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

Sundog said:
BillG said:
The only trouble is come 2020 when they get delivery, the F-35 is cheaper than the Rafale and Superhornet. apple for apple


The price is never going to be that low for the F-35. Hell, we can't even get Pratt to reveal the powerplant costs. I know they've been saying $85 million flyaway costs, but they're at around $100 million now for the A variant without the engine and it's rumored to be in the $20 mill range for it's engine. That would mean they will be building the F-35 for $65 mill, less the engine? Yeah, I have a bridge to sell you.
I think at even at the current 108M$, it's cheaper than the Rafale, isn't it?
The Superhornet is about 70M$ now plus extras, FLIR, IRST, FMS sales cost, etc, and will have inflation added come 2020. It will be well in excess of the target F-35A 80-85M$
http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/F-35-Public-Affairs-Guidance.pdf
Q1. Isn’t this aircraft too expensive?
A1. Because of development cost, all aircraft acquisitions are more costly in the beginning. The F-35 costs
have dropped steadily since the beginning of the program and will continue to do so. Unit costs have dropped
by 57 percent since the procurement of the first production aircraft. A single F-35A with an engine is now $108
million ($4 million lower than previous lot 7 prices) – this trend should continue as we sign lots 9 and 10; we
are very close to having an F-35A that costs less than $100M. In 2019, the target is $80M or less per aircraft.
That will make the F-35 comparable in cost to any 4th generation fighter. To maintain the steady decline in
price per unit, the program of record numbers and advanced procurement contracts need to remain intact.
 
What is the price of a F-35, F-18 Super Hornet, and Rafale in current year dollars? People keep throwing out the $80 million, but IIRC, that is in 2010 dollars.
 
"Flight Deck Headset Compensates for F-35 Engine Noise"
By Andrew Clevenger 8:19 p.m. EDT September 23, 2015

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/modern-day-marine/2015/09/23/flight-deck-headset-compensates-f-35-engine-noise/72706410/

MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va. — With the F-35 reaching initial operational capability for the US Marine Corps earlier this year, one firm is producing ways to reduce noise levels for support personnel and mechanics working on the jump-jet on deck.

While accounts vary of how loud the F-35 can get, with a 2014 study produced by the F-35's Joint Program Office concluding that it produced noise levels comparable to an F/A-18 Super Hornet, ongoing exposure to the on-deck noise produced from the jet can pose a risk of hearing loss for flight deck personnel.

"The seriousness of the problem continues to grow," said Aegisound CEO Mike Vaundry at the Modern Day Marine expo held at Marine Base Quantico, where the company's noise-canceling headsets were on display. "The hearing protection they have been wearing was designed for environments that were not as loud as they are today."

By combining digital active noise reduction (DANR) with two forms of passive noise reduction, Christiansburg, Va.-based Aegisound reduces engine noise to the point where radio communications are possible.

Aegisound's solution for simultaneous communications and hearing protection for mechanics working around active F-35s is three layers of hearing protection: large cups over the ear, custom fit earbuds inside the ear and DANR electronics within the earbuds. Used together, the headset can reduce noise levels by more than 30 decibels.

When paired with a digital noise-cancelling microphone, the Aegisound headset allows for two-way communications when attached to the wearer's radio or phone.

The top-of-the-line headset can run up to $5,000 each, but a relatively minor cost up front could save money down the line, as hearing loss on active duty can lead to huge expenses later on. The American Tinnitus Association projects that tinnitus and other hearing loss-related claims will cost the Department of Veterans Affairs $2.75 billion in 2016, up from $720 million a decade earlier.

Aegisound supplies its headsets to Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor on the F-35. In 2010, the Mentor-Protégé agreement between Lockheed Martin and Aegisound won a Nunn-Perry award from the Department of Defense recognizing the success of their business relationship.
 
DrRansom said:
What is the price of a F-35, F-18 Super Hornet, and Rafale in current year dollars? People keep throwing out the $80 million, but IIRC, that is in 2010 dollars.
The F-35 is base year in 2012 year dollars
Look at the current SAR, the about 80M$ is in 2020 then year dollars. The FA-18 SAR will also give you the price of that.
 
So the F-35 will maintain the lead in air superiority for the next 20 to 30 years...


Now you tell us. Why did we spend all that money on the F-22, then?


As for price comparisons: 40 F-35As = 60 Typhoons (Korea) and the Swiss evaluation didn't seem to throw up a vast difference between Rafale and Typhoon. The gross weapon system unit cost of the F/A-18 averaged about $75 million in the most recent full production years, and the F-35A is projected to reach just over $100m in FY2020 ($110 m at high rate in immediately prior years).
 
LowObservable said:
So the F-35 will maintain the lead in air superiority for the next 20 to 30 years...


Now you tell us. Why did we spend all that money on the F-22, then?

That's like asking why did we spend all that money on the F-15 if we had the F-16. Different roles.


LowObservable said:
As for price comparisons: 40 F-35As = 60 Typhoons (Korea)

And yet Korea still passed on the Typhoons.
 
Well, no. Pretty much when the F-16C happened along we stopped buying F-15s as fighters and switched to bombers. If the F-35 was expected to dominate the air, the F-22 was not needed (as the AF said it was up to 2009).


Korea did select the F-35 for whatever reason, but obviously that has nothing to do with the cost comparison.
 
LowObservable said:
Well, no. Pretty much when the F-16C happened along we stopped buying F-15s as fighters and switched to bombers.

Because the F-15C production run was complete. Kind of like the F-22 production run is complete. The F-15E was for a different requirement.

LowObservable said:
If the F-35 was expected to dominate the air, the F-22 was not needed (as the AF said it was up to 2009).

If the F-16 was expected to dominate the air the F-15 was not needed.
 
Posted : 2015-09-24 17:15
Updated : 2015-09-24 20:23


"KF-X project in jeopardy on botched F-35 deal"
Korea's fighter jet program expected to suffer delay
by Jun Ji-hy

Source:
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2015/09/205_187515.html

Concerns are growing that the KF-X project to develop indigenous fighter jets may not go forward as scheduled due to the failure to receive four core technologies on F-35 stealth fighters from Lockheed Martin.

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said that the nation will push for cooperation with other foreign firms or autonomously develop the technologies.

However, a DAPA official said Thursday that this would consequently delay the 8.5 trillion won project, codenamed KF-X.

Lawmakers on the National Assembly Defense Committee and defense watchers said the failure to receive the four would cause a rise in production costs as well, and a problem in interoperability with other equipment, which will be mainly based on American technology.

The KF-X project calls for developing fighter jets of the F-16 plus class to replace an aging fleet of F-4s and F-5s by 2025. Some 120 jets are to be built.

Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) started the project in March with a plan to secure technological assistance from the U.S. defense giant. When the DAPA signed a 7.3 trillion won deal with Lockheed in September last year to purchase 40 F-35s, it said Korea would receive a total of 25 F-35 related technologies under the offset program.

In less than a year, however, the KF-X program encountered difficulties as the four ― the active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, infrared search and track (IRST), electronic optics targeting pod (EOTGP) and RF jammer ― are at the heart of the jet development.

"It depends on the performance of the radar, but developing an AESA radar will take 20 to 30 years if you currently have no technology about it," said a military official asking not to be named.

Rep. Ahn Gyu-baek of the main opposition New Politics Alliance for Democracy (NPAD) noted, "Even if Korea develops the core technologies, there would be a compatibility problem with the U.S.," referring to the 21 other technologies.

Defense observers said a possible interoperability problem also applies if the nation receives the technologies from other foreign companies.

They added even if Korea completes the development of the four, there remain further questions as to how to integrate them with aircraft.

"Consequently, the failure to receive them from the U.S. could deal a setback to the KF-X project," said Hong Sung-pyo, KBS's defense news commentator. "How to secure the four technologies is a mission that absolutely needs to be addressed."

Rep. Yoo Seong-min of the ruling Saenuri Party called the technology transfers to be included on the agenda of the Seoul-Washington summit or the two countries' defense ministers' talks.

The DAPA official said, "We will utilize technologies accumulated while developing the KT-1, T-50 and KUH. We will prepare countermeasures to secure technologies that the U.S. refused to hand over."
 
Interesting.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/167178/korea-procurement-agency-under-fire-over-f_35-deal.html

"Rep. Moon Jae-in, chairman of the main opposition New Politics Alliance for Democracy (NPAD), said, "The military has constantly said Korea will be handed over key technologies from the U.S. through the offset deal in the F-35 contract, and these will be used in the KF-X program. Is the U.S. breaking a contract, or is the military lying?"

Later, DAPA said the U.S. decision was not a breach of contract."
 
LowObservable said:
As for price comparisons: 40 F-35As = 60 Typhoons (Korea) and the Swiss evaluation didn't seem to throw up a vast difference between Rafale and Typhoon. The gross weapon system unit cost of the F/A-18 averaged about $75 million in the most recent full production years, and the F-35A is projected to reach just over $100m in FY2020 ($110 m at high rate in immediately prior years).

According to DefenseNews, some 50 percent of the value of the near $7 billion agreement is covered by offset arrangements. I am not sure if this 50 percent includes the technology transfer value of active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, infrared search and track (IRST), electronic optics targeting pod (EOTGP) and RF jammer. Offset arrangements certainly sweeten the deal. What offsets were Dassault and Airbus willing to offer?

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/03/19/lockheed-martin-south-korea-f35-offsets/25009451/
 
LowObservable, I thought you would have known that the Korean deal wasn't apple for apple. Korea already has the F-15, where the f-35 was a complete procurement.

The cost of a F-15 is about the now price of a F-35 of 108M$ exceeding the SAR now price of 70-75M$ fa-18. Both the F-15 and fa-18 would need pods etc to bring it up to being remotely comparable.
 
it was a 2006 price of $100 and $108m

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/f15e/
(F-15E) $108 million [2006$]
(F-15K) $100 million [2006$]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf
$108m
US Air Force FY07 budget request:
https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/FMB/pb/2007/afprocurement/3010_Aircraft_Procurement_v1_FY07_PB.pdf
See page 77
 
Those are truly ancient numbers, and the F-15 is based on funding for a single aircraft (attrition replacement) which would by then have been substantially different from the export models on the line.


And Korea did not have the Typhoon, which undermines your not-very-strong argument.
 
I didn't mention the Typhoon and I think Korea bought more than one F-15k. They are old numbers from 2006, do you think the F-15 has gotten cheaper in the last 10 years?
 
The point is that the Typhoon was still cheaper than the F-35, when it came down to signing a fixed-price contract (rather than touting the great deal you might offer in 2020). It would also be sensible and logical to present the factors that would make the F-15SE less expensive. (Just having some related infrastructure in place makes some difference in the price, but nothing that makes the 40-to-60 difference.)


Your numbers are not only ancient, but (as you didn't mention) they applied to a one-off buy. You also don't bother to find out whether it's a GWSC or a flyaway, but that's not surprising.
 
It seems that Dave Majumdar is confusing the PL-15 with a ramjet-powered missile, perhaps the PL-21?

"America's F-35 Stealth Fighter vs. China's New J-31: Who Wins?"
by Dave Majumdar
September 25, 2015

Source:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-35-stealth-fighter-vs-chinas-new-j-31-who-wins-13938

Recently revealed details concerning China’s Shenyang J-31 fighter suggest that the aircraft not only looks like the Pentagon’s Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), but it also offers comparable aerodynamic performance. But the real question is how far along Beijing has come in the development of subsystems like radars and engines. Moreover, there is the question of how well Chinese industry can integrate all of those disparate technologies into an operational aircraft.

On the surface, the J-31 looks very much like a twin-engine F-35 clone—and there are plenty of reasons to believe that the Chinese jet was based on stolen JSF technology—and could eventually be more or less a match for the American jet. “I think they’ll eventually be on par with our fifth-gen jets—as they should be, because industrial espionage is alive and well,” a senior U.S. military aviator told me last year.

But the Chinese don’t have to match the F-35 one-for-one. The Chinese just have to do enough damage to the U.S. military to make it too expensive to fight. Hypothetically, the air superiority oriented F-22 might be able to generate a kill ratio of thirty-to-one today against the Chinese J-11 Flanker, but the U.S. Air Force has only 120 combat coded Raptors. The Raptor might only generate a three-to-one kill ratio against the J-31 or J-20, which means attrition will take a serious toll on U.S. forces. “When the J-20 and J-31 come around, even a three to one kill ratio advantage becomes costly,” a senior U.S. Air Force official told me late last year.

