Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

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

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post21 Aug 2013, 04:13

Count-to-10 -- Let's say we compromise: Order 400 of those NAFT F-23 to equip joint USAF-USN Tactical command, augment with new build F-16, Super Hornets as gap-fillers, round off with UAV/UCAV + next gen stand-off and call it a day until 2035 =)

That said, whether they started off with an external pod or not, until the internal system could have been integrated, it still would have likely qualified as 'good enough' in the game-changer category. In my opinion.

Spud -- I was only challenging you on your Super Hornet 'FRP' argument because I believe you have argued that point before...i.e., price points of an 'FRP' FY15-FY18 Super Hornet vs an LRIP F-35. Moreover, as the Shornet is being upgraded incrementally, so should the F-35 be seeing it's own respective non-recurring follow-on block upgrades too...so in truth, both jets will be in a continual state of 'working the kinks out'.

Hence, in my mind at least, the more relevant question should rather be a matter of the customer first and foremost satisfying it's respective recap requirements via 'good enough', affordable (sustainable), reliable, operational platforms on a timely schedule.

And p.s., the invaluable Canadian aerospace Industry will most likely be involved with the F-35 Program over the next 30 yrs, etc, whether or not RCAF actually ends up procuring and operating the aircraft. Don't let any discussions implying otherwise confuse you on that point.

Corsair -- that's a fair question. Personally, if you're putting me in charge of that 'upgraded SH' requirement (or let's say, put me in charge 2-3 years ago) with the need to be able and compete with/counter an emerging class of potential adversarial platform, e.g., I'd place the actual weapon system/munition upgrade requirement up there with the other priority system/component upgrades. Contemplate something along the lines of a Growler-Lite (alq-218 equipped), w/ enhanced APG-79 modes, CFT (w/ built-in frontal-sphere MAWS aperture), Type IV computer, new displays, your enhanced engines, off-the-shelf IRST pod in lieu of ATFLIR, a MALD-J on the opposite station and 4x modified air-launched ESSM (AIM-162) variants (2 of which mmW-seeker-tipped, 2 IIR-tipped) carried in the centerline Weapon pod. Perhaps top off with 2x under-wing mounted next-gen Python 6 (stunner-derived?) anti-AAM self-protection for good measure.

Total deployed unit weapon system cost by 2018 (including systems and fully armed)? Maybe $150m ballpark? IMHO, that would be a credible alternative deterrent and capability, perhaps augmented with next-gen UCAV...at least until a clean-sheet 2025-2030 model could be phased in.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post21 Aug 2013, 11:32

Don't take it too seriously -- we're all talking "hypothetically" as a joke.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

cantaz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 22:01

Unread post21 Aug 2013, 14:39

Corsair1963 wrote:Ok, I have a question or maybe it should be a topic for another thread. Yet, even if the Advance Super Hornet was funded with Stealthy Weapons Pods, CFT's, and more Powerful GE F414 EDE's. Could it still compete with forthcoming Stealth Fighters from Russia and China. (i.e. PAK-FA, J-20, J-31, etc. etc.) :?: :?: :?:


Just want to point out it's a weapon pod that (poorly) mirrors the capacity of one of F-35's 2 weapon bays. What's the cost-benefit ratio of reducing the RCS of a single 2klb bomb or 2x1klb bomb or 2 x AMRAAMs (and associated pylons or therelackof)?

Boeing loves to show their mockup of a "clean" ASH, with the only external ordnance being the wing tip stations' AIM-9s. If people love complaining about F-35's internal load, what would they make of ASH's even lighter "stealth" config?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4830
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post21 Aug 2013, 19:51

reducing the RCS of said stores would be of great benefit, and the SHornet would have the capability to carry 3 or 5 of them IIRC. I think the "Blk III" SHornet is a must to keep it remotely relevant.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post21 Aug 2013, 20:04

They just announced today that based on over 7000 hours of actual F-35 flight experience, the new official lifetime cost estimates are now 22% lower than what they were before.

I wonder if the recently announced Canadian re-verification of the F-35's lifetime cost (procurement, support, fuel, basing, and disposal) took these numbers into account?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post21 Aug 2013, 22:51

Oops, wrong thread.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post21 Aug 2013, 23:34

Spud -

'They' announced today exactly how many F-35s ultimately procured would cost 22% less to operate, per LCC?

And this estimated $587B figure is being based on how many average flight hours per year, per F-35?

What is this precise number of $587B based on??

There are many unknown and uncertain aspects to 'take into account' with respect to the F-35 Program...and therein is the high risk and uncertainty. I'm sorry.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post21 Aug 2013, 23:48

The point of the announcement is that using actual F-35 data rather than manipulated 4th gen data comes up with a 22% lower price. The JPO has been saying this for a LONG time.

Another thread shows one of the mistakes that CAPE made which was that they assumed that the F-35B would be spending 80% of its flight hours in STOVL mode. Given that this is such an obvious mistake, I wonder what other Easter Eggs are in their earlier “estimations”?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post22 Aug 2013, 00:05

SpudmanWP wrote:The point of the announcement is that using actual F-35 data rather than manipulated 4th gen data comes up with a 22% lower price. The JPO has been saying this for a LONG time.

Another thread shows one of the mistakes that CAPE made which was that they assumed that the F-35B would be spending 80% of its flight hours in STOVL mode. Given that this is such an obvious mistake, I wonder what other Easter Eggs are in their earlier “estimations”?

80% of it's flight hours, or just 80% of it's take-offs and landings?
(Which would be simply mistaken as opposed to absurd)
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post22 Aug 2013, 00:19

Spud -

The point of the noted article was that latest estimates show 'the F-35 Fleet' will cost $857B over 55 years! That's the point!

So...the clear question to ask is: what is the actual numeric size of this said 'fleet' precisely? And perhaps, how many annual flight hours are being calculated?
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

lookieloo

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04

Unread post22 Aug 2013, 01:01

SpudmanWP wrote:I wonder if the recently announced Canadian re-verification of the F-35's lifetime cost (procurement, support, fuel, basing, and disposal) took these numbers into account?
Not holding my breath. :roll:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24508
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Aug 2013, 01:12

'count_to_10' I would suggest the 80% refers to the takeoff/landing component of an F-35B flight as has been described earlier on the forum in the thread about such matters (link below)....

Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical By Philip Ewing Tuesday, June 7th, 2011
“...unlike a Harrier, the [F-35]B also can land like a conventional airplane, said Lockheed Martin vice president Steve O’Bryan at the company’s big media day last month....

...if a Lightning II pilot wants to, she’ll be able to land down a runway like a normal fight-er jet, without engaging the lift fan or all those other ports & hatches & bells & whistles.

If many — or most — of the flights that a fighter makes over its life are not under operational circumstances, because pilots are training or ferrying their jets, that could mean that a typical B won’t need its vertical landing capability most of the time.

“I don’t want to speak for the Marine Corps, but as we do analysis for the STOVL variant, [we think] most of the landings will be conventional landings — you can come back and land on a normal 8,000-foot airstrip without stressing all those components,” O’Bryan said. “Of course it’s up to the operational units, but why would I stress those if I don’t have to? ...That is an option [a completely conventional landing on a suitable runway – NO STOVL] that’s not available on the current generation of STOVL airplanes.”

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 269#198269
&
ORIGINAL: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/06/07/lockh ... -vertical/
_______________________

The original quote refered to is sloppy (I find 'Breaking Defense' vague on most milflight matters) but redeemed perhaps by the last sentence in the excerpt below:
"...Among the questionable assumptions Schmidle highlighted is this whopper: the Office of Secretary Defense estimate developed by the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office (CAPE) predicted that the F-35B would be flown at full throttle in STOVL mode — which uses enormous amounts of fuel and utilizes the highly sophisticated lift fan system at much greater rates than the Marines project — about 80 percent of its time in the air. [I do not believe any miljet is operated at full power in this manner at at all - conserving fuel is important and operating as required of course.]

...The great majority of the plane’s flight time — ... — would be spent flying without using the lift fan and STOVL...."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post22 Aug 2013, 05:51

geogen wrote:Spud -

'They' announced today exactly how many F-35s ultimately procured would cost 22% less to operate, per LCC?

And this estimated $587B figure is being based on how many average flight hours per year, per F-35?

What is this precise number of $587B based on??

There are many unknown and uncertain aspects to 'take into account' with respect to the F-35 Program...and therein is the high risk and uncertainty. I'm sorry.


No, you're just clinging to your delusions, which isn't new.

As I said in the other thread, basically the JPO is slotting in real data from the operational squadrons and figuring out what it will cost to run the fighter over its lifespan.From what I know, the USMC is basically running these aircraft ragged, and giving excellent data that is helping to define these figures. They know what the fuel consumption is for the F-35, they are starting to figure out part life cycles. Further use of ALIS will only continue to refine these figures. One of the really big advantages.The aircraft will have very few time limited parts; a large portion of them will be replaced as they fail.

Its no-longer guesswork or high risk, no matter what fiction you want to believe.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6721
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Aug 2013, 06:28

hb_pencil wrote:
geogen wrote:Spud -

'They' announced today exactly how many F-35s ultimately procured would cost 22% less to operate, per LCC?

And this estimated $587B figure is being based on how many average flight hours per year, per F-35?

What is this precise number of $587B based on??

There are many unknown and uncertain aspects to 'take into account' with respect to the F-35 Program...and therein is the high risk and uncertainty. I'm sorry.


No, you're just clinging to your delusions, which isn't new.

As I said in the other thread, basically the JPO is slotting in real data from the operational squadrons and figuring out what it will cost to run the fighter over its lifespan.From what I know, the USMC is basically running these aircraft ragged, and giving excellent data that is helping to define these figures. They know what the fuel consumption is for the F-35, they are starting to figure out part life cycles. Further use of ALIS will only continue to refine these figures. One of the really big advantages.The aircraft will have very few time limited parts; a large portion of them will be replaced as they fail.

Its no-longer guesswork or high risk, no matter what fiction you want to believe.



So, what's your problem??? Sound like you are making the case for the improved forecast.... :roll:
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post22 Aug 2013, 09:57

I guess my 'issue' is with the apparent 'discrepancy', not delusion thank you, w/ the Pentagon's latest estimate for F-35B's hourly cost being $37,000/hr. Then, making a fairly big deal in a press release/report about that being an affordable discount. Some would just say that's debatable I guess, especially taking into account the hourly cost of existing Hornets which it is slated to replace, yet 'save money too'... ?

If one can't see such a discrepancy as just the latest one worthy of pondering and worth discussing, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests