The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[Evil Flower]

@TaiidanTomcat:

SAAB actually failed to keep the costs down even on the original Gripen. The whole purpose of having it in the first place was that it would be cheap enough that we could procure several hundreds of them to replace the various Viggens and legacy fighters in order to protect the country from (Russian) invasion. But it ended up with a protracted development (due to teething troubles with the FBW flight control system) and didn't enter service until in the mid-90's when it was originally supposed to do so in like 1990 or something. So it became more and more expensive and procurement was cut and thus we only ever ended up with about 200 of them which now shrink to around 100 since the remainder have been leased. It bears without saying that 100 fighters cannot provide an adequade defensive capability for a country significantly larger than the UK in size. And now because we need to keep SAAB alive at all cost those 100 are to be replaced with 50 Gripen NG. It really is a profane waste of €10 billion.

At least the countries that invested into JSF will get a relatively affordable strike fighter with AA capability that matches F-16 and F-18, and far greater deep strike capability than any bomb truck to date bar the B-2.


You know TT, the hospitals here have to save billions, we have a non-existent police force outside of the three major cities and one of the worst school systems in Europe, all because of austerity, and then they have the gall to throw billions down the toilet for what is essentially a prestige project that provides us with LESS capability than the system it replaces.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Plus the Swiss are dodging costs:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120901/DEFREG01/309010001/Will-Gripen-NG-Project-Bring-More-Defense-Cuts-Sweden-

FTFA:

“We don’t know what the final cost will be,” he said. “The big problem with programs like this is that it is very difficult to know at the outset what the final cost will be.”

Technical hurdles, exchange rate fluctuations, problems with sourcing parts from foreign suppliers, and problems in the development and testing stages could all add to costs, Wezeman said.

“The Gripen E/F will be an almost completely rebuilt and unproven version,” he said. “This is not just an upgrade of the existing Gripen; it is a complete redesign, and essentially a new aircraft. Because of the small number to be built, the R&D costs per unit are likely to be very high.”

simple improvement, cheap.


You missed the most relevant part in this quote:
"..., said Siemon Wezeman, a defense analyst with Stockholm International Peace Research Institute."

He will say that every weapon is bad, evil, not mature, to old and to costly.

so he is wrong?

Typhoon was said to be cheaper than F35 in Japan

.

I'm going to need a source for that buddy

 

[Racer]

In this case, yes, he is wrong.
And for sure biased.
Example: "...and unproven version..." -->well thats clear, because it is the future new version. How can such a thing be proven?

-----

Sources that are to be found after a short google search:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptors-to-japan-01909/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-20/lockheed-martin-wins-japan-jet-fighter-contract-over-boeing-eurofighter.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/48e54b74-253c-11e1-8bf9-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2HWGqaN2C

Can't remember where my info was coming from, not from ether of these sources.

 

[chuck4]

At least the countries that invested into JSF will get a relatively affordable strike fighter with AA capability that matches F-16 and F-18, and far greater deep strike capability than any bomb truck to date bar the B-2.

One certainly JSF will surpass F-16 and F-18 in overall AA effectiveness.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

In this case, yes, he is wrong.
And for sure biased.
Example: "...and unproven version..." -->well thats clear, because it is the future new version. How can such a thing be proven?

Well there are some people who believe that it is not a "new version" but a slightly improved version of the old.

Sources that are to be found after a short google search:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptors-to-japan-01909/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-20/lockheed-martin-wins-japan-jet-fighter-contract-over-boeing-eurofighter.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/48e54b74-253c-11e1-8bf9-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2HWGqaN2C

Can't remember where my info was coming from, not from ether of these sources.
[/quote]

Wiki puts a Tranche 3 EF-2000 at 90 million euro. I was under the impression that the Eurofighter is roughly $150 million but I could be wrong. I know it is triple digits

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Jeez, and I thought SP was full of professionals with more SAP clearances than fleas on a dog. At least, that's what your countrymen tell me. And when the US uses APUC and PAUC, yes, "program unit cost" which is a mixture of the two, is confusing.

Not so fast, A US FMS deal, maybe, but that's not what you were talking about. Services and weapons are not covered by APUC.

Discombobulate much? So past your somewhat meaningless blabber about SP, clearance, fleas and dogs the issue at hand? That for similar programs the Gripen E for the Swiss works out 0.7% cheaper per unit than the F-35A does for the Australians.

These are bold projections, but you might want to wait until IOC before you make them. Indeed, the F-35 will surely require a good deal of training for its single pilot, if we believe the fans' assessment of its 800-mile-range spherical sensing capability. Also (for instance) it will be some time before the F-35 engine matches the well-over-1,000 fleet total of the F414.