Where the J-31 is likely to fall short is on avionics—the aircraft’s radar, infrared search and track, data-links and especially sensor fusion. It’s comparatively simple perfecting individual pieces of hardware, but fusing all of the data from a multitude of sensors and off-board platforms is extremely difficult. Even the F-22 didn’t fuse Link-16 data with the rest of its onboard sensors until its Increment 3.2A software upgrade. It’s one of the reasons Lockheed has fallen behind on developing the F-35—and why Air Force and Joint Program Office officials continuous state their concerns about the jet’s software.

Then there is the question of if Chinese industry is up to the task of manufacturing the J-31. Stealth aircraft are built to very tight tolerances—one ten-thousandth of an inch was the standard for the F-22 and the F-35 has tighter requirements still. The Chinese have never demonstrated the ability to build to those kinds of tolerances. Nor have they been able to produce a reliable jet engine to date—so it will some time before China catches up to U.S. fifth-generation machines.

Even if the J-31 doesn’t quite match the F-35 technologically, one area the Chinese are currently investing in is a new long-range missile called the PL-15. It appears to be very similar to the European Meteor beyond visual range missile. Like the Meteor, the Chinese weapon is a ramjet powered missile, which should give it very long range and much better terminal phase performance than the venerable AIM-120 AMRAAM. The AMRAAM’s rocket motor burns for a few seconds and it coasts the rest of the way to the target—like most air-to-air weapons. Further, the AMRAAM is highly vulnerable to digital radio frequency memory jamming and needs to be replaced.

Air Combat Command (ACC) seems to finally be taking the threat seriously—since Air Force officials have been privately complaining about the problem for a while. “The PL-15 and the range of that missile, we’ve got to be able to out-stick that missile,” ACC commander Gen. Carlisle told Flightglobal.
 
"China vs. America in the Sky: A Stealth-Fighter Showdown Is Brewing"
Dave Majumdar
November 14, 2014

Source:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-vs-america-the-sky-stealth-fighter-showdown-brewing-11676

China’s new stealth fighters might one day be able to match their American equivalents in battle, Pentagon and industry officials fear. Indeed, China is showing off its latest Shenyang J-31 stealth fighter at the Zhuhai air show in the Guangdong province. To meet the challenge, the Pentagon needs to continue to buy the F-35 and start developing a future fighter to counter the rising threat.

“The J-31—along with the J-20 [the other Chinese stealth fighter]—is a tangible demonstration of the efforts made by China to counter the significant advantage the U.S. has with the [Lockheed Martin] F-22 and F-35,” said one senior U.S. military official with extensive experience with so-called fifth-generation fighters. “They recognize that fourth-gen airplanes [like the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Russian Su-27 and so on] are quickly becoming obsolete. The price of admission to a fifth-gen war is a fifth-gen airplane and they get that.”

Indeed some senior U.S. aviators believe that the J-31—which is thought by many U.S. military and industry officials to be based on stolen F-22 and F-35 technology—will eventually be the equal of the American fighters. “I think they’ll eventually be on par with our fifth-gen jets—as they should be, because industrial espionage is alive and well,” as one senior pilot familiar with the F-35 told USNI News.

Even if the J-31 doesn’t sit at 100 percent parity with the F-22 and F-35, it might not matter, because those Chinese aircraft might be able to do enough damage to the U.S. military to make it too expensive to fight. “I think we can probably keep a slight advantage for quite some time, but a slight advantage means significant losses and less of a deterrent,” said one senior Air Force official. “Lets pretend the F-22 confronts current air-to-air threats outside of a SAM [surface-to-air missile] environment and has a 30 to one kill ratio today versus a [Sukhoi] Su-30 or [Shenyang] J-11. When the J-20 and J-31 come around, even a three to one kill ratio advantage becomes costly.”

China is developing the J-20 and J-31 because the F-22 and F-35 are so superior to existing fighters. The Chinese cannot afford to lose thirty jets in exchange for killing a single F-22 any more than the U.S. could if the situation were reversed. “Our competitors know the current reality and are working very hard to avoid the wide gap we have created by investing in those planes,” the senior military official said. “They represent their attempt and creating parity in the skies.”

The senior military official said the very fact that China is developing aircraft like the J-20 and J-31 shows that the Pentagon needs the F-35. “The J-31 should make anyone who questions the need for the F-35 to rethink their logic,” the official said. “Regardless of whatever criticisms you have heard about the Raptor and the Lightning, they are incredible machines that are insanely superior by virtually every metric to anything else flying in the world. They may be complex, expensive and still immature, but they are a quantum leap over every other fighter in our arsenal.”

The senior military official said, however, that while the J-31 looks impressive, there is a lot the United States does not know about its capabilities. “Anyone can make a plane that flies fast and looks stealthy,” he said. “The J-31 looks gorgeous. Aside from the fact it’s an obvious rip-off of the F-35.”

It takes a very long time to develop a stealth fighter—much of that is not because of the aircraft itself, but rather the radar, other sensors and cockpit systems. Developing and perfecting those technologies takes a long time. Further, it takes a long time to perfect manufacturing techniques for an extremely complex warplane like the F-22 or F-35. “The most impressive and important qualities of our fifth-gen fleet are what is on the inside—fused sensors and information dominance,” the official said. “We didn’t develop those over night. It takes a lot of time to get where we are today, which is why we continue to preserve our advantage.”

China will eventually perfect the J-20 and J-31, however—it is just a matter of time. “They are going get there one day, make no mistake,” the senior official said. “It won’t be tomorrow or the next day, but the fact this place is debuting now should tell you something about China’s commitment.

But the Pentagon is not resting on its laurels either. The Air Force and Navy are already working on plans for next-generation fighters to restore America’s edge. The Air Force program is called F-X and is aimed at replacing the ultra-high-end F-22 with a new air superiority fighter. Meanwhile, the Navy is working on the F/A-XX strike fighter to replace its Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. “F-X will return it to an unfair advantage... Hopefully deterring any potential adversary from using a military option,” the senior Air Force official said. A more ambitious effort than the Navy’s comparatively modest F/A-XX vision, the new Air Force fighter won’t be aimed at China’s current crop of stealth fighters, but rather their successors. “F-X is more for their follow on to the J-20 and 31 and to a greater extent to operate in the nasty, future surface-to-air-missile engagement zones.”
 
LowObservable said:
So the F-35 will maintain the lead in air superiority for the next 20 to 30 years...


Now you tell us. Why did we spend all that money on the F-22, then?

It would be interesting to know how they determined that the F-35 would maintain air superiority for the next 20 to 30 years. As you are fond of saying, the enemy gets a vote.
 
I think they have the 108M wong and going by the advanced procurement and actual build. The single F-15se comes out over 170M$ by the af budget, I welcome any sourced correction from you.

as I said, the F-15k was around 100M$ in 2006 going by the link. I doubt they have gotten cheaper in 10 years.

If people buy LRIP F-35, they will be dearer than full production. I've read the Typhoon is well over 100M fly away. I welcome any sourced correction from you.
 
LowObservable said:
The point is that the Typhoon was still cheaper than the F-35, when it came down to signing a fixed-price contract (rather than touting the great deal you might offer in 2020). It would also be sensible and logical to present the factors that would make the F-15SE less expensive. (Just having some related infrastructure in place makes some difference in the price, but nothing that makes the 40-to-60 difference.)


Your numbers are not only ancient, but (as you didn't mention) they applied to a one-off buy. You also don't bother to find out whether it's a GWSC or a flyaway, but that's not surprising.




A point that comes to mind is that both the Typhoon (small export orders like Kuwaits may extend) and (especially) the F15 are not likely to be in production for much longer; either they won't be available and if they are available low production rates will drive their prices up.
And that's before the necessary avionic updates to render them remotely competitive to a F35, such as for the Typhoons radar.

And even if we entertain your argument the likes of South Korea went out of their way to pay what you are presenting as a significant premium for the F35 versus these "competitors".

Perhaps you should consider why that is, without resorting to conspiracy theories or branding anyone who disagrees with the F35 haters as fools....
 
BillG - You might consider changing your writing style to one that isn't obviously recognizable. In any case I don't claim to know what any aircraft costs, full stop. I have some data on what customers have been quoted on specific deals, and some on what the USG pays for aircraft, but the moment you start comparing what has been offered to different nations you are on dangerous ground.


KaiserD - If you will remove your imbecilic and irrelevant last sentence your comment might be worthy of a response.
 
