Forum: General F-35 Forum

I guess it is more a response to the decision to halt F-22 production.

F-16.net Sponsor

[quote="neurotech"]

jayraptor wrote:

Greetings warwolf1,

The X-35/F-35 was the best value jet, Going from X-32 to F-32 would cost billions, and take at least 5 years to get into service. A F/A-18E/F could be delivered within 2 years, possibly with upgraded avionics for less than US$50m

I disagree. The Eurofighter and the Rafale are $80+ each. If it was really about Lockheed, we'd see more F-16 orders, along with upgrades to the F-16. Its quite probable the F-16V will see production, as its relatively cheap at $60m each. It probably wont see service in the USAF though.

The other main US jet is the F/A-18E/F, which could be procured by the USAF short term, then transferred to the Navy or Marines.

Hi neurotech,

Reviving the X-32 program will not involve that much Billions as it's not going to start from scratch. During JSF competition, Boeing/Northrop already have the X-32 prototypes underwent most test. The lengthened finalize variant is already there but did not make it to complete prototype stage. It almost had its chance to get into production for CTOL variant as the judges favored the X-32's performance/capabilities suited for the air force. But it didn't due to winner takes all regulation set by the Congress.

EF2000 is at $73m+ for RAF. The $80M per plane is probably for non-Nato countries or including packages (weapons + parts). Now that you mentioned, it is indeed expensive, better buy F-35 in that case. European aircrafts and parts are known to be expensive. I prefer US or Russian.

Since there's EF2000 and BAe is part of F-35's program, they'll strongly protest against having conventional F-35 low RCS variant, it'll affect EF2000 sales. Only option to have advanced US made conventional low RCS fighter is to revive F-32.

Agree with you, the F/A-18E/F could be temporary substitute. Things will still be better with X-32 becoming F-32.

jeffb wrote:

Well it's a theory Thumper, a theory Boeing would be pretty happy with I'm thinking. Can't really see the USAF flying F-18s though.

I was surprised to see that they are extending the lives of the F15 fleet all the way out to 2030 though. You'd have to think they'd need another couple of rounds of upgrades to continue to be competitive out till then. Was that always the plan or are they adjusting in response to F35 delays?

Hi jeffb,

Still #1 fan of F-15s, the trusted Ol' Reliable that will keep going and going. Aircrafts that could get things done right with proven reliability will surely get extended service. As long as the new replacement is monopolized by 1 single manufacturer Lockheed Martin, it will take longer time to phase out existing fleet. Also, there are certain things that the old F-15s that F-22 and F-35 could not achieve today. Surviving harsh punishment over the battlefield. USAF won't go for F/A-18E/F, it belongs to USMC and USNF.

Agree with Thumper that the US will not build new F-15SE, F-16E/F and even F/A-18E/F for USAF/USMC/USNF as the Congress wanted something that could outperform the Flankers and Fulcrums for sure. Only retain whatever's left with upgrades until they are replaced by stages.

A cancellation will not happen. And if it did this means reviving many more programs than just strike platforms. The USAF and USN have let their radio spectrum assets largely dwindle in anticipation of needing fewer of them. Your operating expenses would skyrocket because the manpower would have to scale up. We are talking major collapse of the logistical supply lines to reverse course. It's a lose-lose situation to cancel. It's all or nothing at this point.

warwolf1 wrote:

what should the Americans offer the uk if congress cancels the entire f35 program or just the f35b.would congress be willing to give us emcats at greatly decreased price or offer another plane.

Not particularly likely to happen but if it did, the costs of switching to EMCATSs at this late stage would be stratospheric for the UK.

Quote:

cola
So, in the same universe, the F35's program cost is unknown (at least publicly), since the development is, well, not over yet.
Still, according to Congressional report for '12, the cheapest F35 (A) has a program-wide average URF of ~$99m (~$120m WS cost), which is ~36% costlier than EF.
And let's not forget, EF program was less then excellent performing one to put it mildly (Very Happy), by four EQUAL partner nations and 4 apparently similar, but still very different requirements that the plane fulfilled.
How's that for a "Joint"?
So, can we finally, stop reading price-wise comparisons between F35 and EF?
Australians got their SHs for ~$50m, apiece? Very Happy

I don't know what the Euro Fighter costs but I thought the Australian price for the Super Hornets was US$2.6 billion for 24 [what that included I do not know - I assumed it was just the Aircraft equipped]. From memory the program cost over 10 years was stated at $6.6 billion. That did not include the 12 EA-18G Modification Kits now ordered. Just about impossible to tell the cost of any of them as an outsider. It depends on how they are equipped etc. I agree the F35 will not cost $65m each as often quoted. What is India paying fro the Raphael? Have they announced what the contract price is - then there is going to be local assembly etc.

The F35 will not be cancelled and in effect can't be cancelled. The consequences would be too great at a Diplomatic and International level. The only way it would be cancelled is more or less "GRADUALLY" if once in service it proved overall inferior in effectiveness to a well equipped Euro Fighter and Raphael and other 4+ aircraft. For that to happen its partial VLO would have to become virtually useless or it became a maintenance or operational nightmare.
If that happened everybody would simply buy any 4+ they could get in a reasonable time until something better came along. I imagine development of the F15SE would be ramped up quickly and I imagine Sukoi would get a lot of enquiries also.

jayraptor wrote:

Agree with you, the F/A-18E/F could be temporary substitute. Things will still be better with X-32 becoming F-32.

Politically the F/A-18E/F would be "temporary". I still think we're going to see another purchase of F/A-18E/F from someone other than the USN, as a "stop gap" purchase.

The X-32 was designed around being a STOVL jet. The F/A-18E/F can handle the CTOL & CATOBAR or short-field ops fine for the majority of customers. Ski-Jump is still possible. I'm not sure why you think the F-32 would be the fighter to "save" the JSF program, because I don't think it has the growth potential of the F-35, and the same or greater technical challenges in bringing it to production.

The X-32 & X-35 were only a shell of a production fighter. Less than 20% complete relative to a production fighter. They flew with basic avionics only.

The F/A-18E/F Avionics package is mature, with upgrade potential. The engines have some growth potential as well. The weapons qualification is extensive already.

There would be the possibility of doing a VLO upgrade of the F/A-18E/F with conformal fuel and weapons stations for less money than a X-32 to F-32 program.

[quote="neurotech"]

jayraptor wrote:

There would be the possibility of doing a VLO upgrade of the F/A-18E/F with conformal fuel and weapons stations for less money than a X-32 to F-32 program.

You could probably put someone on the *moon* for less than the cost of taking the X32 to a production F32 design.

stobiewan wrote:

neurotech wrote:

jayraptor wrote:

There would be the possibility of doing a VLO upgrade of the F/A-18E/F with conformal fuel and weapons stations for less money than a X-32 to F-32 program.

You could probably put someone on the *moon* for less than the cost of taking the X32 to a production F32 design.

SpaceX RedDragon could probably do the landing part, the Dragon "manned" flight is probably less than 2 years away. SpaceX has used less than $2Bn R&D capital(investments and contracted development) to date, which is pretty small considering they got a capsule to the ISS. They could probably do a manned mission to the moon, for less than $1Bn beyond the current manned program.

Edit: The F-16E/F Block 60 Development cost $3bn back in 2000-2003

"jeffb wrote:

Well it's a theory Thumper, a theory Boeing would be pretty happy with I'm thinking. Can't really see the USAF flying F-18s though.

I was surprised to see that they are extending the lives of the F15 fleet all the way out to 2030 though. You'd have to think they'd need another couple of rounds of upgrades to continue to be competitive out till then. Was that always the plan or are they adjusting in response to F35 delays?

Why not Super Hornets? They flew F-4’s for 30 years and where very happy with them. Remember we are talking about a very unlikely event that if it does happen, it will be because of cost. The F-18 is a perfect choice as an F-16 replacement. It is very versatile (everything from air superiority to EW), there is a hot assembly line, it is mature yet there is still room for plenty of growth. It is cheap.

The F-15s are being upgraded with lots of goodies. The airframe issues have been addressed and they expect to get the service hours up to at least 16 if not 24K. The F-15 fleet currently averages about 8K hours.

jayraptor wrote:

Reviving the X-32 program will not involve that much Billions as it's not going to start from scratch. During JSF competition, Boeing/Northrop already have the X-32 prototypes underwent most test. The lengthened finalize variant is already there but did not make it to complete prototype stage. It almost had its chance to get into production for CTOL variant as the judges favored the X-32's performance/capabilities suited for the air force. But it didn't due to winner takes all regulation set by the Congress.

EF2000 is at $73m+ for RAF. The $80M per plane is probably for non-Nato countries or including packages (weapons + parts). Now that you mentioned, it is indeed expensive, better buy F-35 in that case. European aircrafts and parts are known to be expensive. I prefer US or Russian.

Since there's EF2000 and BAe is part of F-35's program, they'll strongly protest against having conventional F-35 low RCS variant, it'll affect EF2000 sales. Only option to have advanced US made conventional low RCS fighter is to revive F-32.

Agree with you, the F/A-18E/F could be temporary substitute. Things will still be better with X-32 becoming F-32.

Why would you cancel a program that is far along in flight-testing and replace it with a program (F-32)that hasn’t really gone past the technology demonstrator phase? Again, if F-35 is cancelled it will be because of cost, not some imagined shortcomings identified by APA, Elp, Bill, and the assorted loonies of the tin foil hat set.

I don’t want to derail the thread but can you please point out where you get $73m for a Tiffie. Not even it’s most ardent fans come up with a number that low. Please provide a link?

BAE can protest all they want.

Please point out what the F-32 brings that the F-35 does not?

F-18 will be in front line service by the USN until 2030-40 timeframe. That is not a temporary solution.

warwolf1 wrote:

if congress does cancel the f35 due to being over budget. and to save trillions on the American defense budget.what in reality should Britain get from the us as compensation.

The UK already got compensated with all the development money the US govt. gave to BAE, Rolls and other UK based companies for helping develop F-35. Far more than 2 billion has been paid back.

warwolf1 wrote:

if congress does cancel the f35 due to being over budget...

Thank you, warwolf1, for providing further context to your hypothetical.

While partner nations no doubt agreed to participate in the F-35 program at least in part because they expected to benefit economically from various workshare arrangements, I’m sure that each partner also expects to benefit militarily as well. Even if partner nations received fair economic compensation for their troubles, the program’s failure to produce a viable military product would certainly be viewed as a vast disappointment in all partner countries, with US leadership receiving most of the blame. The US certainly would owe partner countries something more than mere apologies for broken promises.

As I’ve said before, the primary justification for this program in the US is probably due to the expected savings in total operating costs across the military over the program’s life. But the same probably applies only to a lesser degree among partner countries and potential foreign customers, whose military operating budgets are always substantially more constrained than the US’s, and even more acutely so in the current environment. If the US cannot justify the program, it is highly unlikely that any partner country could, either. Morale of this story: partner countries and potential foreign customers are counting on the US to avoid failing. If this program fails in the US, the consequences for partner countries could be catastrophic indeed.

JetTest wrote:

USMilFan wrote:

But wouldn’t the consequences of cancellation depend on the reasons Congress might have for canceling? If Congress were to have good, solid reason for canceling, the consequences would likely be far less damaging than if Congress canceled for no good earthly reason, would they not?

USMIL, sounds like you are trying to apply the "L" word (logic). That does not seem to work with some here.

Or with some in Congress apparently.
For your consideration I present Congressman Todd Akin.

If this guy is representative of the kind of people who are in Congress then I really don't think you should put too much faith in them having to come up with a "solid reason for cancelling".

Thumper3181 wrote:

Why not Super Hornets? They flew F-4’s for 30 years and where very happy with them. Remember we are talking about a very unlikely event that if it does happen, it will be because of cost. The F-18 is a perfect choice as an F-16 replacement. It is very versatile (everything from air superiority to EW), there is a hot assembly line, it is mature yet there is still room for plenty of growth. It is cheap.

It sort of begs the question why the USAF hasn't gone down the F18 route before though doesn't it? Just between you, me and the lamppost, I don't think the USAF really likes the F18. They like the F15s so much they're gonna keep'em and cheap as the F18 is it ain't as cheap as an F16 (even the B50/60s).

Thumper3181 wrote:

The F-15s are being upgraded with lots of goodies. The airframe issues have been addressed and they expect to get the service hours up to at least 16 if not 24K. The F-15 fleet currently averages about 8K hours.

Yep, lots of goodies, but like I asked, was this always the plan or are they extending their existing air superiority force because of perceived shortfalls in 5th gen aircraft availability?

And just to wander off topic again, Thumper's mention of the F4 reminded me of another pet dislike of the F35 - it's name. Why didn't they go with Phantom III? Phantom reminds everyone of the F4 workhorse, a truly legendary aircraft, lots of happy memories for just about everyone, multi-discipline, multi-service and hey, Phantom, it stealthy, get it?

Instead they call it the Lightning II, meh. Even my personal favorite: the "boneshaker" is better than litening.

Last edited by cola on Aug 22, 2012 - 10:34 AM; edited 2 times in total

count_to_10 wrote:

Why does it seems like you have to be more of an expert to evaluate the relative costs of aircraft than to evaluate which is actually more effective?

You don't have to be an expert, but you still need to invest a minimal effort in reading what has been written, unlike this Thumper tool here, did.

In Congressional reports, you get the cost breakdown on items (URF, TF, WS).
U(nit)R(ecurring)F(lyway) is a production cost of a plane and is being broken down into individual components (airframe, engine, avionics, etc...).
Program price generally contains RDT&E and Procurement costs and stands at $395.7b, as of Feb '12, for the US' F35 fleet.
NAO classifies stuff quite similarly to the US and the table in question gives a forecast program cost figure for 160 EFs in RAF service, of ~£22b in '10-'11, revised down to ~£18b in '12.

To conclude this, here are some official data on EF:
http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter- ... story.html
T2 contracted cost is ~€55m per plane (T1 ~€47m), which is ~$68m at current exchange rates (probably URF), so what Italians were talking about was probably something in TF/WS price class.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

What would happen if the F-35 does get canceled?