The F-35 Discussion Topic (No Holds Barred II)

[sferrin]

This might have escaped your attention but there is a STOVL version, a CV version, and CTOL version. They're also stealth aircraft, with it's attendant requirements, and they have internal weapons carriage. Oh, and all that aside, the sensors and avionics are more complex than the last gen. I'll bet you wonder why your new-fangled computer requires it's own separate video card and CPU heatsink fan when your 286 didn't too right? And how many patches did DOS 5.0 get? How about Windows 8? Jeebus.

uhmm...duh? Nobody makes the argument that LM engineers just sit around drinkin tea instead of working their asses off trying to get this plane in the air. The argument was that trying to make one airplane do everything to save money, has caused it to become over complex to engineer, causing cost overrun and price to skyrocket - making the whole point of making it do everything pointless.

They did the exercise numerous times. Still cheaper than doing three completely different programs.

 

[donnage99]

They did the exercise numerous times. Still cheaper than doing three completely different programs.

Maybe in a world of intellectual laziness, then no JSF means having to be doing 3 COMPLETELY different programs.

 

[sferrin]

They did the exercise numerous times. Still cheaper than doing three completely different programs.

Maybe in a world of intellectual laziness, then no JSF means having to be doing 3 COMPLETELY different programs.

You think they didn't look at every possible iteration of "if we do X how much will it cost"? Why wouldn't they want to maximize the likelihood of success? Oh wait, I know what you mean. I'll bet you're thinking, "they could have a CV/CTOL common design, then when the STOVL model gets cancelled because it busted $200 million a pop we can just hand wave that away".

 

[sublight_]

They did the exercise numerous times. Still cheaper than doing three completely different programs.

I don't believe that for a second. The point of CALF/JAST/MRF/JSF/BBQ was always to save A LOT OF COST. The program is not doing that.

What you should really wonder, is if F22 would still have been cancelled if they weren't trying to figure out how they were going to pay for F35.

 

[sferrin]

They did the exercise numerous times. Still cheaper than doing three completely different programs.

I don't believe that for a second.

You don't have to. After all there are still people who believe the moon landing was a hoax, the Earth is flat, etc.

The point of CALF/JAST/MRF/JSF/BBQ was always to save A LOT OF COST. The program is not doing that.

It is, you just refuse to see it. You see "costs more than an F-16" and that's as far as it goes. Hell, there are people still whining about that when it's been explained ad infinitum that that's the wrong comparison. This is what you would have to replace the F-35 with:

• A stealth fighter for the USAF to replace the F-16. (No, buying more F-22s doesn't solve your problem.)
• A CV stealth fighter for the USN to replace the Legacy Hornet.
• A STOVL stealth fighter for the USMC to replace the Harrier.

And you honestly believe THREE different designs (likely from multiple manufacturers) would be CHEAPER? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!. (Now's the point where the usual suspects chime in, "but the USN could just buy more Super Hornets, and the USMC doesn't need STOVL aircraft" as if by refusing to acknowledge a requirement means there isn't one. )
[/quote]

 

[lastdingo]

AIM-120 had an embarrassing kill rate even against non-maneuvering, unaware targets. AIM-120's active radar gives away its approach.
It's questionable whether it's a worthwhile munition against an ECM-laden fighter like Typhoon, Rafale or in the future PAK-FA.

Questionable by anybody who matters?

Questionable because the opposite hasn't been proved. There were simulations at best, and nobody knows PAK-FA performance in 2020 yet - not even the Russians.
Hardly any PGM ever has not disappointed when used against smart opponents.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Hardly any PGM ever has not disappointed when used against smart opponents.

I seem to remember the US dropping JDAMs on top of French Russian GPS jammers in Iraq just to make the opposite point.

 

[lastdingo]

They did the exercise numerous times. Still cheaper than doing three completely different programs.

I don't believe that for a second. The point of CALF/JAST/MRF/JSF/BBQ was always to save A LOT OF COST. The program is not doing that.

What you should really wonder, is if F22 would still have been cancelled if they weren't trying to figure out how they were going to pay for F35.

I remember the many, many "affordable fighter", "affordable production", "affordable ***" studies of the early and mid-90's that led to the "affordable" JSF.
People are really forgetting much over time and under influence of non-stop propaganda. The JSF was meant to be cheap, a worthy successor of a F-16 that had a fly-away price of USD 20 million. It turned out to be expensive both in development and procurement.

A true F-16 successor would provide many small air forces such as the Dutch one with a true multi-role combat aircraft or strike fighter, whereas the F-35 due to its small AAM load and high price per plane (leading to few or small squadrons) will offer such air forces almost negligible air superiority assets.

EU's air superiority fighters are the Typhoons, NATO's air superiority fighters are Raptors and Typhoons. Their quantities are more than fine against today's Russian inventory, but the situation may prove to become unsatisfactory in the late 2020's.
All those upgraded Tornados, F-16A-D, F-18A-D will be gone by mid-2020's and the Rafales and Super Bugs will be suitable for medium threat intensity scenarios with sophisticated strike package only. F-35s may be useful without dedicated strike packages using what network of air power is present 24/7, but I doubt what damage they can do is going to justify the expenses during many years of peacetime.

The alternative of ground troops with great training is quite competitive in face of traditionally strong Russian battlefield AD.

Hardly any PGM ever has not disappointed when used against smart opponents.

I seem to remember the US dropping JDAMs on top of French Russian GPS jammers in Iraq just to make the opposite point.

Oh boy, you didn't get what I meant. At all.
On top of that, the use of anecdotal evidence is really embarrassing in face of a much more general assertion.

Go on, tell the bureaucracy it's wasting money on products like AN/TLQ-32 since PGMs are oh-so capable of keeping their developers' promises.

 

[sferrin]

The JSF was meant to be cheap, a worthy successor of a F-16 that had a fly-away price of USD 20 million.

Could you please show the class where the JSF was planned to cost $20 million a pop?

 

[LowObservable]

If anyone had done a serious study of a Plan B in 1995-2000; if the premise had been "don't worry about the OML, go for common techs, engine cores, avionics modules, LO systems, production processes &c"; and if the conclusion had been in part "yes, we can do supersonic Stovl stealth but it will cost $150 million APUC"... Then the decision would have been to not do it, and it would have been the right decision.

 

[jsport]

If anyone had done a serious study of a Plan B in 1995-2000; if the premise had been "don't worry about the OML, go for common techs, engine cores, avionics modules, LO systems, production processes &c"; and if the conclusion had been in part "yes, we can do supersonic Stovl stealth but it will cost $150 million APUC"... Then the decision would have been to not do it, and it would have been the right decision.

amen brother

 

[donnage99]

You think they didn't look at every possible iteration of "if we do X how much will it cost"? Why wouldn't they want to maximize the likelihood of success?

Of course they did look at every possible iteration. And they got their projections wrong, leading to taking the wrong course of action, and also, the wrong management plan (which is partly responsible for the cost overrun and delay, not just technical challenges).

 

[bobbymike]

Just a general observation;

The F-35 is a 5th generation fighter with 4th generation stealth (if we say F-117, B-2, F-22, F-35) building on 30+ years of real world R&D and construction of these aircraft being built for a military that has flown and fought the previous three generations of stealth aircraft. Yet the theme I so often read is how the US doesn't know what they're doing and at the same time two militaries who have only just started building stealth aircraft are building the most lethal planes in the history of aviation (T-50, J-20)

Like I said just an observation.

 

[sferrin]

Then the decision would have been to not do it, and it would have been the right decision.

Obviously not. A non-stealthy 4th gen can barely prevail TODAY against a near-peer, let alone 30-40 years down the road when this will still be in service. And let's not fool ourselves; a Harrier replacement would have never happened as the low numbers would have ensured the cost was too high.

 

[sferrin]

You think they didn't look at every possible iteration of "if we do X how much will it cost"? Why wouldn't they want to maximize the likelihood of success?

Of course they did look at every possible iteration. And they got their projections wrong, leading to taking the wrong course of action, and also, the wrong management plan (which is partly responsible for the cost overrun and delay, not just technical challenges).

So we should start over, flush the last 15 years and tens of billions of dollars down the toilet because THIS time we'll get it "right"? Fat chance. We'd find ourselves in the same boat (only worse because aircraft aren't getting cheaper/simpler) with nothing to show for it. And what do you fly in the meantime? F-16s and Eurocanards? Please.

 

[sferrin]

Just a general observation;

The F-35 is a 5th generation fighter with 4th generation stealth (if we say F-117, B-2, F-22, F-35) building on 30+ years of real world R&D and construction of these aircraft being built for a military that has flown and fought the previous three generations of stealth aircraft. Yet the theme I so often read is how the US doesn't know what they're doing and at the same time two militaries who have only just started building stealth aircraft are building the most lethal planes in the history of aviation (T-50, J-20)

Like I said just an observation.