LowObservable said:
BillG - You might consider changing your writing style to one that isn't obviously recognizable. In any case I don't claim to know what any aircraft costs, full stop. I have some data on what customers have been quoted on specific deals, and some on what the USG pays for aircraft, but the moment you start comparing what has been offered to different nations you are on dangerous ground.


KaiserD - If you will remove your imbecilic and irrelevant last sentence your comment might be worthy of a response.

Name calling and insults are not really very convincing arguments - they only tend to alienate and suggest weaknesses in the insulting persons arguments.

For idiots like me please summarize the central point of your argument.

Your contention appears to be that the F35 is too expensive versus the F15 and Typhoon and that hence it would make more sense to buy one of the latter 2 as cheaper alternatives to the F35.

The basic problem with such an position, beyond somewhat circular arguments about what exactly each cost in equivalent scenarios (for which the evidence will never be clear), is that it is being disproved in the real world.

Beyond core constructor (and contracted) countries the only countries still buying the F15, Typhoon (or the Rafale) are those denied the F35 (Sadui Arabia, Kuwait etc). They would buy the F35 if they could.
This not a knock on these aircraft but this is very much the pattern we are seeing.

I'm not some kind of blind "F35 lover" and can see in some scenarios were, say, a Typhoon purchase may better match a countries primary requirements (for example if Canada was primarily after a pure interceptor/ air defence aircraft instead of a multi-role fighter-bomber).

There might even be a degree of national competition (Japan & Korea) and "stealth snobbery" feeding into this.

But the central pattern is established as other fighter production lines struggle to sustain themselves going forward as the F35's production ramps up, promising price reductions for the F35 and price increases for its competitors.
 
I'm sure you're very happy to believe that, as you believe that the F-35 is gaining export commitments, that other aircraft are losing them and that the real world is summarized on the attached PPT. So I will not continue to upset you.
 

Attachments

  • Knotts.jpg
    Knotts.jpg
    74.2 KB · Views: 124
LowObservable said:
I'm sure you're very happy to believe that, as you believe that the F-35 is gaining export commitments, that other aircraft are losing them and that the real world is summarized on the attached PPT. So I will not continue to upset you.

How many F-35 orders have been cancelled and replaced with Eurocanards, F-teens etc.? Specifics.
 
That would be a sensible question if it addressed what I'd actually said, but it doesn't so it isn't.
 
If the Powerpoint slide were true, South Korea wouldn't bother with the 4.5 Generation K-FX and the RoKAF wouldn't intend to acquire 120 aircraft to replace aging F-4D/E Phantom II and F-5E/F Tiger II aircraft.
 
LowObservable said:
I'm sure you're very happy to believe that, as you believe that the F-35 is gaining export commitments, that other aircraft are losing them and that the real world is summarized on the attached PPT. So I will not continue to upset you.

What this chart says to me is that we should have had an awesome next gen platform to sell partner nations long ago, and there wouldn’t be any other competitors on this chart....
 
There, Sferrin, you already knew the answer.

But for another 10 points, what is the first necessary precondition for cancelling any contract?
 
It would have been interesting to see how the dominos would have fallen if Robert Gates had permitted the Saudis to acquire the F-15SE which they wanted and had agreed to fund. IMHO, the F-15SE would have been a fine sub-strategic striker that fills the gap between the F-22/F-35 and LRS-B which (if the Navy gets its way on UCLASS) may go uncovered for decades.
 
marauder2048 said:
It would have been interesting to see how the dominos would have fallen if Robert Gates had permitted the Saudis to acquire the F-15SE which they wanted and had agreed to fund. IMHO, the F-15SE would have been a fine sub-strategic striker that fills the gap between the F-22/F-35 and LRS-B which (if the Navy gets its way on UCLASS) may go uncovered for decades.

I understand that Israel was interested in the F-15SE Silent Eagle, but was refused in 2010.
 
Triton said:
If the Powerpoint slide were true, South Korea wouldn't bother with the 4.5 Generation K-FX and the RoKAF wouldn't intend to acquire 120 aircraft to replace aging F-4D/E Phantom II and F-5E/F Tiger II aircraft.


I'm concerned that this debate devolves into either side over-simplifying the other sides arguments.
However Triton has been scrupulously fair and reasonable in this regard.

The F35 cost increases have seen customers reduce orders but none that I know of have yet jumped ship, instead they are accepting lower force numbers. This clearly reflects their view of other aircraft as effective alternatives., and impacts how long many of these aircraft can hang around in production to be alternatives.
And a decision by say one country like Canada deciding to go for alternative to the F35 should be not exaggerated or taken out of the specific context, even though some critics would attempt to do so.

I'd agree that some F35 customers will be looking for a potential lower cost complement to the F35.
Clearly the F35 can't be all things to all men - no aircraft could ever have been.

However it will be interesting to see how much aircraft like the K-FX actually end up costing, and their are clearly nationalistic and industry development issues at play in Korea.
Will reall savings be made or will they end up with an inferior fighter for nearly as much money?

As a parallel example would India not have been better off licence producing the Gripen rather than how the LCA has been going?
 
Interviews: Italy's First F-35A First Flight

Published on Sep 24, 2015

Italy's first F-35A Lightning II, assembled at the Cameri, Italy, Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) facility, flew for the first time on Sept. 7, 2015, marking the program's first-ever F-35 flight outside the United States. Hear from some of the people who helped make this flight possible, including the pilot, William "Gigs" Gigliotti.

https://youtu.be/bxXM7j4nmQg
 
Lockheed Martin plans Advanced EOTS flight trials from 2017 - Fein, Geoff. Jane's International Defense Review


Lockheed Martin is proposing updates to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's (JSF) electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) seeking to add an improved camera, an infrared (IR) marker, and increasing the system's range in the Block 4 development cycle.


Although the Advanced EOTS is still a few years away from becoming a programme of record, Lockheed Martin is confident there is a demand for the new capabilities given the emerging threats the US Air Force, US Navy, and US Marine Corps will be facing.


"As the threat facing us has evolved and technology continues to move onward, this represents a natural evolution of our baseline system," Don Bolling, fire control business development director for Lockheed Martin, told IHS Jane's on 10 September.


Advanced EOTS is predominantly a hardware upgrade, improving on EOTS' mid-wave IR camera, laser designator, and infrared search and track (IRST) capability.


"When you look at Advanced EOTS, we have a higher resolution mid-wave camera, we add a TV in this case, a TV SWIR [short-wave IR] camera so we add another IR band for greater resolution and greater utility in different environmental conditions, we add an IR marker and probably the biggest impact to performance increase we get, we grow the aperture," Bolling said. "The main camera lens, we grow it to get significantly improved range performance."


Lockheed Martin began designing Advanced EOTS in 2011. Bolling said the team is probably more than 50% complete on drawings, which will enable them to go to production.


Given the cost challenges F-35 has faced over the years, affordability was at the forefront of the Advanced EOTS effort. Engineers looked at what they could retain for cost purposes and, because of new technology insertion, what they absolutely needed to change, Bolling said.


"We wanted to make sure we could create an upgrade that would be affordable from an integration-implementation standpoint," he said. "We retained the exact mechanical interface, we use the exact same electrical interface. We use the same signal interface and cooling interface that we currently have with the baseline system."

In essence Advanced EOTS is a plug and play system, Bolling said.


"You would remove the baseline EOTS and insert the new system. The same window closes it out. You have the same connections and the software that we provide in our system with our baseline EOTS would enable you to operate the advance EOTS functionality," he said. "There will be some additional software work required at the aircraft level to take advantage of the new functionalities, specifically the TV SWIR and IR pointer.


"The aircraft interface structure stays the same. The optical bed stays the same. Many of the sub components stay the same for affordability. The gimbal is new and we add a new SWIR camera."


One thing that won't change with the move toward Advanced EOTS is that it will continue to be the only system that combines a targeting forward looking IR for air-to-ground functionality and an IRST for air-to-air functionality, Bolling said.


"That has never been done before in a single system. It took a very sophisticated design approach, so we will maintain that with Advanced EOTS as well," he added.


The ultimate decision on whether to upgrade the F-35 to the Advanced EOTS will be determined by the Joint Programme Office (JPO) and the individual US services, Bolling noted and added that the company does plan to build a prototype system in 2016 and begin initial testing on a surrogate aircraft, such as a small business jet, in late 2017 or early 2018.


"We are offering this for consideration to the JPO early in the Block 4 [development]. We would like to see Block 4.1. We feel we will be ready at that time, but the ultimate decision is with the JPO."
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom