The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[saintkatanalegacy]

sounds reasonable once inflation rate is considered

 

[Abraham Gubler]

sounds reasonable once inflation rate is considered

There is no inflation in these figures which is why I said "infaltion adjusted" which usually means taking it out. Of course the US DoD method is to use "base year dollars" which remain at the value of the dollar when the project was approved.

So a cost growth of 4-7% per annum over ten years of SDD is where the JSF is tracking. Hardly the end of the world that the critics like to make out. Try building a house and staying within 4-7% of original cost.

 

[TomS]

TomS - yes my post #166 already has this document attachment. Issue solved 3 days ago

OOps, I hadn't seen that. I don't think anyone had said what that report was, though.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

The only "material" that was seriously lacking was funding,

Ahh a program insider... Somehow I find it hard to understand how a program that was funded to the tune of 63.8 billion dollars can be considered lacking in funding!

Oh it is easy enough to fund development costs apparently. But when it comes time to pay up for production, seems none of our political leaders have the stomach. Gotta spend that money on some dead-end stimulus effort or so forth after all...

and the politicians can still claim to be strong on defense by saying they are funding program Y because there is no need for program X.

 

[LowObservable]

A little clarification:

If the DoD did not agree with the GAO numbers for average procurement unit cost, they would not have released a document that used basically the same figures.

The oft quoted $135 m is the same APUC as the GAO's $112 m - it's just that the bigger number is then-year (out to 2035 in some cases) and the GAO number is base-2010.

APUC = the Pentagon's total estimated procurement cost for 2443 aircraft, divided by 2443. Includes initial spares.

Three important facts about the APUC:

1 - It includes all three versions. If the B/C are 20 per cent more expensive than the A (which IIRC has been consistent through the program) this works out to around $106 m for the A and $127 m for the B-C.

2 - It is heavily influenced by the out-years, particularly the anticipated long, constant-rate production run for the F-35A. The annual average procurement cost will not approach the total average until MYPs start after 2016. At some point they have to drop below it.

3 - It's still based on a ramp-up and rate that includes partner orders planned last year and unchanged US buys. The question of whether the US services can afford the planned rate at the increased costs is still open, and partners are sliding to the right.

GTX - Australia does not have a contract yet.

 

[GTX]

GTX - Australia does not have a contract yet.

My information re the agreed price was directly from the mouth of Air Vice-Marshal John Harvey, AM, Program Manager New Air Combat Capability.

Regards,

Greg

 

[LowObservable]

I'm impressed, since even the US does not have a firm fixed price for the FY2012 order yet.

 

[GTX]

I'm impressed, since even the US does not have a firm fixed price for the FY2012 order yet.

Not really that odd - the nuances of negotiating...

Regards,

Greg

 

[flateric]

.

 

[kcran567]

Everyone in the know is saying that the f-35 doesnt require a 3D nozzle. That the f-35 also has a few "surprises" in the dogfight. remeber the Australian article about lack of manouverability of f-35 in certain situations. But with all that engine power a 3D nozzle would allow some spectacular pitch and yaw and roll, in an emergency (ie missle or flanker short range etc) shorter takeoff...could it be the "surprise" has been there all along? Those petals look like they are for 3D vectoring too. Could they be downplaying the need for a 3d nozzle because the f-35 really has one that is just kept an operational secret?

 

[kcran567]

And also, saying a vectoring nozzle is worthless is ridiculous...for ground attack alone remember the f-16 vectored nozzle demonstrator able to "sweep" ground targets for strafing, fly circles around a target, etc. with great precision.

 

[sferrin]

Everyone in the know is saying that the f-35 doesnt require a 3D nozzle.

Exactly who would that be?

That the f-35 also has a few "surprises" in the dogfight. remeber the Australian article about lack of manouverability of f-35 in certain situations. But with all that engine power a 3D nozzle would allow some spectacular pitch and yaw and roll,

It would allow exactly ZERO roll improvement as it's a single-engine fighter.

in an emergency (ie missle or flanker short range etc) shorter takeoff...could it be the "surprise" has been there all along? Those petals look like they are for 3D vectoring too. Could they be downplaying the need for a 3d nozzle because the f-35 really has one that is just kept an operational secret?

More like wishful thinking. A vectored nozzle would hardly be secret.

 

[lantinian]

It would allow exactly ZERO roll improvement as it's a single-engine fighter.

Technically the vectoring itself will not improve roll but if the F-22 is used as an example, in high AoA, some or all pitch control can be diverted to the engine, leaving the tails more leverage to control roll.

In short, while roll rate might not be improved, roll capability will be retained trough whole AoA flight envelope.

But yes, the F-35 does not have TVC and one will bring more problems than solution given current technology.

 

[donnage99]

Everyone in the know is saying that the f-35 doesnt require a 3D nozzle. That the f-35 also has a few "surprises" in the dogfight. remeber the Australian article about lack of manouverability of f-35 in certain situations. But with all that engine power a 3D nozzle would allow some spectacular pitch and yaw and roll, in an emergency (ie missle or flanker short range etc) shorter takeoff...could it be the "surprise" has been there all along? Those petals look like they are for 3D vectoring too. Could they be downplaying the need for a 3d nozzle because the f-35 really has one that is just kept an operational secret?

With the rapid advancement of air to air missiles, a WVR engagement would almost garantee a mutual kill reguardless of platform's maneuverability. So the best way is to employ a system that would allow an aircraft to lock and launch its missile regardless of angle of attack, even backward. This allows 2 advantages: the aircraft will be able to shoot first; secondly, the aircraft would be able to keep speed, geometry and energy instead of "turn and burn" to get a lock, allowing greater chance to outrun the other guy's missile. The system is called EODAS for the f-35. As a additional capabilties, f-35 will also have DIRCM to blind enemy's incoming missile. These 2 capabilities are superior to the maneuverability that thrust vectoring offers (which is becoming more and more irrelevant), so why add the weight?

 

[AeroFranz]

are there any pictures of what the DIRCM installation looks like? 'tis one thing to install a bulky turret and sensors on a large subsonic transport or helicopter, 'tis a different thing on a stealthy supersonic fighter.

 

[kcran567]

Lets just hope and pray the limited number of f-35's (against numerically higher numbers of cheaper fulcrums and Flankers) DONT RUN OUT OF MISSLES, and find themselves up close to a few flankers with gun ready in visual range, because thats when a 3d nozzle would help greatly.

Just like f-105's and f-4's being too "advanced" for a dogfight with mig-17's and not needing a gun. But that changed real quick in the real world.

What ever happened to a "cheaper" JSF? Maybe the ugly boeing x-32 really wouldve been a better choice, it was cheaper and at LEAST HAD A 2D NOZZLE for better agility than the f-35.

The X-32 was ugly and didnt "hover" as good as an F-35? SO WHAT? It would have hovered and VSTOL'd at least as good as a harrier...Give me a break. The conventional version is being built in most numbers anyway. Give me an ugly fighter that gets the job done its not a beauty contest.

 

[Jetguru]

What makes you think the x32 "Monica" would have carried more missles than the f35? It couldn't hover, it would never have been a better fighter, 2d nozzles or not. Do you even know how much firepower the 35 carries? Have you seen the weapons bays? Or loadouts? Please, do some research before you tout such a fugly pig.

 

[kcran567]

What makes you think the x32 "Monica" would have carried more missles

Never said that, dont put your words in my mouth.
What is the f-35 going to do when it runs out of missles? read my post

than the f35? It couldn't hover
Of course it could hover, as good as the harrier, not as good as the f-35.

I was talking about cost, and the benefit of a vectored nozzle in a dogfight

Why dont you do your research by reading what i said and make a solid argument

 

[Jetguru]

Are you kidding, sure it tied to hover, and actually managed to pull off VL a couple times, but at the safer to all... The damn thing liked to suck it's own fumes and pop stall, do you know what that is? The only thing amazing about that pig was the brave pilot who flew it. Anyway, what makes you think that pos would have been cheaper? 2d nozzles aren't exactly cheap. Unlike the 35 stovl nozzle, every ac would have paid the cost penalty. Seriously, the 35 trumped that pos in every way.

 

[donnage99]

Lets just hope and pray the limited number of f-35's (against numerically higher numbers of cheaper fulcrums and Flankers) DONT RUN OUT OF MISSLES, and find themselves up close to a few flankers with gun ready in visual range, because thats when a 3d nozzle would help greatly.

A little thinking process wouldn't hurt before typing? An f-35 without missile facing flankers or even a f-4 phantom with advanced missiles and sensors are as good as dead.

Your example of vietnam era is completely irrelevant if not ignorant, as back then, sensors' ability to identify targets are no where adequate, and their missiles are not equipped for dogfight, forcing them to enter a dogfight with a gun. These factors are no longer the case.

 

[Jetguru]

Ya know donnage, I'd be willing to wagerr that at least once during jer life the f35 will score a kill without any weapons. See with all the 3rd world countries flying flankers, at some point when they do get visual on a 35, not knowing whether ther are weapons in the bays or even if they have already been fired, they'll pinch out in pure fear for their lives. Kind of like the iraqis in the fox holes did when they saw the tanks coming.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

An F-35 that has run out of air to air missiles is not instantly in danger to swarms of FLANKERs as is suggested. Such an interpretation is good enough to get you fired from RAND or a “job” with Air Power Australia – not particularly good outcomes!

If the F-35 is on a strike mission and has managed to be intercepted by FLANKERs (a huge ask but lets give it for the sake of argument) and shot two down with the onboard ASRAAM/AMRAAM/JDRADM leaving it without missiles then it’s not automatically game over. Because of its EODAS it doesn’t need to manoeuvre after the merge to gain a kill – unlike a FLANKER, T-50, etc – so it has not lost all that energy. It will still be barrelling along at M 0.8-1.0 on way to the target leaving those surviving FLANKERs miles behind it as they bleed off speed turning and burning. Of course since the F-35 should be able to divert itself around any FLANKER CAPs thanks to its superior detection/counter detection capability such an interception that is not on its terms is highly unlikely.

If on the other hand the F-35 is on a OCA/DCA mission and wants to tangle with those FLANKERs, T-50s, etc then it will be loaded with eight internal ASRAAM/AMRAAM/JDRADM and be able to use its energy sustaining EODAS engagement capability to keep hitting that giant formation of FLANKERs until it runs out of missiles. Then it has its gun and by this time the FLANKERs will be very low energy it will be like shooting fish in a barrel as the F-35 keeps coming in for high speed passes on the low speed, thrust vectoring to try and point their noses FLANKERs. So the F-35 can pick up a few more kills and then disengage at will after the last 25mm rounds are expended and return for home. 25mm BTW is a much better round for this type of in and out kills compared to the lower velocity but more rounds volumetric 20mm in which you want to fill the sky with lead as you manoeuvre tightly with the enemy.

This idea that the F-35 is going to be swarmed by giant numbers of FLANKERs is an all too common canard propagated by the high priests of anti-JSFdom. Even if the operational aspects of it were true more F-35s are being built than FLANKERs, T-50s, etc! So where are these mythical 10,000 FLANKERs to provide the overmatch in numbers?

 

[Sundog]

, it would never have been a better fighter, 2d nozzles or not.

Do you have any evidence to back this claim up, as I've not seen any publicly released material regarding the X-32's capabilities as a fighter and all I've seen about the F-35's are anecdotal at best. It's reported that the F-35 will be able to perform all of the same maneuvers the F-22 can without TV. I've yet to see any info that the states the X-32 could not as well.

 

[Jetguru]

Never made the claim it could do what the raptor can, just that it will be an outstanding fighter compared to the Monica. Nothing about the 32 strikes me as a viable strike fighter, let alone something worthy of the USAF logo. I'm so tired of the where's the proof straw man Argument with these things... Leta just say it's a hunch. Let me ask you, given the 32 or 35, which in your opinion will be a better strike fighter?

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Personally I'm not very thrilled with the F-35's air-to-air capability until it can carry the AIM-9X internally. That fancy AN/AAQ-37 sensor system has plenty of potential, but you want a missile that can take advantage of that if you get into a dogfight.

That and the sooner it can carry six (or eight?) missiles internally, the better.

When it comes to thrust-vectoring, our concern at the moment should be actually getting the aircraft in production and fully operational. Now isn't the time to be working on such a thing. If costs are brought under control, the F-35 meets specification, and is built in the numbers planned, TVC may be worth investigating.

If there was one thing I liked about the Boeing X-32 it was the 2D nozzle, for the stealth reasons as well as the thrust-vectoring. Yet it seems such a configuration wouldn't have been compatible with the X-35's method of VTOL operation. Besides for that, it seems the X-32 didn't have much going for it.

To be fair, the revised X-32 with the conventional swept wing and tail format wasn't that bad looking. (from certain angles )

 

[Sundog]

Never made the claim it could do what the raptor can, just that it will be an outstanding fighter compared to the Monica. Nothing about the 32 strikes me as a viable strike fighter, let alone something worthy of the USAF logo. I'm so tired of the where's the proof straw man Argument with these things... Leta just say it's a hunch. Let me ask you, given the 32 or 35, which in your opinion will be a better strike fighter?

Asking for facts isn't a strawman argument. It's pointing out you don't know. The X-32 lost mainly because of it's lack of performance for the STOVL requirement, which was related more to the direct lift concept and hot gas reingestion problems. There wasn't any indication it didn't meet any of the USAF requirements. It was redesigned from the prototype to the production version for the Naval requirements; specifically the conventional tail that was added. If we were going to use your logic for aircraft procurement we never would have had an F-4 or an A-10.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Ignoring the problems related to the STOVL variant of the X-32, the biggest issue I see is that huge air intake. Apparently there was some sort of radar blocker, but I doubt it could match the X-35's frontal radar cross section.

 

[Jetguru]

I disagree (obviously). Unconventional appearance is one thing, butt ugly useless design is another. There are many reasons why the Monica lost, including the pop stall issue. The f4 was at first a dog, but after a few kinks here & there they were able to bring here aero under control. As for the a10, that's one of the best looking, most functional designs out there, she just needed a little systems maturation to really grow into her skin. As for the straw man argument stuff, you know damn well there isn't a detailed document out there that could be shared, so it's easy to hide behind. So many times when pushed in a corner that's the response... Even when real expert opinion is provided, you can always hide behind the same argument. That's fine, really doesn't matter to me. I'll pit my squadren of 35s against one of 32s anytime.

Bottom line, most this game is opinion. Even when official analysis is shared, those who don't want to believe it won't. Same goes with unoffocial national inquirer editorials from yahoos like the apa. People are going to believe what they want. Me, I choose to believe the 32 was a dead end from the start, one which no self respecting military "decider" would put his signature on. The 35 was the right choice... And when it proves to be a lethal, highly effective fighter / strike aircraft, many of you will still stick you heads in the sand, quote goon & Kopp, and convince yourself of whatever you want.

Godspeed to Edwards aa-1....

 

[donnage99]

An F-35 that has run out of air to air missiles is not instantly in danger to swarms of FLANKERs as is suggested. Such an interpretation is good enough to get you fired from RAND or a “job” with Air Power Australia – not particularly good outcomes!

I was speaking in the context that kran567 suggested. He seems to suggest that what if the f-35 goes in a fight without missiles against enemies with missiles, the gun would save them. The gun wouldn't increase f-35's survivability one bit.

You are looking at the topic from a realistic point of view, which in itself is outside of the context of kran567, since his context doesn't leave anything for realism. The reason is that his context disregarded the common fact that a strike f-35 would be flying with supporting air to air superiority f-35 packed with exlusively air to air missiles in a enemy fighters infested sky.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Unconventional appearance is one thing, butt ugly useless design is another.

Heah the F-32 had that great big single piece wing loaded with fuel and the inovative Pelikan tail, nothing to be sneezed at... Hang on didn't Boeing execs get rid of both! Sure it had the ugly mouth making everyone at the time scream Lewinsky but such an intake was not unattractive on the XF8U-3, far from it.

When push comes to shove for the JSF it is the avionics and the stealth treatment that is going to win battles. The F-32 would have watever the F-35 has in this regard. As to turning out a good product to schedule McAir St. Louis has done it far more times than GDFW who AFAIK haven't delivered a plane on time and to spec without the wings falling off or a major weight loss redesign ever (B-36, F-102, F-111, F-16A, A-12, F-35). So while the schedule and cost problems of the F-35 aren't half as bad as the doom-sayers proclaim it would have been nice for this aircraft to enter service as smoothly as the F-15.

 

[Jetguru]

I don't disagree AG, other than it wasnt truely a macair bird, it was boeings...and I have yet to see them design and build a fighter that worked (that's not buying out someone elses). You are also correct about systems, the af would make sure of that. It's just the package left alot to be desired. It wasn't that poor of a technical design, just an ugly ass one that didn't work effectively in competition.

 

[kcran567]

All you're guys arguments are built on sand because you're claiming the f-35 will NEVER need to get into a close range gunfight with a flanker...you're living in fantasyland

F-35's will never be detected....f-35's will never run out of missles....go ahead, keep telling yourselves that....and never wake up to hard reality.

I like the f-35 as much as you guys but am just saying a thrust vectored nozzle is great to have esp if you're enemy has 'em at close range when missles are gone.

My other point was that the JSF was supposed to be "affordable" but i forgot you guys (Donnage and jetguru) live in the world of $500 hammers and gold toilet seats I suppose.

donaage my post about vietnam was right on. You have no idea how real combat happens. Do you know how to learn from past mistakes? You cant put all you're trust in electronic gadgets (just like we did in vietnam)have you forgotten how technology was trumped by cheap Migs? Why do think they started Top Gun? for fun?

It was an EXAMPLE, today is different, but the lessons are the same.

 

[Jetguru]

I this the respose to the flanker v 35 argument is simple, bring it on. I'm not sure how many real kills the flanker actually has, but I'll wager a guess it's not many more than the 35 at this point. Funny thing about fighting in a phone booth, doesn't really matter as much when the other guys figured out how to blow up the phone booth before it happens, and should things get there, I'm fully confident the 35 will handle itself just fine. Even without 2d nozzles.

 

[kcran567]

And Donnage, I was talking about gun on gun close range fight. Wheres your opinion on that one.

What the hell does "the aircraft doesnt look good because of its intake" its ridiculous and almost retarded to bring that up. You could say the F-8/A-7 was ugly too using that logic and "would never make a good fighter."

 

[Jetguru]

Stop trying to sell me a piece of pork belly labeled t-bone. I'm a butcher and can tell the difference.

 

[kcran567]

I agree with Donnage that the f-35 will have its ass protected by (hopefully) F-22 CAP's

 

[donnage99]

All you're guys arguments are built on sand because you're claiming the f-35 will NEVER need to get into a close range gunfight with a flanker...you're living in fantasyland

F-35's will never be detected....f-35's will never run out of missles....go ahead, keep telling yourselves that....and never wake up to hard reality.

And you're living in delusion land for thinking that we will have to live with the weight penalty of thrust vector because of that chance, as unrealistically as it is, that we will fight gun to gun with the enemy.... wait, did you say gun to gun tooth fight? LOL, thanks for advertising your ingorance of modern air combat history and doctrines.

The notion that the f-35 runs out of missile and enter a gunfight with the enemy only exist with a brain whose sole knowledge of air to air engagement comes from hollywood movies, where a single fighter has to go up against a horde of enemy. Reality is that no fighter aircraft has to go to war alone.

As for your so called example, the lesson is no longer relevant, since the factors that made up the lesson have changed. Stop being stupid for the sake of winning an argument, please!

 

[kcran567]

Its not stupid to think that that a small number of $80 million dollar f-35's are going to be up against large numbers of cheaper fighter aircraft.

You still live in that world of $500 hammers and gold toilet seats i guess. Must be nice there. Tahts alright enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I don't disagree AG, other than it wasnt truely a macair bird, it was boeings...and I have yet to see them design and build a fighter that worked (that's not buying out someone elses). You are also correct about systems, the af would make sure of that. It's just the package left alot to be desired. It wasn't that poor of a technical design, just an ugly ass one that didn't work effectively in competition.

The Boeing P-26 Peashooter was generally considered the best fighter of 1932! LOL. But I'm sure if they had won the SDD contract then the production line for the F-32 would have been in St. Louis rather than Washington or Kansas. The same for Lockheed and GDFW. Designed by Skunk Works but tarred by Plant 4 brush.

Now of course if we don't worry about the need to hover and if the frontal RCS issue with the mid mounted engine were all taken care of then even the 'conventional' production version of the F-32 'Phantom III' could have been a winner no matter how ugly it was.

Of course all this is conjecture. As if USAF would let Plant 4 close while there was a Texan President! As unlikely as them getting the FB-111H contract while NAA in California were in trouble during the Reagan Presidency...

 

[Matej]

kcran567 - this time only the warning: I like your language less and less! It is nothing unusual to have the different opinion, but don't get it personal! You can argue in the diplomatic form about the arguments, not about the other members behavior/opinions and so. Thanks!