The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[Sferrin]

that was in turn developed when said technology didn't even exist (and don't start barking about the Blackbird because I know better).

Do tell. :

 

[SpudmanWP]

"Deal is $3.8 billion overall"

Not even close, unless 2ID is going for the understatement of the year award.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=141115&shop=dae&modele=feature

Much more at the jump.

You (and they) are making several mistakes in your assumptions.

1. You are adding up the contracts without knowing if they overlap (contract b covers some of the work done in contract A, etc)
2. They are contract estimates and were not finalized until this month.
3. They're scope could have areas that do not overlap (items not covered in the flyways costs, support, etc).

These numbers will become clear in their scope in Feb when the FY2014 budget numbers are released.

 

[DD]

Do tell, Spud.

Having already seen the numbers, I don't think so.

Suggest you go and look up what the term "definitized contract" really means, especially when applied to a "contract modification".

Giovanni de Briganti appears to be the only journalist by a country mile who has reported cost figures that are the closest to the real numbers.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=141115&shop=dae&modele=feature

 

[SpudmanWP]

I'll go into details later, but LRIP5 had to pay for the Long Lead items that are not being used.

The LL F135 and LL F-35 contracts called for 13 F-35B engines when they only needed 3.

This will make the LRIP5 contract disproportionally more expensive than it should have been. It will also make LRIP6/7 less expensive due to the LL items already being paid for.

This is just one example and I will do a full numbers breakdown later.

Your biggest mistake is taking the largest number, dividing by airframes, and equating that to a Unit Price = Intellectual Dishonesty.

 

[LowObservable]

Well, that would affect a portion of the LL contracts, which are under ten per cent of the total.

Looking forward to the full explanation of the differences.

By the way, the F-15E was not developed to replace the F-111, but as a complement to it (at the time, the Varks were going into an avionics modernization program that would have seen them fly well into the 1990s). It was more a case of making up for the shortage of mission-ready Varks, the E and F having ended up being the only TAC versions that were of much practical use.

And I hope people knew something about VLO technology at the time because the ATF Dem/Val contracts went out just over two years after the F-15E contract.

And oddly enough, not only did stealth technology exist when the F-111 was designed, but GDFW was one of the leaders in the field. It was not ready for a TFX mission but to say that it didn't exist is historically inaccurate, and to talk about people "barking" is unnecessary.

 

[DD]

"Intellectual Dishonesty"???

Well, that has got to be the worst case of self projection seen in years.

And this from someone who still believes the F-35A JSF will have comparable fighter performance to the F-16C!

Having already seen the numbers , I also look forward to seeing your in-depth analysis and full explanation of the differences, with "a full numbers breakdown".
[sarcasm - OFF]
;D ;D

 

[SpudmanWP]

the F-35A JSF will have comparable fighter performance to the F-16C

In some ways yes, in others no. I've tried never to say otherwise.

"Intellectual Dishonesty"

Well, that has got to be the worst case of self projection seen in years.

Hardly. How else do you justify combining cost of base stand-up, Full Mission Simulators, etc with the F-35s themselves under the banner of "Unit Cost" (which is a vague definition)?

In case you have forgotten what types of "Unit Cost" there are:

 

[DD]

the F-35A JSF will have comparable fighter performance to the F-16C

In some ways yes, in others no. I've tried never to say otherwise.

And what would those be, Spud?

More than happy to concede 'comparable fuel load' but what else?

And as you say, the term 'unit cost' is a vague definition made even more so by the misuse and abuse of the term along with all the BS that some people have wrapped around it.

Would you agree that the unit price is the far more important, appropriate, truthful and salient figure?

Our colleagues down South say this is the tax payer funds that must be appropriated out of Treasury for production of an aircraft then for putting it on the flight line and operational.

Makes sense to me. How about you? Do you agree with this definition?

Or do you say the price of a car is the cost of the vehicle , but not including the on-road costs, let alone the cost of the engine?

 

[SpudmanWP]

Why are you using the agreed-upon vague term "Unit Cost" as a unit of measure?

Which unit cost, URF, REC Flyaway, WSC, PAUC, APUC, ??? ?

I prefer to use URF or REC Flyaway as it is the most accurate way to judge the efficiencies in the program and does not fluctuate due to base stand-up and training material buys (Flight sims, etc).

To put in a car analogy: It's the price of the car and not the tools & garage that concern me. This is because those can change from year to year and cause the ill-informed and ignorant to have a heart attack thinking someone is trying to pull a fast one when the truth is that they needed to make repairs to a garage or needed to replace some tools.

---On the Performance Issues---

Too soon to give hard numbers as they are not public.

Most of the info comes from the JORD and anecdotal evidence (without much data to go along with it for now) like:

--11 hardpoints vs 9
--9g while combat loaded
--50 AoA
--Mach 1.2 SC
--Transonic acceleration

The F-35 transonic acceleration specifications were written based on clean-configuration F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet fighter, Burbage said.But unlike the Hornet or the F-16, the F-35 has the same configuration unloaded as it does loaded with weapons and fuel, Burbage said. When an F/A-18 or F-16 is encumbered with weapons, pylons and fuel tanks, those jets are robbed of much of their performance.

or

The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.

--Turning (keep in mind that's a combat loaded F-35 matching a clean F-16)

Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will "almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor", Beesley said.

--Overall Performance

The outstanding handling, acceleration, and the maximum speed of the aircraft is useable in a combat configuration unlike in legacy fighters. Beesley said that recently he flew an F-35 test flight with a full internal load of two 2000 lbs JDAMs, and two AIM-120 missiles. The aircraft "felt like it had a few thousand pounds of extra fuel" but otherwise Beesley said there was practically no degradation in the aircrafts' performance.

 

[DD]

Little doubt you are a very trusting soul, Spud, who believes what those in positions of perceived authority tell you.

Sorry to have to burst your bubble, but those comments you posted are what we in the trade call 'marketing bullshit'.

However, numbers don't lie, nor do they bullshit.

For example, since you referred to the JORD, it requires the CTOL JSF to have level flight transonic acceleration performance, at standard combat weight, from 0.8 to 1.2 Mach @ 30 kft ISA, of 42 secs.

Now, that is what a Hornet in its standard A2A configuration (2xWVR + 2xBVR) can do.

If memory serves , the F-16C in the same config does this point in the sub 30s.

However, it gets worse because the JSF is not meeting the JORD requirement in this area and by a long way, as is also the case in many if not most of the other KPI areas.

Since level flight acceleration is an indicator and, in fact, one of the methods used to derive specific excess power (Ps) which, in turn, is the primary determinant for things like climb and turn performance, the rest of those comments are simply marketing bullshit.
;D

Now, what say you about cutting through all this costing crap and using the unit price rather than the myriad of unit costs that have been used to misleadingly represent the aircraft unit price?

 

[2IDSGT]

It [VLO technology] was not ready for a TFX mission...

Ergo... didn't exist at the time.

 

[DD]

Bah! Bah! (In a descending cadence a la 'Wheel of Fortune' buzzer for 'wrong answer').

LO/VLO technologies were used in the design of the AY-12/SR-71.

 

[LowObservable]

2IDSGT

Maybe you can explain to the class how come stealth technology - RCS reduction or radar camouflage - was being applied to a Mach 3 aircraft and an operational cruise missile before 1963 but nevertheless "did not exist".

 

[2IDSGT]

2IDSGT

Maybe you can explain to the class how come stealth technology - RCS reduction or radar camouflage - was being applied to a Mach 3 aircraft and an operational cruise missile before 1963 but nevertheless "did not exist".

Attempts at "RCS reduction" (trying) does not equate to having actual VLO technology (doing).

 

[DD]

Bah! Bah! . . .again.

The AY-12/SR-71 could hardly be called mere attempts.

But whatever floats your boat, eh, 2ID.

 

[LowObservable]

Sgt Walt - Er... "operational". And as DD points out, the RCS reductions on the A-12 were real and tested.

 

[DD]

Spud says:

--11 hardpoints vs 9
--9g while combat loaded
--50 AoA
--Mach 1.2 SC
--Transonic acceleration

I think we have taken care of the LM sophistry and spin that surrounds the representations made in their bullshit marketing of the aircraft's level flight transonic acceleration performance.

Next - the Mach 1.2 SC (which presumably suggests 'super cruise')!

Firstly, it ain't SC until 1.5 M or greater.

Secondly, the F-14D could hold 1.2M in MIL PWR for far longer than any JSF could.

Thirdly, riding on the bow wave of chase at 39 kft doesn't count.

B)

 

[2IDSGT]

...the RCS reductions on the A-12 were real and tested.

And tracked easily enough by Soviet radar.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Little doubt you are a very trusting soul, Spud, who believes what those in positions of perceived authority tell you.

Sorry to have to burst your bubble, but those comments you posted are what we in the trade call 'marketing bullshit'.

However, numbers don't lie, nor do they bullshit.

For example, since you referred to the JORD, it requires the CTOL JSF to have level flight transonic acceleration performance, at standard combat weight, from 0.8 to 1.2 Mach @ 30 kft ISA, of 42 secs.

Now, that is what a Hornet in its standard A2A configuration (2xWVR + 2xBVR) can do.

If memory serves , the F-16C in the same config does this point in the sub 30s.

However, it gets worse because the JSF is not meeting the JORD requirement in this area and by a long way, as is also the case in many if not most of the other KPI areas.

Since level flight acceleration is an indicator and, in fact, one of the methods used to derive specific excess power (Ps) which, in turn, is the primary determinant for things like climb and turn performance, the rest of those comments are simply marketing bullshit.
;D

Now, what say you about cutting through all this costing crap and using the unit price rather than the myriad of unit costs that have been used to misleadingly represent the aircraft unit price?

Luckily for us, you are of course willing to present all the data and other evidence that supports all your above claims right? you know to save us from the marketing hype?

 

[DD]

Fortunately, though I realise sadly for you, there are no hyperlinks to my brain, nor to the things I have seen, nor the briefings from professional colleagues of long standing who don't bullshit and are not bound by the aforesaid marketing hype.

However, think of it in the same way you religiously believe all that stuff to which you don't have access and from its very existance (that you have heard about from someone) you infer that anything anyone attaches to this something you don't know and have never seen must, somehow, be remarkably true.

That should help with the cognitive dissonance you are likely experiencing.

And if you think or believe you can show anything in my post that you quoted as being wrong, then go for it.

 

[Sferrin]

...the RCS reductions on the A-12 were real and tested.

And tracked easily enough by Soviet radar.

Did somebody say stealth meant impossible to see on radar? The A-12 certainly did have stealth technology built into it, and had a much smaller RCS than the A-11 itteration. It's just that stealth wasn't developed to the point then that it is today.

 

[Sferrin]

Secondly, the F-14D could hold 1.2M in MIL PWR

Source?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Fortunately, though sadly for you, there are no hyperlinks to my brain, nor to the things I have seen, nor the briefings from professional colleagues of long standing who don't bullshit and are not bound by the aforesaid marketing hype.

And if you can show anything in my post that you quoted as being wrong, then go for it.

Oh ok so take your word for it, your amazing brain is all the evidence we need... No names of the colleagues, and how they have received their information?

Think of it in the same way you religiously believe all that stuff to which you don't have access and from its very existance (that you have heard about from someone) you infer must, somehow, be remarkably true.

So I believe you now? stranger from the internet with no evidence? Convincing.

 

[DD]

Secondly, the F-14D could hold 1.2M in MIL PWR

Source?

F-14D NPE II Reports, USNTPS Library, NAS Patuxent River, MD
;D

 

[Sundog]

Next - the Mach 1.2 SC (which presumably suggests 'super cruise')!

Firstly, it ain't SC until 1.5 M or greater.

Supercruise is the ability to cruise above Mach 1 without afterburner. Period. Most aircraft that can supercruise will do so at or above Mach 1.2, since between Mach 1 and Mach 1.2 you're still coming off of the drag rise at Mach unity.

 

[DD]

T^2, you might want to look up Chatham House Rules.

Now, what things are you claiming to be wrong in what I have told you so far and in writing, too?

Sundog -

Holy crap! You had better let all those Design Engineers, Flight Test Engineers and Test Pilots as well as Mr Lockheed Martin and Mr Boeing who use Mach 1.5 as the starting point of super cruise that they are just not with it and oh so wrong. Period and such.

 

[Sferrin]

Secondly, the F-14D could hold 1.2M in MIL PWR

Source?

F-14D NPE II Reports, USNTPS Library, NAS Patuxent River, MD
;D

Don't tease, let's see the link.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

T^2, you might want to look up Chatham House Rules.

Sundog -

Holy crap! You had better let all those Design Engineers, Flight Test Engineers and Test Pilots as well as Mr Lockheed Martin and Mr Boeing who use Mach 1.5 as the starting point of super cruise that they are just not with it and oh so wrong. Period and such.

My apologies in the future I will just take your word that I can totally trust because it was regurgitated accurately from the people you claim to know. Very nice of them to share all of this info with you so you could then pass it on to us on the internet (in confidence of course) How fortunate for all of us at SecretProjects!! Of all the places on the internet to spill all this inside information you claim and you picked our little neck of the woods?!

How come you are saying all of this and not Bill Sweetman? He is the "aviation expert" isn't he? Does he know all of this too but can't write about it and claim the "I know it from my brain" source?

Now, what things are you claiming to be wrong in what I have told you so far and in writing, too?

Basically I would like better sources than:

Fortunately, though I realise sadly for you, there are no hyperlinks to my brain, nor to the things I have seen, nor the briefings from professional colleagues of long standing who don't bullshit and are not bound by the aforesaid marketing hype.

for all your claims

 

[DD]

Pretty sad state of affairs if anyone thinks anything posted on or via the Internet is 'in confidence' or remotely 'confidential', unless encrypted to the nines and beyond (power, that is). Bill Gates and Microsoft learned that lesson the hard way.

I accept your apology, in good faith, but it rings as true as the Liberty Bell.

Now, can you prove anything provided to you in equally good faith to be wrong?

Sferrin-

I hope you are sitting down because what I am about to say will likely come as a bit of a shock to someone like yourself but, by far, not all knowledge and wisdom let alone information and data can be found on the Internet or even the WWW.

Now I realise this likely disappoints you but that is just the way such things are.

 

[2IDSGT]

...the RCS reductions on the A-12 were real and tested.

And tracked easily enough by Soviet radar.

Did somebody say stealth meant impossible to see on radar? The A-12 certainly did have stealth technology built into it, and had a much smaller RCS than the A-11 itteration. It's just that stealth wasn't developed to the point then that it is today.

As in useful.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I hope you are sitting down because what I am about to say will likely come as a bit of a shock to someone like yourself but, by far, not all knowledge and wisdom let alone information and data can be found on the Internet or even the WWW.

Now I realise this likely disappoints you but that is just the way such things are.

I hope youre sitting down, but if you are on the internet and making bold claims we may want to see more evidence than just your word. Or can I ask you for a donation for my sick Nigerian cousin? How about your notes? You seem to have an awful lot of specific facts, you must have written a lot down. Or is that steel trap of a brain only for wowing people on internet forums based on your word?

Now, can you prove anything provided to you in equally good faith to be wrong?

Again all this information could probably more useful to others than just showing up here whenever the F-35 topic pops up and then disappearing again after making wild claims and "to prove you wrong" What is the point in me even trying a counter argument when you can once again claim some "mysterious information" that will of course prove you right?

Its not cricket old boy.

present your evidence and allow us all to see it. Because right now you just sound like another tin foil capped conspiracy theorist, demanding the world prove your wild claims wrong-- and then ducking counter arguments-- so you can make further claims that can't be verified. If you would like I'm sure I could dig up a chemical contrail/or UFO thread for you to post in, seems a little more your style.

 

[DD]

Sundog,,

This may help in better understanding the nature of super cruise.

This requirement for the ATF was to be able to super cruise through the Mach, that is, on MIL PWR.

As it turns out, the energy rate required to do this for an aerodynamically efficient supersonic design is about the same required to sustain Mach 1.5 in MIL PWR. Do the numbers and you will see how this checks out.

IIRC, the ATF operational readiness document (ORD) had the requirement on the design of the aircraft to be able to accelerate from 0.8M to 1.5M, straight and level, at 30kft, within some 55 seconds with the thrust set at MIL PWR.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Fortunately, though I realise sadly for you, there are no hyperlinks to my brain, nor to the things I have seen, nor the briefings from professional colleagues of long standing who don't bullshit and are not bound by the aforesaid marketing hype.

You should try this little act here:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewforum-f-22-sid-f3cb6f959d84976e9debac62335b6362.html

I'm sure you will really impress.

 

[DD]

My goodness, old boy, that was quite a rant you had , T^2!

F-16.net? Mmmh. A couple of Engineers I know - like JohnW who I knew at GD/FWD - post on there just to stir up the kiddies.

As for me, my word is my bond - a good philosophy to live by. Pity Bubba and some others have lost there way in this regard.

However, if you can't handle that, then it's your loss, particularly as nothing that has been provided to you is anywhere near 'mysterious'.

The 42 seconds is in the JORD, the other numbers are in the respective NATOPs and Dash 1 AFMs.

The CTOL performance in excess of 60 secs is well known - even AVLeek and others have reported on it.

So have no idea what you are ranting about.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Locked for a breather. If you want to yell at each other, try Skype.

 

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

Why did Turkey decide to go with the F-35C? Are they building or planning to to buy a CTOL carrier?

 

[mkurt]

The entire programme is so intensely disliked that the USN bigshots want some credibility for their version and so on and on.

Some xenophobic forums in Turkey would tell this much and question why the US is gifting this great machine unto us? Going on with this ain't an F-4 let alone an '14. There is still no Shah in Turkey to save the thing and guess what there won't be.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The entire programme is so intensely disliked that the USN bigshots want some credibility for their version and so on and on.

Some xenophobic forums in Turkey would tell this much and question why the US is gifting this great machine unto us? Going on with this ain't an F-4 let alone an '14. There is still no Shah in Turkey to save the thing and guess what there won't be.

Could you clarify this a tad more?

 

[mkurt]

on June 22 this year Russians shot down a Turkish jet in the Med -to great surprise of the Goverment. Which is now playing to the Oldies so that Cold War Structures and Strictures may help them in the re-match that might erupt in Syria in 2013. Meaning our booming economy can "afford" the USN portion of a certain budget. We are not "buying" any of the glorious F-35, the Goverment does. Can never convince people...

 

[DD]

Interesting. What is the general view in Turkey of the just-so-flawed?

Am TDY down under so taking opportunity to catch up with Aussie friends in the northern clines.

All the Australians I have had the pleasure to meet and the honor to work with are people of great integrity and high intelligence with an innate ability to think outside the box i.e. really talented critical thinkers.

Also fun people who are self effacing and down to earth to the point of making self deprecation an art form.

Takes a lot of travelling to get down here, so while looking for some 'mind candy' to while away the hours, spent time browsing thru the earlier pages of this thread.

The comments and assertions of a very small but quite vocal group of posters are mind-bogglingly outrageous, devoid of any technical or operational literacy, and quite lacking in anything that resembles substantive let alone critical argument.

Suggest worth reading this threads history, starting from page 9. Some of the posts are revealing and show how susceptible some have been to the LM marketing hype.

Alos, seems this thread has attracted examples of the few people from down under that are the antithesis of the above.

Hilarious.