The F-35 may require more training thanks to its more capabilities but if you take off your magic discombobulator ring you may notice that I said “flying hours for training” not “training”. Since the pilot of an F-35 can fight the plane without having to manage the engine, angle of attack, etc and all that hard stuff that means most of us don’t make the grade to be a fighter pilot therefore a lot of that training can be done in the simulator. Which is the last time I looked part of the plan for the F-35 and despite delays in its schedule has not been changed.

 

[LowObservable]

AG - You need to perform a currency conversion between a firm fixed price and projections made by government officials defending a decision that, so far, has not worked out as planned.

Historically the two have been different.

Also, you seem to be under the misapprehension that advanced simulation, carefree handling and systems automation are unique features of the F-35. Also, my impression from a lot of discussions and conferences is that AFs are not using those tools to reduce flight hours, which they do only under duress from their accountants, but to maintain skills as pilots have to master a widening spectrum of missions - CAS, FAC-A, NT-ISR, for example.

Nils B - Quite scandalous. You'd think from all those changes in numbers that there had been some fundamental shifts in the regional military balance, or in Swedish policy towards the manning of the armed forces, between the inception of the Gripen program and the present day.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Nils B - Quite scandalous. You'd think from all those changes in numbers that there had been some fundamental shifts in the regional military balance, or in Swedish policy towards the manning of the armed forces, between the inception of the Gripen program and the present day.

And the other points he makes? The swedes are talking about drastic cuts in other services for Gripen NG.

One newly disclosed development is that Sweden and Switzerland plan to operate only the single-seat JAS 39E. “It’s a cost question,” Nystrom explained. “If we were to go with a two-seater, we’d like to have an enhanced back seat, and we don’t have the money for that.” Weapon system operator training would also consume more resources.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_11_14_2012_p0-517003.xml&p=2

No JAS 39F in the cards

 

[LowObservable]

The Swedes are cutting the size of all services and have been doing so since the 1990s. Not surprisingly, since in the Cold War they were armed to the teeth, with the world's fourth largest fighter force and a population roughly equal to Michigan's. They also conscripted 85 per cent of the male population, and did not end conscription completely until 2010.

Nils B is perfectly aware of this. He may be able to tell us what specific capabilities are being canceled to pay for JAS 39E.

 

[Evil Flower]

By the looks of it, likely most of our naval capability. The Visby class still lack their main armament, the older corvettes are near the end of their lives with no replacements planned. We kinda need the army but it is fully possible that one or more regiments be cut, further reducing the defended area to Stockholm and its surroundings. Even the military admit they do not have the capability to fill their primary mission. And this is assuming only defense assets are cut to pay for a plane we already cannot afford to develop.

 

[LowObservable]

The Visby is a cool design for Baltic sub-hunting, but not fantastic for what navies are doing today. I think the A26 sub is still going ahead, however.

 

[kcran567]

AG - You need to perform a currency conversion between a firm fixed price and projections made by government officials defending a decision that, so far, has not worked out as planned.


Nils B - Quite scandalous. You'd think from all those changes in numbers that there had been some fundamental shifts in the regional military balance, or in Swedish policy towards the manning of the armed forces, between the inception of the Gripen program and the present day.

In this case, yes, he is wrong.
And for sure biased.
Example: "...and unproven version..." -->well thats clear, because it is the future new version. How can such a thing be proven?

Well there are some people who believe that it is not a "new version" but a slightly improved version of the old.

Sources that are to be found after a short google search:

Wiki puts a Tranche 3 EF-2000 at 90 million euro. I was under the impression that the Eurofighter is roughly $150 million but I could be wrong. I know it is triple digits

$100 million for a Gripen?? $150 Million for a EF??? Either the defense procurement fraud is ENDEMIC and global, or defense costs are becoming untenable. I tend to believe that the former is the case. Just like the banks that can do just about whatever they want, the defense corporations have such a lock on their designs, materials, and procurement, patents, etc. they can charge whatever price they want. The sky is the limit. Sort of like being the only bar in a town full of drunks, that $10 dollar drink becomes a $50 drink.

 

[SlowMan]

The F-35 has been basically eliminated in Korea. Now it is a two horse race between the Silent Eagle and the Typhoon.

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/skorea-fighter-replacement-program-goes.html

As reported in Korean Media today, the FMS price per aircraft being offered to Korea is over $200M...~1000 won/dollar

Headline: [Exclusive] With a stiff price of F-35, new consideration for F-X program emerged

Media: Segye Times (01/07/13)

Author: Ahn Doo-won

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration is expected to report the estimated budget of KRW 15 trillion for the F-X program to the presidential transition team, if the ROK is to procure 60 Lockheed Martin-made F-35s. The price tag is overwhelmingly beyond the initially proposed budget of KRW 8.3 trillion, as this implies that the F-X program could enter a new phase of discussing and change the program’s overall structure. One government source was quoted as saying that “The manufacturer noted the unit price of F-35 will be around KRW 213 billion (excluding armament and transportation options), and for 60 jets, the overall cost could soar to the KRW 15 trillion-level.” The source also said other jets, Boeing’s F-15 and EADS’ Eurofighter, will have a price range of KRW 10-11 trillion as well. Another government official confirmed that the estimated prices were reported to Kim Jang-soo who leads a transition team handling external affairs, security and North Korea policies for President-elect Park Geun-hye. “It is unclear whether the new Park administration would continue to pursue the program, considering the latest budget has exceeded the original estimation,” the official said. Lockheed Martin’s F-35, which will be sold on the U.S.-government guaranteed foreign military sale has even less leverage for price discount, so the jet might be dropped out of the F-X race. A source from DAPA said: “We will not report specific prices when we are meeting with the transition team. F-35 is not the only candidate for the program, and if the procurement price exceeds 20 percent of the entire program budget, the feasibility study needs to be conducted - adding more difficulties to proceed with the F-X program.” Insiders at the ROKAF suggest the F-X should pick between F-15 and Eurofighter while excluding F-35 which comes with the KRW 15 trillion price tag. “Within the ROKAF, the discussion is moving from ‘the ROKAF must procure less number of stealth-proven F-35s despite the hefty price tag’ to ‘The Branch cannot wait any longer for the next-generation fighter jets’ activation.’”

First Canada. Now Korea.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

AG - You need to perform a currency conversion between a firm fixed price and projections made by government officials defending a decision that, so far, has not worked out as planned.

So let me get this right. You are claiming that the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) are “government officials defending a decision”? Mmmm… Somehow I don’t think there is an auditor in the free world who would match such a description. If they did it would be terrible for their career path as basically ripping the Government decisions to pieces no matter how much creative accounting you need to do so being the way ahead.

As to the projections not working out as planned that would be a fair call to make date stamped 10 years ago. But the numbers are a lot more solid now and in the ANAO’s case 2012 numbers. Dining out on this story is rapidly losing its currency as the project travels, belatedly, down the schedule path.

Also, you seem to be under the misapprehension that advanced simulation, carefree handling and systems automation are unique features of the F-35. Also, my impression from a lot of discussions and conferences is that AFs are not using those tools to reduce flight hours, which they do only under duress from their accountants, but to maintain skills as pilots have to master a widening spectrum of missions - CAS, FAC-A, NT-ISR, for example.

No I’m not. Because that is not what I referred to: “advanced simulation, carefree handling and systems automation”. The F-35 has in effect an automatic flight control system. It will fly like an autonomous UAV allowing the pilot to fight the plane not fight it. One of the many reasons actual air force operators are so excited about it. The F-35 training regime will still include a lot of traditional flying skills for emergencies and what not. But learning to fight an F-35 should be leagues easier than learning to fight a 4th generation aircraft thanks to this “computer game” like operation. Air Forces may want to fly more and simulate less and fair enough too but the proportion of simulation will increase as cost pressure increases, simulation capability increases and as even more exercises mandate simulated involvement. Since using more simulation thanks to the flight control system is part of the F-35 concept it’s far too early to so easily dismiss it. Unless of course you are a government auditor looking to drive up cost predictions to make their audits look sexier.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The F-35 has been basically eliminated in Korea. Now it is a two horse race between the Silent Eagle and the Typhoon.

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/skorea-fighter-replacement-program-goes.html

First Canada. Now Korea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM71OthnNoY

 

[2IDSGT]

Was a response to SlowMan: Deleted

 

[SlowMan]

Why not hold-off on the F-35 until they're ready to replace some of their F-16s?

1. They cannot wait. They need to have all jets delivered from 2017~2021, 12 per year.
2. They need 15% or so of missing technology needed to roll out the first KFX prototype by 2020. Boeing and EADS agreed to transfer 100% of what the Korean government asked for, Lockheed will transfer only 21 out of 51 requested technologies.
3. There is budget ceiling. At $14.1 billion program cost for 60 F-35s, it cost just too much.

 

[2IDSGT]

Was a response to SlowMan: Deleted

 

[SlowMan]

You misunderstand. This is Korea's 3rd F-X program (the first two have already gone to the F-15). The current effort is one to replace its F-4s

A numeric replacement, not a role replacement.

so almost anything currently manufactured would be an improvement, including their own FA-50.

F/A-50 doesn't have the range and performance to serve as a primary A2A fighter to defend the rest of fleets.

There's no good reason to buy the F-35 unless some F-16s need replacing.

The F-16 would be replaced by the KFX.

Another problem is their rush because they showed up for the JSF party way too late to be expecting delivery in 2017,

Lockheed cannot deliver combat ready F-35s in 2017. The F-35A doesn't enter IOC until 2019.

Sorry Korea, but LM is not going to just hand you the technology to build a competing aircraft. If you think buying the Eurofighter or F-15SE is going to get said technology for you more quickly... good luck.

It is not what Koreans think will happen; it is rather what is listed on the contract as deliverable.

 

[2IDSGT]

Was a response to SlowMan: Deleted

 

[LowObservable]

AG - Auditors can only work with the numbers they are given.

If they did it would be terrible for their career path as basically ripping the Government decisions to pieces no matter how much creative accounting you need to do so being the way ahead.

If that sentence was comprehensible it might merit a response.

The F-35 has in effect an automatic flight control system.

Which makes it different from almost anything bigger than a Cessna 172... exactly how? Having sat in sims or cockpit trainers for most Western fighters and gone through a lot of professional-level briefings, I would say that there is nothing massively unique about the F-35 except for the vertical landing mode. Carefree handling/automatic systems housekeeping/fuel management? Sorry, AG, but the rest of the world is already there.

Sgt - There will be well over 100 F-35s delivered and in service with the US and other customers before IOC is declared;

What do you mean by "in service" before IOC? IOC is the bare-bones definition of in-service, as opposed to merely training.

and in any case, your 2019 date is debatable

It is indeed. It may well be 2020 because IOT&E - a prerequisite for IOC - has a threshold end-date of August 2019.

(we'll just have to see).

Nothing sums up this shambles of a program better than the fact that, after 11 years and $50 billion-plus, and past the point where all versions were supposed to have passed IOC, nobody has the guts or confidence to tell Congress and the taxpayers when it will deliver any military utility at all.

 

[sferrin]

Nothing sums up this shambles of a program better than the fact that, after 11 years and $50 billion-plus, and past the point where all versions were supposed to have passed IOC, nobody has the guts or confidence to tell Congress and the taxpayers when it will deliver any military utility at all.

One can't help but wonder why, if it's such a POS, you spend so much time and effort trying to convince people of the fact. If it were truely that bad it would be self-evident.

 

[Arjen]

When can we expect IOC?
Slightly less ambitious: when can we expect IOC to be announced?

How much more will be spent by then?

 

[SlowMan]

-Again, requirement is for a strike fighter (should also be noted that F-X3 will also replace a number of F-5s as well).

F-X3 is not a program to acquire a strike fighter. The original intention was to acquire an escort fighter that would defend the rest of strike package, and the ROC was specifically written with F-22 in mind. Except that the F-22 wasn't for sale.

-KFX is so much big talk until we see more than a constantly altered design.

Which is a normal part of design process. The real issue was funding, and the new administration is indicating that they are committed to its funding.

-Delivery date and IOC are two separate things.

Required IOC is 1 year after the delivery. So 2018.

-"21 out of 51 requested technologies" is pretty damn vague. I doubt EADS or Boeing will be able/allowed to do much better.

51/51 compliance is what Boeing and EADS wrote on their bid document.

As for price, the F-15 and Eurofighter certainly don't offer much (if any) cost advantage, certainly not enough to justify choosing them over a VLO platform.

Confirmed bid prices.

Boeing : $9.4 billion(Firm)
EADS : $10.3 billion(Firm)
Lockheed : $14.1 billion(Estimation)

And the F-35 offered to Koreans is not a VLO jet.

When can we expect IOC?

2019 for F-35A is the current goal.

 

[SlowMan]

Anyhow, the F-35 lost the Korean contest, right after the Canadian decision to back out of an uncontested F-35 purchase plan.

This will only accelerate F-35's death spiral as more JSF partner nations would want to jump ship and look for an alternative. Boeing's Super/Silent Hornet is particularly well-positioned in the post-F-35 world.

 

[LowObservable]

One can't help but wonder why, if it's such a POS, you spend so much time and effort trying to convince people of the fact. If it were truely that bad it would be self-evident.

1 - Because defense budgets should be spent on things that work

2 - Because there is an army of people, ranging from highly paid lobbyists and veeps to the lowliest HPBDP, dedicated to preserving this mess, facts be damned.

 

[SlowMan]

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130111/DEFREG04/301110015/Turkey-Postpones-Order-Its-First-Two-F-35-Fighters

Turkey Postpones Order for Its First Two F-35 Fighters

ANKARA — Turkey said Jan. 11 it has postponed an order to purchase its first two U.S.-made F-35 fighter jets due to technical problems and rising costs, but said it still intends to buy 100 more in the long run.

“Due to the current state of the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) ... and the rising cost ... it was decided to postpone the order placed on Jan 5, 2012, for the two aircraft,” the Undersecretariat for Defence Industry (SSM) said in a statement.

 

[sferrin]

One can't help but wonder why, if it's such a POS, you spend so much time and effort trying to convince people of the fact. If it were truely that bad it would be self-evident.

1 - Because defense budgets should be spent on things that work

2 - Because there is an army of people, ranging from highly paid lobbyists and veeps to the lowliest HPBDP, dedicated to preserving this mess, facts be damned.

So why aren't the people who have to use it, and whos lives will be depending on it, screaming? Maybe they know more than some journalist with an axe to grind huh? Crazy, I know. : The USN didn't like the F-111B despite efforts to force it on them so they ditched it. So why aren't they doing that with the F-35C and why isn't the USMC screaming about the F-35B? If it's such a bad aircraft why are the users praising it?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Anyhow, the F-35 lost the Korean contest, right after the Canadian decision to back out of an uncontested F-35 purchase plan.

This will only accelerate F-35's death spiral as more JSF partner nations would want to jump ship and look for an alternative. Boeing's Super/Silent Hornet is particularly well-positioned in the post-F-35 world.

Whoa hold up there. You have been all over the internet saying the F-35 isn't going to win the contest. Based on price, based on operation preference, based on LM insulting Korean leadership, based on a lack of technology transfer, etc. You have given about 2 dozen reasons that have nothing to do with F-35 capabilities, and yet if it isn't selected its a pure indictment against the F-35? A lot of your reasoning has been against LockMart and its practices, not so much the aircraft.

If Korea doesn't select the F-35 it doesn't mean the F-35 sucks, it could simply mean the Koreans want more tech options from companies that are willing to offer it.

Secondly, and for the reasons above, the Canadian situation and the Korean situation are different animals, who's only connection is the F-35. After that its all completely different. So suddenly lumping in the Canadian Circus with the Korean Selection and calling it a trend isn't the same. Canada is having second thoughts. After intitially selecting the F-35, They are going to spin their wheels and then buy F-35s eventually. As for Korea you have been quick to say the JSF has never stood a chance. so how the JSF "Lost" a contest it was (according to you) never in serious contention for is beyond me.

Taking you are your word, I assumed a long time ago that the F-35 wasn't going to happen in Korea. Canada is far more distressing because the F-35 had clearly won

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

One can't help but wonder why, if it's such a POS, you spend so much time and effort trying to convince people of the fact. If it were truely that bad it would be self-evident.

1 - Because defense budgets should be spent on things that work

2 - Because there is an army of people, ranging from highly paid lobbyists and veeps to the lowliest HPBDP, dedicated to preserving this mess, facts be damned.

One could say the same thing about the Gripen NG based on the last few pages here. Speaking of which 2019 is the same as the Gripen NG IOC. The last time I implied you were biased toward one aircraft rather than another I was banned for a week, so I will just say this: You seem to have made up your mind, and then written accordingly. Your opinion is pretty evident. I would love to see the same level of doggedness applied to other projects that you apply to the F-35.

One can't help but wonder why, if it's such a POS, you spend so much time and effort trying to convince people of the fact. If it were truely that bad it would be self-evident.

1 - Because defense budgets should be spent on things that work

2 - Because there is an army of people, ranging from highly paid lobbyists and veeps to the lowliest HPBDP, dedicated to preserving this mess, facts be damned.

So why aren't the people who have to use it, and whos lives will be depending on it, screaming? Maybe they know more than some journalist with an axe to grind huh? Crazy, I know. : The USN didn't like the F-111B despite efforts to force it on them so they ditched it. So why aren't they doing that with the F-35C and why isn't the USMC screaming about the F-35B? If it's such a bad aircraft why are the users praising it?

Exactly. Why has the closest the F-35 come to "cancellation" was when the Bee was put on probational status for all of 11 months? Why has the Pentagon, the DoD, the Us Government and many other various governments decided to stick with the F-35 without hesitation? Why is it that when these governments (Norway, Austrailia, and now Canada) Are able to put a fixed price/or take their own look at alternatives on aircraft, it isn't believed?

For as much as the Eurocanard mafia, and APA have tried to convince us the sky is falling every other day and this whole thing is just a hair away from cancellation, no one (besides Canada) has blinked.

 

[LowObservable]

Oddly enough, large institutions tend to frown upon public dissent from official policy, and militaries are not unique in this regard.

The Navy's famous repudiation of the F-111B was a push on an open door as far as Congress was Congress was concerned, and by a startling coincidence occurred days after the F-111's godfather, McNamara, left office:

http://dspace.wrlc.org/doc/get/2041/53557/b20f14-0309xdisplay.pdf

And the USMC is not screaming because (1) it's potentially better than a 1950s-technology design extrapolated from an experimental aircraft and (2) they are not paying the bill. Nobody's telling the Marines that they can have the F-35B as long as they give up a couple of MEUs.

TT - The NG started in 2007. Moreover, since nobody ever claimed that it would be ready by a date earlier than 2018 - it was all subject to funding - it's really not quite the same thing.

I focus on the F-35 because its performance or lack of same has enormous consequences, and the claims made for it are extreme, and hence subject to criticism. Also, if you go back to the 1990s you'll find me being PNG with lots of programs, not all of them American - but I guess you've made up your mind about that issue.

And if you or Mr Ferrin wish to criticize someone for being ill-informed, I suggest you start with the people who were publishing stuff like this in 08-09:

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I focus on the F-35 because its performance or lack of same has enormous consequences, and the claims made for it are extreme, and hence subject to criticism.

But of course SAAB advocated the Gripen NG as being an improved version of its cheap and affordable Gripen. Several times in this thread you said that SAAB should be emulated and yet, when the true cost came out... Well, see my Sig Line. The biggest claim for the Gripen NG was that it could do all these things and yet remain affordable... sure sounds familiar.

Even you admit you don't have all the necessary pieces on the F-35:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_12_03_2012_p02-521102.xml

JSF customers also like to hint that the fighter has other secret capabilities that guarantee victory in air combat. Many believe that this is a high-power microwave mode in the radar that is intended to barbecue the processors in an incoming air-to-air missile. That is not a technical impossibility, but such a weapon is not magic: It has limitations (range and rate of fire to name but two) that could make it less decisive than an advocate's simulation shows, and that should be part of a discussion. But they are not, because it's secret.

Not much thrives in the dark, except mushrooms.

I implied that the Gripen may be triple digits expensive and you rushed to its defense. You admit you really don't know as much as you would prefer on the F-35, and yet its condemned outright. You have an axe to grind, and you have your favorites. I don't think thats an inaccurate assessment. And Bill, no hard feelings, Its not personal. I think you play your role, I think you can see the writing on the wall with the JSF as clearly as its strongest advocates but that doesn't sell well. You have a reputation to maintain and your name is your credibility, so I don't see you going loco like Peter Goon or Eric Palmer or anything. The statement you make above the mushroom comments there, hints that the JSF can be capable of things previously unseen in combat, which may explain the expense and delays a tad.

 

[SlowMan]

Secondly, and for the reasons above, the Canadian situation and the Korean situation are different animals, who's only connection is the F-35. After that its all completely different. So suddenly lumping in the Canadian Circus with the Korean Selection and calling it a trend isn't the same.

Why countries say no/delay decision on F-35.

Canada : High cost
Australia : Inability to deliver on time
Korea : High cost, lack of tech transfer, not suitable for the ROKAF's mission
Turkey : High cost and delay in schedule.
Japan(FX-2) : High cost. Japan abandoned plans to replace F-15J with F-35 and will upgrade F-15Js instead. F-35 procurement will end at 42.

High cost was cited as the reason in 4 out of 5 countries.

 

[LowObservable]

TT - Cheap to buy is not the same as cheap to operate. Ask someone who drives a Honda.

Not a bias, but militaries should pay more attention to operating costs when they write specifications or buy equipment. That in the long run is what blows budgets.

What's interesting about JAS 39E is that the customer can get airframe/system cost data out of the C/D operators and engine data from the USN, which constrains Saab from making silly claims or having to say "You don't understand it because it's all different from legacy jets".

And I confess to a bias in favor of people who deliver products on time and on schedule, and that do what it says on the tin. I know that's crazy, but what can I say.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Secondly, and for the reasons above, the Canadian situation and the Korean situation are different animals, who's only connection is the F-35. After that its all completely different. So suddenly lumping in the Canadian Circus with the Korean Selection and calling it a trend isn't the same.

Why countries say no/delay decision on F-35.

Canada : High cost
Australia : Inability to deliver on time
Korea : High cost, lack of tech transfer, not suitable for the ROKAF's mission
Turkey : High cost and delay in schedule.
Japan(FX-2) : High cost. Japan abandoned plans to replace F-15J with F-35 and will upgrade F-15Js instead. F-35 procurement will end at 42.

High cost was cited as the reason in 4 out of 5 countries.

Other than Korea (which you of course say never won, and even in the above, give various reasons-- besides just cost) Are still getting the F-35 though. Canada is exploring other options but I do not believe they have officially canceled anything.

Australia and Turkey have both deliberately delayed F-35 deliveries of their own volition. in fact Turkey says they are still planning on buying 100. We all know about Canada,

Turkey:

Turkey has decided to postpone the purchase of F-35 fighters, online newspaper Sabah reported today, citing a source at the Defense Ministry.

According to the newspaper, the final decision was postponed until the middle of the year.

Early last year, the Turkish government permitted the secretariat of the defense industry to purchase the first two U.S F-35 fighters.

In general, Turkey is planning to buy 116 F-35 fighters: 100 fighters as part of the main contract, and 16 as part of the option.

Purchase of the fighters was previously postponed several times because of the U.S.'s refusal to provide Turkey with fighter software codes needed to operate the proper weaponry and undertake F-35 technical maintenance.

Nothing in there about cost, heres the link:

http://www.individual.com/storyrss.php?story=169264215&hash=827570388e5a0f2d5b8563627b976538

And for Japan 42 is the exact number of F-4EJs that they are replacing:

The announcement, delayed from Dec. 16, had been expected to go in favor of the F-35, which will now replace about 42 aging Mitsubishi F-4EJ Kai Phantoms under a contract valued at about $8 billion.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20111220/DEFSECT01/112200301/Japan-F-X-Competition-Win-Victory-JSF-Program

So I assume they are upgrading the F-15Js just like the USAF has been upgrading its F-15s, while still planning to buy 1700 JSFs. There is also talk of more F-35s in the future.

so....

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

TT - Cheap to buy is not the same as cheap to operate. Ask someone who drives a Honda.

Well as you say we will see when IOC happens right my friend? 88 aircraft should be quite the fleet, assuming SAAB stays in the airplane business.

What's interesting about JAS 39E is that the customer can get airframe/system cost data out of the C/D operators and engine data from the USN, which constrains Saab from making silly claims or having to say "You don't understand it because it's all different from legacy jets".

And of course we know all this because none of it is very new or cutting edge. an evolution of an old aircraft with an upgraded engine that costs $107 million (or more if you are sweden) How long do you have to operate Gripens before you start saving on those operating costs after such a high initial price by the way? and all for a Light "affordable" Fighter? Just to put that in perspective it looks like the Gripen C/D is aroun 60 million. so we are talking about a difference of $47 million dollars. How many years do you have to operate a Gripen NG before you make up that Value?


Ok so 47 $million dollar difference from the Legacy Gripen / $5,000 CPFH (Gripen C/D is $4700) = 23,500 flight hours if you fly them 1,000 hours a year, it would take 23.5 years. So you could buy a Gripen C/D and fly it for 23 years for the initial cost of the Gripen NG.

How many millions of dollars are you willing to spend to "save" in five decades? A block 60 F-16 costs around 80 million, and a CPFH of $7000 also a fleet of thousands, and LM isn't going away anytime soon.

Just like it says on the tin...

Honestly if you want a 4.5 Gen fighter with F414 engines that is already a known aircraft you could just buy super Hornets, and they even have two seaters, and a jamming variant and we both agree they around 67 million dollars. So why Saab again? Are you buying the Honda for economy or that shiny "H" on the hood? plus there are hundreds in service and you always can't wait to tell us the upgrades that are due for it. But I understand the F-18E/F isn't a Eurocanard. speaking of, If this 107 million number is true, there isn't one Eurocanard out there under 100 million dollars. From the Gripen NG, to the EF-2000 European aircraft are over 100 million. Canada says the JSF is 88 million. Abraham explained his numbers from the Australian perspective so the score board looks like this:

Under 100 million

Gripen C/D
JSF
F-18E/F
F-16 (even the advance blocks)

Over 100 million

Rafale
Typhoon
Gripen NG

And I confess to a bias in favor of people who deliver products on time and on schedule, and that do what it says on the tin. I know that's crazy, but what can I say.

As you would be fast to point out, previous success does not mean current or future success. You downplay all the good news from the F-35 with a "we will see!", while advocating a Swedish aircraft that is looking to cost twice what its original legacy version does, and won't start delivery until 2019.

 

[SlowMan]

Other than Korea (which you of course say never won, and even in the above, give various reasons-- besides just cost) Are still getting the F-35 though. Canada is exploring other options but I do not believe they have officially canceled anything.

Canada cancelled the plan to buy F-35 via the JSF Partner program. In its place is an open bidding, where 4~5 fighter jet vendors compete for a deal. The F-35 would then have to compete as an FMS offer and we have already seen what happens in that case, $10 billion in Japan, $14.1 billion in Korea. Given Canada's budget constraints, the most likely winner is the Super Hornet.

Australia and Turkey have both deliberately delayed F-35 deliveries of their own volition.

What Australia's saying is that they will keep buying the Super Hornet until the F-35A becomes ready. That means it could be 48, even 72 Super Hornets for Australia. Australia originally planned to sell the 24 Super Hornets to the US Navy when the F-35s arrived, but the government now says they will keep those 24 and is in the process of buying an additional 24. If the F-35 is delayed, then that's additional 24 unit buy. The F-35 order gets cut by the number of Super Hornets bought by Australia.

And for Japan 42 is the exact number of F-4EJs that they are replacing:

But not the second deal to acquire 120 jets to replace some of F-15Js.

Japan was building the FACO at a cost of $2 billion in anticipation of that second deal so that would bring up the total production number around 150, but the $2 billion FACO will just turn out 38 jets and then service US F-35s deployed in Japan afterward.

The announcement, delayed from Dec. 16, had been expected to go in favor of the F-35, which will now replace about 42 aging Mitsubishi F-4EJ Kai Phantoms under a contract valued at about $8 billion.

Japan's FMS deal for 42 jets went up to $10 billion afterward + $2 billion FACO. This is why Japan dropped the plan to buy the second batch of 120 F-35s.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Other than Korea (which you of course say never won, and even in the above, give various reasons-- besides just cost) Are still getting the F-35 though. Canada is exploring other options but I do not believe they have officially canceled anything.
Canada cancelled the plan to buy F-35 via the JSF Partner program. In its place is an open bidding, where 4~5 fighter jet vendors compete for a deal. The F-35 would then have to compete as an FMS offer and we have already seen what happens in that case, $10 billion in Japan, $14.2 billion in Korea. Given Canada's budget constraints, the most likely winner is the Super Hornet.

Not necessarily. Canada's F-18s can last up until the 2020s and other than some LRIP F-35s Canada doesn't plan on spending big bucks until around 2018 (I think, its around that time frame) Super Hornets are increasing in cost as they near the end of the line, and the Canadians are in no hurry to spend money RIGHT NOW!!1!. They are being patient, there isn't much urgency even though the press has found a bone to mangle and paint it like the world is ending. They are going to compare costs, get info and I assume not even make a decision this year. The longer they wait the more expensive hornets become, plus they risk losing out on incentives and jobs. IMHO Canada is in hibernation before they come back to the F-35, because if they do similar audits they will find higher prices.

Australia and Turkey have both deliberately delayed F-35 deliveries of their own volition.
What Australia's saying is that they will keep buying the Super Hornet until the F-35A becomes ready. That means it could be 50, 60, even 70 Super Hornets for Australia.

According to my friends in Australia that deal is not official. It is a rumor but Abraham can probably tell us more

And for Japan 42 is the exact number of F-4EJs that they are replacing:
But not the second deal to acquire 120 jets to replace some of F-15Js.

Japan was building the FACO at a cost of $2 billion in anticipation of that second deal so that would bring up the total production number around 150, but the $2 billion FACO will just turn out 38 jets and then service US F-35s deployed in Japan afterward.

The announcement, delayed from Dec. 16, had been expected to go in favor of the F-35, which will now replace about 42 aging Mitsubishi F-4EJ Kai Phantoms under a contract valued at about $8 billion.
Japan's FMS deal for 42 jets went up to $10 billion afterward + $2 billion FACO. This is why Japan dropped the plan to buy the second batch of 120 F-35s.

Oh I see, so it won and they are still buying it, but it didn't win as much as it could have They may buy the bigger batch in the future as well.

 

[GTX]

What Australia's saying is that they will keep buying the Super Hornet until the F-35A becomes ready. That means it could be 48, even 72 Super Hornets for Australia. Australia originally planned to sell the 24 Super Hornets to the US Navy when the F-35s arrived, but the government now says they will keep those 24 and is in the process of buying an additional 24. If the F-35 is delayed, then that's additional 24 unit buy. The F-35 order gets cut by the number of Super Hornets bought by Australia.

Where exactly has that (bold above) been stated? Australia has acquired 24 Super Hornets. The most recent request regarding more was simply a request for firm pricing - nothing more! This is all part of the ongoing plan to assess which way to go next and to provide firm facts to make decisions. The answer could still (and indeed will very likely be) to stay with the F-35 and not get any more Super Hornets. I know that is the recommendations being put forward to the Australian Govt by both the RAAF and the Australian Industry.


Re the selling of the existing Super Hornets, those of us in the know already predicted some would be retained. They will be the Growlers. This however is a separate capability and should not be confused with the capability the F-35s will be providing.

 

[LowObservable]

TT - Lost you on the $47 million difference between the number you pulled out of your right ear and the one you pulled out of your left, since you never did come up with anything to suggest that the $107 mil from a news aggregator covered the same things as an APUC, a flyaway or anything else.