Shhhhh. You're not suppose to point that stuff out. What's really amusing is when they start ranting about how the F-35 "would be clubbed like a baby seal" yet they believe to their core that their old worn out 4th gen designs would prevail. Take this latest faux controversy. Somehow the F-16 "winning" one "gunfight" means we should cancel the F-35 and buy more F-16s. Never mind that the last actual fighter shot down by another fighter's gun was back in the 70's. Never mind that getting in gun range with today's 5th gen WVR missiles is mutual suicide at best. Never mind that the other 98% of the time the F-35 will take the lunch money of all contenders, no. We NEED more of that aircraft that will only prevail 2% of the time. What the hell kind of sense does that make? I asked "LowObservable" in a prior post if he'd rather be flying an F-16 or an F-35 going against a near-peer and he studiously ignored me. I imagine even he knows how ridiculous the comparison is but we gots to sell more 6th Gen Eurocanard miracles somehow.

 

[LowObservable]

Sorry, but I'm trying to get my head around BobbyMike's assertion that the F-35 "builds in 30 years of R&D" because this seems to be arguing that the fact that the goal of a nearly-all-stealth combat air force, set in 1985, still has not been achieved is a good thing.


a Harrier replacement would have never happened as the low numbers would have ensured the cost was too high.


[/size]Indeed. It might have ended up with a $150 million APUC after 20 years of development, which would have been terrible.
[/size]
[/size]As for F-35 vs. F16: The 2016 Corvette is a hell of lot better than the 1974 Corvette and there's no doubt which I'd pick, if I had to and the price was no object. Now let me tell you about my S2000...

 

[Pioneer]

Im probably stating something that has already been stated before, in which my apologies in advance

But as people have already alluded, part of the underlying problem seems to be the inherent need/want for the basic F-35 (in what ever variant F-35A,B,C) to do everything within the same design 24/7 - i.e precision strike, fighter, and my all time favourite () CAS, all on day one!
This inherently has not just the complexity issues of the F-35 period! It has also greatly attributed to its mass and debilitating overweightness = 'PPP'

So could Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon not consider some sort of quick-change modular arrangement, by which the three models of the F-35 series don't have to carry all the avionics/sensors and systems for all these roles of precision strike/fighter/CAS all at once?
I mean couldn't the given systems/sensors/avionics attributed to the perceived mission/threat not be installed, the non accentual ones taken out, so as to perform its assigned mission??
Would this not negate problems....issues??
I know its not perfect, but then again nor is the supposed 'super star', super fighter F-35 all that it was cracked up to be!
Wouldn't this negate the notion of having to start all over again..spending..wasting billions of $$$??
How about reassessing the realistic threat and mission profiles of the F-35 in today's threat environment, as opposed to the legacy Cold War scenario that the JSF was designed to fight??
Also, Im no aeronautical engineer, but the day I first saw the wing-profiles of the F-35A & B', which seems an eternity ago, I instantly thought they're too dam small in area!!

Im also wondering if the issues with JSF/F-35 are not partly to do with the 'three big' American aviation industry has become - Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman! (yeah I know McDonnell Douglas was around at the time and submitted a design to JSF comp). I can't help wonder how and if the likes of Republic, North American Aviation, Lockheed, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Grumman, LTV might have devised alternative solutions to the costly problem that the JSF/F-35 has become. Being cleaver all absorbing and collusive corporations, I think it has much truth and merit to the acquisitions that Lockheed Martin and its F-35 is too big to fail :-[

Thirdly to my hypothesis is that the U.S Army and USMC should take their ground-based air defence much more serious than its done since the end of WWII, instead of predominantly putting so much faith in air-based fighters/interceptors winning and maintaining 100% air superiority/supremacy over the battlefield. Lets face it hand-held Stingers MANPADS, AN/TWQ-1 Avenger (what Stinger's and a 12.7mm MG :), obsolete M167 Vulcan Air Defense System (VADS)'s, LAV-AD's (which has stupidly been removed from service)....oh and of course the handful of Patriot SAM's isn't taking air defence of your ground troop serious in this day and age, let alone during the Cold War!

P.S. I seen much about people saying the USMC no longer needs VSTOL/V/STOL capable aircraft! On what grounds do they substantiate this claim?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[sferrin]

Sorry, but I'm trying to get my head around BobbyMike's assertion that the F-35 "builds in 30 years of R&D" because this seems to be arguing that the fact that the goal of a nearly-all-stealth combat air force, set in 1985, still has not been achieved is a good thing.

You seem to be deliberately misconstruing what he said. (Shocker, I know.) He's saying the US has many decades of experience with stealth. Other countries much less so.

 

[sferrin]

Sorry, but I'm trying to get my head around BobbyMike's assertion that the F-35 "builds in 30 years of R&D" because this seems to be arguing that the fact that the goal of a nearly-all-stealth combat air force, set in 1985, still has not been achieved is a good thing.


a Harrier replacement would have never happened as the low numbers would have ensured the cost was too high.


[/size]Indeed. It might have ended up with a $150 million APUC after 20 years of development, which would have been terrible.
[/size]
[/size]As for F-35 vs. F16: The 2016 Corvette is a hell of lot better than the 1974 Corvette and there's no doubt which I'd pick, if I had to and the price was no object. Now let me tell you about my S2000...

I'm sorry, what, I didn't hear that?

 

[phrenzy]

You think they didn't look at every possible iteration of "if we do X how much will it cost"? Why wouldn't they want to maximize the likelihood of success?

Of course they did look at every possible iteration. And they got their projections wrong, leading to taking the wrong course of action, and also, the wrong management plan (which is partly responsible for the cost overrun and delay, not just technical challenges).

So we should start over, flush the last 15 years and tens of billions of dollars down the toilet because THIS time we'll get it "right"? Fat chance. We'd find ourselves in the same boat (only worse because aircraft aren't getting cheaper/simpler) with nothing to show for it. And what do you fly in the meantime? F-16s and Eurocanards? Please.

Given that the crushing weight of the cost of the F-35 is so great and is and will continue to suck the life out of other important programs the answer is yes. You don't double down on mistakes. You produce a number of A models and swallow the loss on the rest and run a crash LRS-B style near term technology program with realistic goals with improved and realistic performance with lower numbers of airframes, put as many of the systems from the F-35 that supporters think make up for it's other shortcomings as you can or run a line of super raptors with new subsystems that can be baked into whatever 6th gen platform comes next. The Marines lose their baby carrier fixed wing capability and will have to fly more bugs off of the big ships. The Navy, which has always been more skeptical gets more money to bring forward the super bug replacement. The airforce gets some bigger number of much much more capable LRS-B, possibly some in a second flavor more targeted towards tacair missions. Except for whatever new subsystems go into an improved raptor or a B model LRS-B you maintain parts commonality and get better aircraft. Yes, you are left with fewer airframes but that's the case anyway as money spent on F-35 reduces the numbers of legacy aircraft flown, reduces the LRS-B buy and pushes back heavy bomber and 6th gen programs. That's all just amateur musing, but there are options.

The US has a limited window where the legacy fleet can maintain a reasonable credible force. The idea that the F-35 is too big to fail isn't a compelling reason to go forward. With some planning and supporting upgrade programs and change in tactics and munitions to support the use of legacy aircraft for the next 10odd years (they were going to be in the inventory anyway with the F-35 delays) you have enough runway to pull it together. It's not ideal, but then neither is pressing the F-35 into service and when you have thousands of these things in service with potential similar cost over runs in the maintenance and support as well as upgrades your looking at issues that will have effects well into the middle of the century. In 10 years it will be much harder to remedy when you have hundreds of billions of dollars worth of F-35 airframes in the inventory.

You probably can make the F-35 work, I have no doubt that they will, but when you look at the opportunity cost it's massive. What they could have done with the bomber fleet if the F-35 "only" went 50% over budget, the number of raptors they would have bought if they knew what they did today about how delayed the program was going to be and the funding for 6th gen R&D and naval 5th gen development if they knew more about the final F-35 capability.

I just can't believe that LM/JPO believed all the things they put on their powerpoints from 2005-12 and that's the part that really deserves investigation. It's not just that they failed to meet program goals at the time of the establishment of the JSF program or at the down select but again and again right up until quite recently they kept saying we are behind because of X, mia culpa, but from here on out it's clear skies and here's a revised schedule and costing, which almost inevitably gets blown out again. I understand with the ferocious critics they had to run political cover but I don't think an on depth investigation to determine when and where they were deliberately obfuscating or lying is unwarranted. I have trouble believing they didn't know much better than anyone else that the program was going to run into a lot of these issues. Yes, it's a very complex engineering undertaking and plenty of problems were likely genuinely surprising but they were the people who put their hands up at every turn and said we have it under control, no need to worry we can definitely do this.

 

[sferrin]

Given that the crushing weight of the cost of the F-35 is so great and is and will continue to suck the life out of other important programs the answer is yes.

"Crushing weight"? Can you spare us the drama please? : You actually believe that starting over would result in three better aircraft designs delivered sooner and at a lower price? Really? (Keeping in mind you still have to meet the same sets of requirements mind you.)

You don't double down on mistakes.

The customers, you know, those actually buying and using the product, seem to disagree with your expert assessment of the F-35 being a "mistake". I know some like to use the flawed "too big to fail" analogy to tell us why we should cancel the F-35 but the fact of the matter is it's the best available option. Period. Sorry if the facts don't sit well with you.

