiki...

So yes, very unfortunately... the most expensive US acquisition Program (2,440 units worth + majority of development) in history.

Next.


Did you adjust for inflation? Not only that, but the F-35 is being built in its fewer numbers thanks to its improved capability. So for the F-16/18/AV-8B to be as effective, it has to be built in greater numbers. the USMC is buying 240 F-35Bs, obviously 150 harriers is not equivelant no matter how you slice. The USMC is also retiring the EA-6B. Or does that not count either?

By this logic, we could retire the under 100 heavy bombers in USAF inventory and replace them with under 100 B-29s, and not miss a beat. Never mind that the B-29 is not as capable and its only thanks to the improvement of the B-1,B-2 and B-52, that we don't need 600 B-29s to do the same job.

Maybe we can buy 3100 P-51s and really save money?

So lets review: You basically took arbitrary numbers that would fit your own logic, failed to adjust for inflation, and then subsequently declared yourself correct. Congratulations.

Or so i heard people state 5 years ago..


Its a good thing no one on the internet claimed the Flanker would be the first interstellar aircraft capable of .5 past light speed, or It would be considered a failure since it can't do that.

I do see your point though, if someone says something on the internet that isn't true, its a reflection of the aircraft and not the idiot that stated it.

:roll:

Are you claiming 3000 F-35 on Export alone!?


No, but thanks for the twist in the words.

Hopefully you feel you have defended mother Russia enough, and we can get back to the original subject.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 02:53
by count_to_10
Even if a hundred guys armed with pitchforks and knifes rush a machine gun nest, the machine gun is still going to win. Technology at work.

It doesn't quite work like that -- the casualties caused by machine guns don't happen when the machine gun nest itself is rushed by a line of men -- the targets are too far apart. The killing happens when a machine gun is able to shoot down a charging line from the sides.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 07:21
by geogen
firstimpulse wrote:
kamenriderblade wrote:That being said, not all enemies will fight in the same manner.
Yes Stealth is a huge aspect to offense, but for a force like North Korea who doesn't have Stealth technology, they have something called MASSIVE numbers, they can zerg rush the enemies on land, air, and sea and cause massive damage to South Korea before NATO / US can come in to back them up.


If you actually look at the numbers of servicable aircraft in the Chinese/Russian/DPRK aresenals, and the tactics they practice, this "MASSIVE" wave of aircraft as an opponent in the near term is not realistic. In twenty years perhaps, but even if half of China's airforce and the entirety of the North Korean's MiGs boldly flew south of the DMZ, the current forces US/SK forces in place would still have missiles left over after shooting two at each enemy airplane. And in twenty years we'll have perfected Cuda, and things will get even worse for the swarms.

Even if a hundred guys armed with pitchforks and knifes rush a machine gun nest, the machine gun is still going to win. Technology at work.


Can you please provide a link to that site giving details into said tactics and actual numbers of serviceable manned and 'unmanned' jets available today and by say, 2017? Sounds like an interesting website. Thanks!

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 07:29
by geogen
count_to_10 wrote:
First off, for argument sake, let's leave out the A-10. The upgraded F-16 today (and tomorrow) can do virtually anything an F-35A could do vis-a-vis the A-10 mission, as a replacement for the A-10... and perhaps even better (given the CFT + EFT endurance advantage, not to mention the ability for a back-seat operator and ability to hang a next-gen Litening SE pod)!

The F-35 will have a large SA advantage over the F-16 that will be of particular importance in the CAS mission. That, and I'm not sure that CAS won't be swallowed completely by Army drones and surface launch weapons early in the service life of the F-35.


Order new build F-16C/D with new computer, new display (in development), equip with latest MAWS (providing ground fire location capability), AESA w/SAR and Litening SE pod (1k FLIR). Add CFT and a couple EFT enabling up to an extra 1 hr on station vs F-35. Arm with next-gen precision guided CAS munitions under development.

Buy 3 said new F-16s (fully equipped and armed) for every 2 F-35 in FY15. Sustain nearly twice more flyable hours per operational budget allocated. Call it a day.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 13:59
by count_to_10
geogen wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
First off, for argument sake, let's leave out the A-10. The upgraded F-16 today (and tomorrow) can do virtually anything an F-35A could do vis-a-vis the A-10 mission, as a replacement for the A-10... and perhaps even better (given the CFT + EFT endurance advantage, not to mention the ability for a back-seat operator and ability to hang a next-gen Litening SE pod)!

The F-35 will have a large SA advantage over the F-16 that will be of particular importance in the CAS mission. That, and I'm not sure that CAS won't be swallowed completely by Army drones and surface launch weapons early in the service life of the F-35.


Order new build F-16C/D with new computer, new display (in development), equip with latest MAWS (providing ground fire location capability), AESA w/SAR and Litening SE pod (1k FLIR). Add CFT and a couple EFT enabling up to an extra 1 hr on station vs F-35. Arm with next-gen precision guided CAS munitions under development.

Buy 3 said new F-16s (fully equipped and armed) for every 2 F-35 in FY15. Sustain nearly twice more flyable hours per operational budget allocated. Call it a day.

If the F-16 has the sensor fusion of the F-35, you won't be getting 3 for 2. Heck, with all the things you are adding, it might not even be cheaper than the F-35.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 15:14
by m
geogen wrote:Order new build F-16C/D with new computer, new display (in development), equip with latest MAWS (providing ground fire location capability), AESA w/SAR and Litening SE pod (1k FLIR). Add CFT and a couple EFT enabling up to an extra 1 hr on station vs F-35. Arm with next-gen precision guided CAS munitions under development.

Buy 3 said new F-16s (fully equipped and armed) for every 2 F-35 in FY15. Sustain nearly twice more flyable hours per operational budget allocated. Call it a day.


Still Russians, Chinese as well as India are building (and will fly) 5th generation jets.
What is gonna happen with the market in the near future as well do you think?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 16:03
by KamenRiderBlade
geogen wrote:
firstimpulse wrote:
kamenriderblade wrote:That being said, not all enemies will fight in the same manner.
Yes Stealth is a huge aspect to offense, but for a force like North Korea who doesn't have Stealth technology, they have something called MASSIVE numbers, they can zerg rush the enemies on land, air, and sea and cause massive damage to South Korea before NATO / US can come in to back them up.


If you actually look at the numbers of servicable aircraft in the Chinese/Russian/DPRK aresenals, and the tactics they practice, this "MASSIVE" wave of aircraft as an opponent in the near term is not realistic. In twenty years perhaps, but even if half of China's airforce and the entirety of the North Korean's MiGs boldly flew south of the DMZ, the current forces US/SK forces in place would still have missiles left over after shooting two at each enemy airplane. And in twenty years we'll have perfected Cuda, and things will get even worse for the swarms.

Even if a hundred guys armed with pitchforks and knifes rush a machine gun nest, the machine gun is still going to win. Technology at work.


Can you please provide a link to that site giving details into said tactics and actual numbers of serviceable manned and 'unmanned' jets available today and by say, 2017? Sounds like an interesting website. Thanks!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ac ... y_aircraft

Assuming a worse case scenario that:
- all the numbers are true
- assume that the higher end of those numbers are true if there is a range
- assuming there is a pilot for every aircraft (very plausible given the population in China, the pilots don't have to be well trained, just competent enough to fly and shoot, land)

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 16:09
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:
Order new build F-16C/D with new computer, new display (in development), equip with latest MAWS (providing ground fire location capability), AESA w/SAR and Litening SE pod (1k FLIR). Add CFT and a couple EFT enabling up to an extra 1 hr on station vs F-35. Arm with next-gen precision guided CAS munitions under development.

Buy 3 said new F-16s (fully equipped and armed) for every 2 F-35 in FY15. Sustain nearly twice more flyable hours per operational budget allocated. Call it a day.


My dad used to tell a joke that if a man needs a 30 foots ladder, and he goes to a store that sells a 30 foot ladder for 30 dollars, but it also sells a 10 foot ladder, and a 15 foot ladder and 5 foot stool along with duck tape for $29 "Some a$$hole will always try to save a buck"

Just to review your thought process on this, the goal is to take a brand new F-16 and make it as much like the F-35 as possible, in order to not buy something that is an actual F-35? the purpose of the exercise seems to be avoiding the 30 foot ladder. IF you are going to go to the trouble of buying a new jet, why not buy the one you need? instead of the one you will piece together with tape at the cost of your own safety that can't do the job as well and takes more time to construct?

the other half of this:

Buy 3 said new F-16s (fully equipped and armed) for every 2 F-35 in FY15. Sustain nearly twice more flyable hours per operational budget allocated. Call it a day.


Not only are the numbers complete horse sh*t, but assuming they were true, why is the goal to buy 3 aircraft when 2 will not only do, but do better? How much does it cost to have enough maintenance crews, logistics personnel, family housing, bases and hangers, fuel, pilots, ordnance bunkers, overhaul facilities, supply depots etc to keep that number of aircraft in proper operation? Or is the plan to just let 33 percent of the force rot, rather than spend more money on the support costs to sustain them? do we buy them and instantly moth ball them? Do we create whole squadrons that go into cadre status or do we buy 12 jets for every squadron, and expect only 8 to ever be operational? Making babies is the fun part, supporting them... not so much.

How does this work? with Canada for example people love to say "we can buy twice the number of X for the cost of the F-35!!" Well thats great on paper, but Canada will buy only 65 F-35s, they only operate around 80 aircraft as it is now, do they have the logistics and manpower to operate 130 of aircraft X?" The quick answer is "no" would they like to spend the money to do so over the next 42 years? the quicker answer is "no" is it practical or smart in any sense to buy 130 aircraft and only have enough people to actually use around 90 of them on a good day? No.

You are taking (false) dollars amounts in a very narrow view while ignoring real world issues that surround aircraft. This how governments get into such trouble. "one hand doesn't talk to the other" as they say so while you "save" in one area expenses in another skyrocket and become unsustainable. At its core every man and woman in the USAF exists for the aircraft. The USAF doesn't employ millions of people because the jets like people, they need those bodies to make the planes fly, whether you are a pilot, crew chief, administrator, nurse, or even day care personnel paid by the government to watch over the kiddies. None of that is free.

The military is also a "redundant organization" for example there is not one Lt. Col that is in charge of an sqn. There is a Lt. Col. an XO (Major) and then wing and section leaders, along with maintenance officers and finally the pilots. the USAF has the highest ratio of officers to enlisted, at 1 for every 4 enlisted. So when creating a air wing for example its not a matter of getting a Major General and then a few colonels for the groups, and 9 Lt Colonels for the squadrons, its hundreds of officers if not over a thousand. Each command has a requirement that must be filled by a certain rank. The more to command, the more commands get created, then there are commands for commands. Its exponential growth. I heard that the Navy has more admirals than ships, it does not surprise me in the slightest.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2013, 17:38
by g3143
Wow it looks like this got off topic really easy.

I guess i will restate the question with more detail.

The F-35 is projected to cost ~$1.5 trillion which amounts to cost to develop, build, fly and maintain all the U.S. F-35s on order for 55 years. But I was wondering how much does the (F-16, harrier, F/A-18, and the A-10) under the same parameters being put on the F-35.

Is the F-35 more or less expensive then a/c its replacing and by what margin?

F-35:
To buy and develop = ~$397 Billion
Total cost over 55 years = ~$1.5 trillion

(F-16, harrier, F/A-18, and the A-10):
To buy and develop = ?
Total cost over 55 years = ?

Feel free to correct me if i got anything wrong or if I am missing something.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2013, 02:15
by lookieloo
g3143 wrote:Wow it looks like this got off topic really easy.

I guess i will restate the question with more detail.

The F-35 is projected to cost ~$1.5 trillion which amounts to cost to develop, build, fly and maintain all the U.S. F-35s on order for 55 years. But I was wondering how much does the (F-16, harrier, F/A-18, and the A-10) under the same parameters being put on the F-35.

Is the F-35 more or less expensive then a/c its replacing and by what margin?

F-35:
To buy and develop = ~$397 Billion
Total cost over 55 years = ~$1.5 trillion

(F-16, harrier, F/A-18, and the A-10):
To buy and develop = ?
Total cost over 55 years = ?

Feel free to correct me if i got anything wrong or if I am missing something.
Honestly, no one here actually has the resources to answer that definitively. It'd take a congressional commission just to try; and even then, the results (whichever side they favor) would be as suspect as the $1.5 trillion number because there are simply too many variables to take into account. Then there's the human factor; someone has to decide what does and doesn't count, most likely skewing the results one way or another based on political utility.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Cost comparison

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2013, 01:22
by USMilFan
XanderCrews wrote:How much does it cost to have enough maintenance crews, logistics personnel...


Indeed, careful analyses such as yours, f/e/g/s, show why there likely is a very strong economic case favoring the F-35 in virtually every country to which the F-35 might possibly become available. My compliments on your excellent insights offered here.

But while it is rare indeed to find careful analyses such as yours here on f-16.net, no doubt the planners who do this professionally carefully quantify every operating cost related to each alternative procurement option. The link below demonstrates how flawed assumptions can easily mislead the public to making highly flawed conclusions:

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/pentagon-caused-most-of-the-increases-in-f-35-costs-so-it-can-fix-them?a=1&c=1171


Spudman’s seminal post, linked below, shows clearly enough the implications of a missions approach on total force structure:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=246165&highlight=#246165


From this, we can see easily enough the implications for operating costs.

We should keep in mind that most analyses of this kind likely restrict themselves to the costs and benefits of peacetime operations only. Costs and benefits of actual wartime operations, however likely or not, are also worth considering.

Thus far, of course, we have considered only quantifiable factors in our analysis while ignoring important, and possibly decisive, subjective factors. Among others, these may include benefits arising from deterrence and the so-called “human” costs of actual conflict. What is the deterrent value of each alternative? What are the likely human costs of each alternative? The link below is to one of the best non-technical discussions I have seen on f-16.net. XanderCrews raises the point about human costs starting on page 2 of this thread. I highly recommend this entire thread to everyone. Here is the link:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20622-postdays-0-postorder-asc.html