 

[phrenzy]

No, I don't think it would be cheaper and you would drop one of those 3 aircraft and it night take a little longer, as I detailed. But given the size of the program and the decades that these aircraft will be in service I think it's the right thing to do to prevent 30 years of issues down the track and to get the best capability for the money you can. As for "crushing weight", what more accurate superlative would you use to describe a cost over run of this size and the effect it's had on the budgets of other aircraft programs? Looking at the original cost estimates it's a massive blow out after you only have to look at how the F-22 buy was affected. Would you not describe the halving of planned raptors crushing to that program?

As for the customers I can tell you that the process here in Australia has been anything but rational. Joining the JSF program was done with little discussion with high level political direction with firm US guidance rather than from an organic military decision making process. The requirements the RAAF outlined in the 2000 defence whitepaper are not met by the F-35 and the buys were continued with in part because the were working on the incorrect specifications and cost / time projections from LM. There was pressure put on lots of countries to go with F-35 to get the numbers up but also with the implied benefits for interoperability, if you are a close US ally you go with the aircraft they are going to be using, it doesn't necisarily say a lot about the merits of that aircraft. Indeed the costs will have much bigger effects on the budgets of smaller air forces like australia's budgets and without the additional EW, support aircraft like the F-22, intelligence/planning and C&C capability that the US will use in concert with the F-35 that australia or other JSF users can't bring to bare the F-35 will be much less effective than even the current pessimistic estimates for it's use in the US branches.

The customers were also buying on the understanding that a lot of their investment would come back as business for local industry manufacturing parts to go into the F-35 supply chain but in every case I know of, definitely in Australia's, this did not have anywhere near the benefits promised.

The straight merits of the system are but the sole basis for the internatiobal purchased. I spoke to the outgoing US ambassador about this and the takeaway was that this was a political as well as military issue for the US, they say jump and we say how high.

 

[sferrin]

No, I don't think it would be cheaper and you would drop one of those 3 aircraft and it night take a little longer, as I detailed.

So how is that a good thing? You're not meeting the requirement, taking longer (decades longer, "little longer" shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue), and costing more. How is that better than continuing a program that DOES meet the requirements, will get jets to us that meet the requirement sooner, and at a lower cost? Rationalize that would you?

But given the size of the program and the decades that these aircraft will be in service I think it's the right thing to do to prevent 30 years of issues down the track and to get the best capability for the money you can.

That's pretty much pure fantasy. There is zero reason to believe we wouldn't be right back here again 15 years down the road (with 15 wasted years under our belts and no aircraft to show for it).

As for "crushing weight", what more accurate superlative would you use to describe a cost over run of this size and the effect it's had on the budgets of other aircraft programs? Looking at the original cost estimates it's a massive blow out after you only have to look at how the F-22 buy was affected. Would you not describe the halving of planned raptors crushing to that program?

Intentionally or not you're confusing the end of F-22 production with production of the F-35. They are unrelated. Bob Gates cancelled production of the F-22 because he was convinced they were unnecessary. Period. When USAF brass disagreed with him he fired them.

 

[donnage99]

So we should start over, flush the last 15 years and tens of billions of dollars down the toilet because THIS time we'll get it "right"? Fat chance. We'd find ourselves in the same boat (only worse because aircraft aren't getting cheaper/simpler) with nothing to show for it. And what do you fly in the meantime? F-16s and Eurocanards? Please.

We have clashed on this topic before, and I stated multiple times that I do not support cancelling the f-35. It's too late for that. But of course with your desperation for a counter argument, you have to resort to putting words in people's mouth. [/

 

[mz]

Well, since from the narrow purpose agile dog fighter F-16, we got the strike version F-16 XL.

Maybe starting from the F-35 we could do the reverse: produce the slimmed down, fast, agile, accelerating and area-ruled F-35 XS?

;D B)

Remove lift fan space, move some of the fuel to drop tanks, narrow the weapons bay. Lazy image stretch attached, if someone wants to do a real photoshop, go ahead.

 

[Pioneer]

Well, since from the narrow purpose agile dog fighter F-16, we got the strike version F-16 XL.

Maybe starting from the F-35 we could do the reverse: produce the slimmed down, fast, agile, accelerating and area-ruled F-35 XS?

;D B)

Remove lift fan space, move some of the fuel to drop tanks, narrow the weapons bay. Lazy image stretch attached, if someone wants to do a real photoshop, go ahead.

I think you might have some merit here MZ
Realistically, I think your suggestion could make everyone in the U.S. Military {Congressional] Industrial Complex happy!!
Although realistically speaking it will add to the already ridiculous timeframe of the design entering Operational Service!
Maybe the U.S. Government could offer 'temp' stand-in fighters to fill the gap, as a true and realistic stop-gap measure - i.e surplus F-16's/F/A-18C/D's to client nations/Air Forces who entered the JSF program in good faith, until your F-35 XS is ready 'tested' and 'proven' to be what it was promised and able to do without compromise - like any normal commercial contract that has to be adhered to, and in which the Australian Government would otherwise scream blue murder "Not value for money!"

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

I may have said this before (so I apologies if I have)....
But I distinctively remember reading at the beginning of the JSF program (and undoubtedly one of the programs principle purposes and justifications for its existence), that it was intended to be in the same vicinity of $ price to that of the F-16/FA-18 it was primarily designed to replace, as well as of the equal in capability. With the net principle of the program being able to replace both legacy 70's design fighters on a one-for-one basis!
So where and when did it all start to go wrong??

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Dragon029]

Pioneer; considering that the US Navy valuated the 2 F/A-18C airframes lost last year to be worth $74.6m and $77.3m each (while an FRP F-35A [not C mind you] is expected to cost ~$75m in today's dollars), and considering that you have customers like the UAE paying ~$200m weapon system costs for Block 60 F-16Es (while other countries like Australia pay ~$200m weapon system costs for F-35As), I think the answer is in generic economics.

How is it that the baseline Textron Scorpion costs $20m, or an AIM-120D costs $1.8m, or a gallon of gas $3? Inflation, supply & demand, changing markets, median salaries, etc.

 

[phrenzy]

No, I don't think it would be cheaper and you would drop one of those 3 aircraft and it night take a little longer, as I detailed.

So how is that a good thing? You're not meeting the requirement, taking longer (decades longer, "little longer" shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue), and costing more. How is that better than continuing a program that DOES meet the requirements, will get jets to us that meet the requirement sooner, and at a lower cost? Rationalize that would you?

But given the size of the program and the decades that these aircraft will be in service I think it's the right thing to do to prevent 30 years of issues down the track and to get the best capability for the money you can.

That's pretty much pure fantasy. There is zero reason to believe we wouldn't be right back here again 15 years down the road (with 15 wasted years under our belts and no aircraft to show for it).

As for "crushing weight", what more accurate superlative would you use to describe a cost over run of this size and the effect it's had on the budgets of other aircraft programs? Looking at the original cost estimates it's a massive blow out after you only have to look at how the F-22 buy was affected. Would you not describe the halving of planned raptors crushing to that program?

Intentionally or not you're confusing the end of F-22 production with production of the F-35. They are unrelated. Bob Gates cancelled production of the F-22 because he was convinced they were unnecessary. Period. When USAF brass disagreed with him he fired them.

Because the F-35 does not meet the requirements anyway! It meets the requirements now because the goalposts have been moved so many times to fit what they were getting. I believe that for the current projected costs and the potential future costs you can create a new set of requirements that get you a superior capability. By not cheaper I mean that you would be taking a big loss on the F-35 program by pairing it back to roughly 1000 A models. Also that the capital costs of restating the raptor line or starting a new 6th gen program and expanding the LRS-B buy may be somewhat more expensive. But what you are getting in return makes it well worth the while and that ultimately you may save money as I don't think anyone can accept that now, unlike the half dozen previous times, that LM's life cycle cost projections are accurate. GAO and other bodies are working from company information so I'm not sure how you get an accurate independent review. Even if the current very high figures I don't that the cost benefit is there.

At one time the A-12 was the strike requirement for navy, it was the only stealth aircraft they had on the books and it was central to their planning. Many years and Billions were spent, but it was cancelled, I suppose that you would have felt that they should have proceeded even though it became increasingly clear that the costs were too high for what they were getting tot he point fo threatening other programs and that the capability was not adequate.

As for being here again in 15 years then why ever try and develop new aircraft? The idea that you wouldn't try and develop something new and better just because the current program has been so problematic doesn't make sense to me at all. Never mind the fact that the suggestions I made were for a program that's now successfully operating (F-22) and is a known quantity production wise, another that is being developed for production anyway (LRS-B) and another 2 that are planned (the Naval and USAF 6th gen program), these are risks DoD is already taking.

Yes, you would be dealing with some capability gap or the next decade or so, but I think this could be reasonably covered by the current inventory without any major detriment to national defence. In return I think you get a much more capable force, albeit with smaller aircraft numbers, though one of the major arguments for the 5th gen aircraft is that each one brought enough to the table to replace several 4th gen aircraft.

If you think the cut backs in the F-22 buy was unrelated to the F-35 I'm not sure where to start, do you think Gates could have cut the buy down to 187 if there wasn't another "fighter" in the wings? I don't think anyone could claim the the US only needed 187 new fighters, full stop. The buy was cut back because the assumption was that the F-35 can fill the air superiority void and because of budgetary pressures to keep the F-35 buy up. i don't know of anyone who would contend that the later reductions in the raptor buy weren't heavily influenced by the F-35 program.

The one thing we can agree on is that, yes, as you point out, senior people in the USAF with first hand knowledge of both programs were so opposed to the decision to cut the raptor buy that they lost their jobs, I'm unclear on how that supports your argument rather than mine.

 

[Pioneer]

Pioneer; considering that the US Navy valuated the 2 F/A-18C airframes lost last year to be worth $74.6m and $77.3m each (while an FRP F-35A [not C mind you] is expected to cost ~$75m in today's dollars), and considering that you have customers like the UAE paying ~$200m weapon system costs for Block 60 F-16Es (while other countries like Australia pay ~$200m weapon system costs for F-35As), I think the answer is in generic economics.

How is it that the baseline Textron Scorpion costs $20m, or an AIM-120D costs $1.8m, or a gallon of gas $3? Inflation, supply & demand, changing markets, median salaries, etc.

Sorry Dragon029, but I don't understand your point?

As a side note mate, are you saying you still believing this

F-35A [not C mind you] is expected to cost ~$75m in today's dollars

stuff? :'(


Respectively
Pioneer

 

[Dragon029]

You rhetorically asked where / when / why did the F-35 became 'so expensive' and 'failed to match the cost of the aircraft it replaces' - I was pointing out that if you compare the FRP cost of an F-35 to the cost that it's predecessors cost today (in the case of the Hornets and modern F-16 variants), the F-35 is pretty much the same cost as the aircraft it replaces.

Yes you pay more than what you did back in the 1970s, but that's the case of just about everything other than consumer electronics - the problem therefore lies not primarily in the JSF program, but in industry-wide or generic issues, like the massive underestimation of just how hard software development would be when you applied (growing at the time) aerospace safety regs to ~25 million LOC projects.

 

[Pioneer]

Thank you Dragon029 for the clarification to your previous answer
But I must say neither the F-16 or F/A-18A/B/C/D had anywhere near the radical cost blow-outs as that of the F-35, nor the years past their expected service entry dates, nor the ridiculous modification, after modification ..........

Regards
Pioneer

 

[sferrin]

But I must say neither the F-16 or F/A-18A/B/C/D had anywhere near the radical cost blow-outs as that of the F-35,

Really? Compare the cost of an F-16A Block 5 to an F-16E Block 60. (Or even an F-16 purchased in 1979 to one purchased today.)

nor the ridiculous modification, after modification ..........

You mean like all the modifications required to make it into an aircraft that was actually useful? Compare a Block 5 F-16 to a Block 30. (By the way, they actually have to make two separate versions of each block to have the "interchangeable" engines. That's why you have block 30/32, 40/42, and 50/52. But hey, at least it didn't require any "ridiculous modifications" right? )

 

[kcran567]

The escalating cost spiral is getting out of control with the F-35, and one option is the upcoming T-X that might bring the F-35 program to a noisy end if the contractors get it right. Boeing/Saab, Northrop Grumman/Scaled Composites, and now *suprise* Lockheed Martin all claiming to offer clean sheet aircraft. If the F-35 is such a strong program why is Lockheed trying to get a new aircraft in there with fighter like capability and in a program that is focusing on ending the cost spiral?
There is a change coming and it's all about cost. So can something like T-X be used to supplement or replace the F-35? Why is any attention at all being given to the F-35s performance against an F-16 with drop tanks?

 

[bring_it_on]

But I must say neither the F-16 or F/A-18A/B/C/D had anywhere near the radical cost blow-outs as that of the F-35, nor the years past their expected service entry dates, nor the ridiculous modification, after modification ..........

While the part of expected service entry dates is most likely correct the bit about cost is certainly not the case. The Europeans for example had a Not To Exceed Price on the F-16 and ended up paying close to twice that amount when it came to take delivery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onFpVW73WAE

 

[sferrin]

Because the F-35 does not meet the requirements anyway! It meets the requirements now because the goalposts have been moved so many times to fit what they were getting.

I'll bet you think the F-35 is the first aircraft to have it's requirements modified during development. Besides, I wouldn't hold you to anything more than what the F-35 is expected to make. (You'd still come up short in cost and delivery date.)

I believe that for the current projected costs and the potential future costs you can create a new set of requirements that get you a superior capability.

Funny, you just said the opposite in your last post. (You were correct then. You're not now.)

By not cheaper I mean that you would be taking a big loss on the F-35 program by pairing it back to roughly 1000 A models.

Oh, so you want to explode the cost of the F-35 by cutting it's numbers AND incur even more costs by developing (and having to support) yet another aircraft? Brilliant plan.

Also that the capital costs of restating the raptor line or starting a new 6th gen program and expanding the LRS-B buy may be somewhat more expensive.

You want to restart the F-22 program TOO? You sure have a funny way of "saving" money. ;D

But what you are getting in return makes it well worth the while and that ultimately you may save money as I don't think anyone can accept that now, unlike the half dozen previous times, that LM's life cycle cost projections are accurate.

What makes you think anybody else's would have been anymore accurate with an equally complex program? Do you have any evidence to support that "belief"?

GAO and other bodies are working from company information so I'm not sure how you get an accurate independent review. Even if the current very high figures I don't that the cost benefit is there.

Those who matter (the customer for example) disagree.

At one time the A-12 was the strike requirement for navy, it was the only stealth aircraft they had on the books and it was central to their planning. Many years and Billions were spent, but it was cancelled, I suppose that you would have felt that they should have proceeded even though it became increasingly clear that the costs were too high for what they were getting tot he point fo threatening other programs and that the capability was not adequate.

Nope. IMO McDonnell Douglas/GD should have never been awarded the contract in the first place as they effectively had no experience with stealth. And it showed. Northrop should have got it but then they were honest and told them a higher number. (Which likely would have got higher still down the road.)

As for being here again in 15 years then why ever try and develop new aircraft? The idea that you wouldn't try and develop something new and better just because the current program has been so problematic doesn't make sense to me at all.

That's because you've drunk the Kool-Aid and think the program is a disaster when it's really just experience the teething problems any other aircraft goes through during development. And before you go, "ya but it's got moarrrrrrrrr", the more complex you get the more you have to figure out. That should be obvious. The XP-80 went from contract award to first flight in 180 days. Clearly the F-16 is a POS because it took longer than that right? Right?

Never mind the fact that the suggestions I made were for a program that's now successfully operating (F-22) and is a known quantity production wise,

Sure it is. And people just like you were squealing just as loud when the F-22 was "an over cost disaster of a Cold War relic" during IT'S development. The Bill Sweetmans of the world were right there jumping on it with both feet. Hell, that lunatic "Solomon" was screaming about it being a POS and that "what we really need is a multirole aircraft that can do it all, so we should kill the F-22 and accelerate the F-35 program". ;D

another that is being developed for production anyway (LRS-B) and another 2 that are planned (the Naval and USAF 6th gen program), these are risks DoD is already taking.

And would gain nothing by killing the F-35. (But we'd sure as hell be screwing over our combat pilots.)

Yes, you would be dealing with some capability gap or the next decade or so, but I think this could be reasonably covered by the current inventory without any major detriment to national defence.

That hand-wavey thing is a powerful tool. Perhaps you could use it to wave away the J-20, J-31, and T-50.

If you think the cut backs in the F-22 buy was unrelated to the F-35 I'm not sure where to start, do you think Gates could have cut the buy down to 187 if there wasn't another "fighter" in the wings?

He could and did. (BTW your bias is showing. "Fighter"? Got to work harder if you want to at least appear to be impartial. )

I don't think anyone could claim the the US only needed 187 new fighters, full stop.

Jesus, you really haven't been paying attention have you? Where did anybody say anything about 187 new fighters? Gates said more F-22s were unnecessary because "any potential enemy won't have a stealth aircraft for 20 years".

The one thing we can agree on is that, yes, as you point out, senior people in the USAF with first hand knowledge of both programs were so opposed to the decision to cut the raptor buy that they lost their jobs, I'm unclear on how that supports your argument rather than mine.

I don't doubt it.

 

[sferrin]

The escalating cost spiral is getting out of control with the F-35,

Apparently you're out of the loop. (Or are just one of those who refuse to accept reality when it comes to the F-35.) Costs are coming down regularly. As for thinking the T-X would be a replacement for the F-35, I don't have enough "BAHHAHAH" for that.

 

[Dragon029]

So can something like T-X be used to supplement or replace the F-35?

Can the T-38 be used to supplement or replace the F-16?

The purpose having a more advanced T-X is to allow it to simulate 5th gen combat for pilot training. They could just throw the new LVC kit and avionics into T-38s, but the average T-38 airframe as is over 40 years old, so it's time to get new airframes.

 

[sferrin]

So can something like T-X be used to supplement or replace the F-35?

Can the T-38 be used to supplement or replace the F-16?

The purpose having a more advanced T-X is to allow it to simulate 5th gen combat for pilot training. They could just throw the new LVC kit and avionics into T-38s, but the average T-38 airframe as is over 40 years old, so it's time to get new airframes.

Not to mention the T-X damn sure won't be a stealth aircraft.