The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[Broncazonk]

Let's analyze this.

1) A simple question was asked. "By the way, what kind of acceleration and turn performance would we get out of an F-35A and F-35C if the aircraft were area ruled?"

2) TaiidanTomcat responds, "You do realize that even with the reduced acceleration the F-35A is still faster transonically than than an F-16/F-18 in a similar load out/fuel carriage right?"

3) In the academic world, TT's response is known as a 'derailment.' When the derailment is unintentional, it's a sign of cognitive impairment. When the derailment is intentional, that's a sign of deception and evasion. F-35 supporters, Lockheed Martin, and con men are VERY good at using the derailment technique. Misdirection and technobabble are also stock in trades.

4) In this case, the derailment was not a good one: the F-16/F-18 are 40-year old designs, whose prototypes competed in a "lightweight fighter competition," and were not even designed to drop bombs. In effect, how bad can the F-35 be when LM and it's supporters rush to compare it with 40-year old light fighters?

5) For a fair comparison, let's go to Lackland AFB and take the F-105 gate guard down. As a categorical statement, the flight and mission kinematics of a vintage F-105 are better than a F-35 doing anything. The F-105 literally crushes the F-35, out performs it from A to Z all day long, AND the F-105 will not even blow up sitting on the tarmac in a rain storm. (In reply, we will get to hear another derailment: "What about stealth?" "What about the shiny new helmet and sensor fusion?"

How can a F-105 spank a F-35 like a circus monkey? Because the F-35 is not area ruled like every fighter and fighter-bomber since 1952 and the F-102. The below comes from here: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/01/pentagon-lowers-f-35-performan.html

"The F-35's sustained turn rate requirements have been slashed as have its transonic acceleration requirements. Most impacted is the Navy's F-35C, which has had more than 43 seconds added to its Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 acceleration times. But this wasn't exactly unexpected, as almost exactly one year ago Lockheed's Tom Burbage told me this when I was still at Defense News:

"Based on the original spec, all three of the airplanes are challenged by that spec," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed's program manager for the F-35. "The cross-sectional area of the airplane with the internal weapons bays is quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we're replacing."

The sharp rise in wave drag at speeds between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.2 is one of the most challenging areas for engineers to conquer. And the F-35's relatively large cross-sectional area means, that as a simple matter of physics, the jet can't quite match its predecessors.

"We're dealing with the laws of physics. You have an airplane that's a certain size, you have a wing that's a certain size, you have an engine that's a certain size, and that basically determines your acceleration characteristics," Burbage said. "I think the biggest question is: are the
acceleration characteristics of the airplane operationally suitable?"

Some of the backstory, according to an industry source is that originally the designers had intended the F-35 to be somewhat longer and more slender--in keeping with the principles of the Whitcomb area rule. Back then, the weapons bays were placed one behind the other--AMRAAMs in one bay, JDAMs in another. Apparently, the tail-end of the jet started to get heavy, and Lockheed had to change the configuration as a result--which is how we got the current weapons bays. They were kinda squished together--to use a technical description."


Unlike every other fighter and fighter bomber since 1952, our very own F-35, the most expensive weapons program in history, fails to incorporate the most important design feature since the swept wing. :-[ ??? :-\

Let the derailment, misdirection and technobabble begin.

Bronc

 

[GTX]

Let the derailment, misdirection and technobabble begin.

Said it before and will say it again I'm sure: Grow Up!!! (Hey look, I can use the bold function too ;D...and I can pull apart a rant too...)

how bad can the F-35 be when LM and it's supporters rush to compare it with 40-year old light fighters?

Hey, the F-35 detractors seem to do it all the time. How many times have I heard, "the F-35 isn't as good as [warmed over] F-15/F-16/F-14..."??? And besides, given the F-35 is replacing platforms such as the F-16/F/A-18 it is a fair enough comparison.

As a categorical statement, the flight and mission kinematics of a vintage F-105 are better than a F-35 doing anything. The F-105 literally crushes the F-35, out performs it from A to Z all day long, AND the F-105 will not even blow up sitting on the tarmac in a rain storm.

You really need to pass around whatever it is you are smoking... :

As for Tom Burbage's comment/question "I think the biggest question is: are the acceleration characteristics of the airplane operationally suitable?", I think you will find that all of the users are satisfied it will be. I know Australia does.

Unlike every other fighter and fighter bomber since 1952, our very own F-35, the most expensive weapons program in history, fails to incorporate the most important design feature since the swept wing.

So glad to know that you count yourself better then all the many engineers and designers that worked on this. How remiss of them to forget all this. I am surprised that you didn't also want them to include VG wings though... ;D

Anyway, enough for now. I await your next rant...

 

[Sferrin]

Let's analyze this.

1) A simple question was asked. "By the way, what kind of acceleration and turn performance would we get out of an F-35A and F-35C if the aircraft were area ruled?"

The F-35 is area ruled. Jesus. :

 

[Broncazonk]

The F-35 is area ruled.

No she ain't. None of the versions are. Why do you think the F-35 needs such a monster engine to carry such a modest payload?? Why do you think the transonic buffet and transonic rolloff is so distinct and bad??

Lockheed Martin is trying to ignore the Law of Physics with a great big engine...

Bronc

 

[GTX]

Lockheed Martin is trying to ignore the Law of Physics with a great big engine...

Sure they are...those poor fools. Their engineers and designers really need your expertise since it is obvious that they didn't even pass Aerodynamics 101... :

 

[lantinian]

1) A simple question was asked. "By the way, what kind of acceleration and turn performance would we get out of an F-35A and F-35C if the aircraft were area ruled?"

Well, if you don't want to carry 2.5x the internal fuel capacity, 2 A2A missiles and 2 JSOWS internally, I am guessing the F-35 would've had an "F-16 with an F135 engine" class performance.

4) In this case, the derailment was not a good one: the F-16/F-18 are 40-year old designs, whose prototypes competed in a "lightweight fighter competition," and were not even designed to drop bombs. In effect, how bad can the F-35 be when LM and it's supporters rush to compare it with 40-year old light fighters?

I don't think LM compares the F-35 with a just some 40 year old design. They are comparing it with the design they have to replace, a design that has evolved for 40 years by adding equipment and capability they didn't think necessary to design into the aircraft then or was not available.

I wonder what would the F-16 performance have looked like if it was compared to the F-4, while caring the typical F-4 weapons and fuel. Oh, I almost forgot that after 40 years, it still cannot do that.

I think Lockheed are correct to compare the F-35 to the F-16 in the way it was intended to be sent to war, not the way its designers wanted it to fly.

"Based on the original spec, all three of the airplanes are challenged by that spec," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed's program manager for the F-35. "The cross-sectional area of the airplane with the internal weapons bays is quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we're replacing."

The sharp rise in wave drag at speeds between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.2 is one of the most challenging areas for engineers to conquer. And the F-35's relatively large cross-sectional area means, that as a simple matter of physics, the jet can't quite match its predecessors.

"We're dealing with the laws of physics. You have an airplane that's a certain size, you have a wing that's a certain size, you have an engine that's a certain size, and that basically determines your acceleration characteristics," Burbage said. "I think the biggest question is: are the acceleration characteristics of the airplane operationally suitable?"

This sounds like a reasonable explanation to me. USAF had never had a operational stealth fighter before that was build according to performance requirements and so they were too optimistic about what could the industry achieve.

The F-22 had trouble meeting its performance requirements, yet the F-35 is much smaller and had to have almost the same internal weapons space and carry larger weapons than the F-22 did.

My question is, who was the guy that thought its a smart idea to design the more expensive part (the aircraft) around the less expensive part (the weapon).

Who decided it was a smart idea to fit AIM-9M or the stealthy JSOW in an internal weapons bay? :-\
Why weren't the F-22 and F-35 designed to only carry internally weapons such as the CUDA or the SDB and leave the big old legacy bombs/missiles for external carriage or to aircraft such as the B-2 which have the internal space? ???

I mean, just look at the side bays of the T-50. Compare them to the F-22 side bay in frontal cross section. Now, that's a smart design. B) I applaud the Russians here. They build the aircraft with the the absolute minimum compromise which is the missile body diameter and left to worry about the missile later.

Burbage said. "I think the biggest question is: are the acceleration characteristics of the airplane operationally suitable?"

Yes, asking questions like that is OK, when you job is to design a fighter to deliver certain weapons on a target, not win a midair race championship

 

[AeroFranz]

The engineers at LM are no fools. Strictly speaking, the F-35 IS area ruled, to the extent that they tried to conform as much as possible to the ideal cross-section distribution. The problem is that because of the volumetric/length constraints mentioned in the article, they probably have a very poor adherence to said ideal distribution. That's what you get when you're 'fat' and 'short'.


So, is the F-35 area ruled? Yeah, poorly.


This is what designers do, they look at the conflicting requirements and they make the best of it given the state of the art of technology.
Now, a pertinent question is: is it worth it? Some people will say that yes, stealth at all cost is worth it. Ultimately, what matters is the military utility of the vehicle, of which airframe design is but one of the components, but one that I have some insight into. I can tell you that a lot is being sacrificed in the name of stealth and VTOL, so whatever else the F-35 is bringing to the fight better be the 'shiznit' (pardon my technical language) to make up for it.

 

[lantinian]

The F-35 is area ruled.

No she ain't. None of the versions are. Why do you think the F-35 needs such a monster engine to carry such a modest payload?? Why do you think the transonic buffet and transonic rolloff is so distinct and bad??

Lockheed Martin is trying to ignore the Law of Physics with a great big engine...

Bronc

Its not Lockheed Martin ignoring the laws of physics. Its those who wrote the F-35 weapons bay/range requirements LM has done as good a job as any to make the F-35 as areal rulled as possible give what they were asked to accomplish. Just look at the F-35 next to the X-35 and tell me it does not look like it was not on a diet. The skin of the F-35 was virtually sucked inside around every subsistem the aircraft was designed t carry.


Granted, you could make the F-35 as as area ruled as the YF-23 by fitting the 2 bays one infront of the other and both in front of the engine, but how long would that aircraft be. Would it fit on a carrier, or more importantly, would you be able to cover the STOVL bring back requirement or where would the LIFT fan be in the first place?

 

[Broncazonk]

I owe an apology to the F-102. Only the first few F-102 prototypes were non area ruled. The revised aircraft, designated YF-102A, flew on 20 December 1954. You have to go all the way back to the late 1940's and the F-86 and F-94 to find a non-area ruled fighter or fighter-bomber, you know, like the F-35.

The three (3) previous posts by lantinian and AeroFranz have been informative and refreshing. If we can keep the Lockheed Martin sales team out of the discussion, and the sycophants under control, there is no telling what we can learn.

Bronc

 

[GTX]

...a non-area ruled fighter or fighter-bomber, you know, like the F-35.

Keep banging that drum... :

If we can keep the Lockheed Martin sales team out of the discussion, and the sycophants under control, there is no telling what we can learn.

It appears that you don't seem too willing to learn...especially when some people provide information that contradicts your existing views...

 

[Sferrin]

The F-35 is area ruled.

No she ain't. None of the versions are. Why do you think the F-35 needs such a monster engine to carry such a modest payload?? Why do you think the transonic buffet and transonic rolloff is so distinct and bad??

Lockheed Martin is trying to ignore the Law of Physics with a great big engine...

Bronc

Yes they are. Just because you don't see the "coke bottle" doesn't mean it isn't area ruled. It's not always obvious. Lots of aircraft don't look area-ruled that are.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Tired of this, Broncazonk. Indefinite posting ban. Congratulations, please go derail some other forum.



Now I'll just go count the piles of money Lockheed Martin paid me to ban your account. Muahahaha.

 

[lantinian]

If we can keep the Lockheed Martin sales team out of the discussion, and the sycophants under control, there is no telling what we can learn.

You don't seem to willing to learn.



I think he is getting around


If we assume that the F-35 was specked wrong, and LM design team did as good a job as they are know to do (ex U-2, SR-71, F-117, YF-22, F-22, X-35), then we cannot fault the LM sales team with trying to get the aircraft into service. In fact, we should congratulate them for doing as good a job as they have so far give what they have to sell.


I mean, a few years ago people though that the biggest drawback of the F-35 as a fighter is that it can carry only 4 A2A missiles. And now it can potentially carry 12. I find this turn of events an amazing display of engineering by LM.


Finishing the development will be the only way for the design team to get to work on weapons such as the CUDA and SBD that would unleash the F-35 full potential.


That the F-35 weapons bays were specked wrong is evident by the fact that with the above weapons, it can hit twice as many targets as the aircraft it was designed to replace which was never intended. Quite the oposite. It was though that its high airframe survivability would allow for the few old weapons it has to be more reliably delivered on target and support weapons like the AGM-88 HARM or extra defense missiles would not be required at all.


I think that its wrong to fault the whole design of the aircraft and to propose for it to be cancelled. A few things could have been done differently yes, but remember that the F-16 started with much less and its performance degraded much over time. It was only saved by the constant development of its engine.


The F-35 has potentially all the hardware it will ever need already build in or potentially expandable in capability via software. Engine improvements are still ahead and doubling the internal weapons not have the aerodynamic disadvantages associated with the example bellow B)

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

in the way it was intended to be sent to war, not the way its designers wanted it to fly.

Thats a great phrase

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I mean, a few years ago people though that the biggest drawback of the F-35 as a fighter is that it can carry only 4 A2A missiles.

And this was neither very true nor a problem with the F-35. The four internal stores was a program specification and the same ‘problem’ would have been there on the Boeing F-32 or McNorbrit F-36. Or even some mythical non-STOVL, twin engine, sleek JSF. The air forces wanted a fighter with only four internal stores so one can kind of assume they were aware of what drawbacks this might have in air to air combat.

Though of course in air to air mission planning the standard formula was to send two F-35s to do the work of a single F-22 so there were eight missiles in one option and eight in the other. That’s the same number of gross missiles so where is the shortfall? Then of course even without a CUDA type half-length store the F-35 could be adapted to carry six missiles internally without much trouble thanks to the volume within the weapons bays.

These same old tired arguments against the F-35 were shot down six years ago. And we still get them regurgitated today? And the anti F-35 crusaders call the rest of us the “paid lobbyists” and other such lies.

 

[quellish]

These same old tired arguments against the F-35 were shot down six years ago. And we still get them regurgitated today? And the anti F-35 crusaders call the rest of us the “paid lobbyists” and other such lies.

I have not called ANYONE that today!

 

[Arjen]

That simply means you're no, ahem, "anti F-35 crusader". They're very picky about membership, you know.

 

[GTX]

They're very picky about membership, you know.

...and from what I understand, the secret handshake is a pain to master...

 

[JFC Fuller]

...and from what I understand, the secret handshake is a pain to master...

Another problem is getting the right handshake, the crusaders have theirs, the Boeing lobbyists another, the J-20 fanboi's handshake actually involves kung-fu and the T-50 fanboi's handshake requires you to drink a bottle of vodka. F-35 critiquing is getting like communism, you never quite no which faction you are being accused of being in league with!

It's a shame really, there is a lot that the F-35 programme can be criticised for (and lessons learned) but the crazies on both sides of the fence make it virtually impossible to have a sensible public discussion.

 

[AeroFranz]

"Anti F-35 Crusader" has a nice ring to it, but I think I'm more of an "F-35 Skeptic". Runner-up epithet would be "F-35 Infidel".

 

[piko1]

Another problem is getting the right handshake, the crusaders have theirs, the Boeing lobbyists another, the J-20 fanboi's handshake actually involves kung-fu and the T-50 fanboi's handshake requires you to drink a bottle of vodka. F-35 critiquing is getting like communism, you never quite no which faction you are being accused of being in league with!

It's a shame really, there is a lot that the F-35 programme can be criticised for (and lessons learned) but the crazies on both sides of the fence make it virtually impossible to have a sensible public discussion.

Kung-fu - check
bottle of vodka - check
now which fan club i can join

on topic if you ask Bulgarian "expert" ( read as Bulgarian MoD minister in resignation Anio Angelov ( aka. Anio Neuilly - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Neuilly-sur-Seine) ) he would state that the nation will scrap the whole F-35 program and instead buy some more F-16 block 20 from Spain because it is better than F-35 and it have MODERN avionics and blah blah that's an " expert " opinion from Absurdistan


that was about the “paid lobbyists”
:

 

[Arjen]

Bunch of blackballing b*s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

 

[2IDSGT]

And the anti F-35 crusaders call the rest of us the “paid lobbyists” and other such lies.

That's a bit over-harsh. Excluding the odd troll, most of the F-35's opponents have valid concerns about the program, even if they are stuck on a few tired-old technical arguments (the real problems are cost/schedule related). If I thought there was a viable alternative that could offer the same capability and be ready by 2020, I'd be banging the cancellation drum as well. Unfortunately, it's the only *5th generation* fighter in production and the only such purchase-option flying this side of what used to be the Iron Curtain. One can still buy a eurocanard or a teen-series with all manner of go-fast upgrades, but it will never have organic capabilities of JSF.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

And the anti F-35 crusaders call the rest of us the “paid lobbyists” and other such lies.

That's a bit over-harsh. Excluding the odd troll, most of the F-35's opponents have valid concerns about the program, even if they are stuck on a few tired-old technical arguments (the real problems are cost/schedule related). If I thought there was a viable alternative that could offer the same capability and be ready by 2020, I'd be banging the cancellation drum as well. Unfortunately, it's the only *5th generation* fighter in production and the only such purchase-option flying this side of what used to be the Iron Curtain. One can still buy a eurocanard or a teen-series with all manner of go-fast upgrades, but it will never have organic capabilities of JSF.

I think that puts it pretty well, people are concerned about tactics and the smallest details, the big picture problem for the JSF is cost/delays.

Heretics? crusaders? Does that make me an F-35 Imam or a Bishop or something? ;D

The Air Force will have a "serious breach of capability" if the powers that be cancel the F-35 strike fighter program, said Gen. Mike Hostage, head of Air Combat Command.

—Amy McCullough


Feb. 22, 2013—The Air Force will have a "serious breach of capability" if the powers that be decide to cancel the F-35 strike fighter program in an effort to fix the nation's budget crisis, said Gen. Mike Hostage, head of Air Combat Command in an interview on Feb 21.

It's an option Hostage clearly doesn't want, but that doesn't mean Air Force officials haven't started thinking about how they would defend the country if the F-35 does fall victim to the budget ax.

"I would have to refurbish the [F-15] and [F-16 fleets] and the legacy hardware I have today. I also have a very small fleet of tremendously capable airplanes in the F-22s. I would push to buy more of those," he told the Daily Report in Orlando, Fla., at AFA's Air Warfare Symposium.

Specifically, Hostage said, the Air Force would need another 225 F-22s to ensure that it could execute a successful war plan and still remain ready to deal with a second contingency, if necessary.

That would bring the Raptor fleet back in line with the numbers that the Air Force anticipated purchasing before then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2009 capped F-22 production at 187 airframes.

Hostage acknowledged that restarting the F-22 production line would not be cheap and could eat up any potential savings gained by cancelling the F-35 program.

However, this step would be necessary in order to maintain the fifth generation capability needed to ensure the US military's legacy aircraft fleets survive future threats, he said.

"The problem is that all those fourth generation airplanes that my sister services are buying will not survive the fight in the latter half of the next decade. They are not relevant," said Hostage.

He said killing the F-35 "will not save all the money that people tout you will save."

That's because, "first of all, you've already spent a bunch of [funds] and you will have to spend money you would have spent on the F-35 [on] refurbishing F-15s and F-16s and buying more F-22s to get a force capable of getting us to the next decade," he said.

Plus, the "cost" of trying to save dollars will be "greater risk" to the nation, he said.

Hostage maintained that the Air Force must have the 1,763 F-35As in its program of record to remain viable in the future.

"Numbers count. It's not just the high capability of our force. You need a quantity of that force in order to be capable," he said.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Features/modernization/Pages/box022213beyond.aspx

IMHO Gen. Hostage is using the F-22 as "the stick" in a fine bluff.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That's a bit over-harsh. Excluding the odd troll, most of the F-35's opponents have valid concerns about the program, even if they are stuck on a few tired-old technical arguments

I can tell the difference and I did differentiate. Please note that the sentence you quoted and considered “harsh” made direct reference to those people (anti F-35 crusaders) who call others “paid F-35 lobbyist”. AFAIK only two people have publically (and incorrectly) called me a “paid F-35 lobbyist”. They are Peter Goon and Broncozonk. Both are ‘anti F-35 crusaders’.

Please next time read and understand the entire sentence rather than just take one part of it and then in your mind apply it to a wider group than to which it was clearly indicated. Your English comprehensive score this week: fail.

 

[2IDSGT]

That's a bit over-harsh. Excluding the odd troll, most of the F-35's opponents have valid concerns about the program, even if they are stuck on a few tired-old technical arguments

I can tell the difference and I did differentiate. Please note that the sentence you quoted and considered “harsh” made direct reference to those people (anti F-35 crusaders) who call others “paid F-35 lobbyist”. AFAIK only two people have publically (and incorrectly) called me a “paid F-35 lobbyist”. They are Peter Goon and Broncozonk. Both are ‘anti F-35 crusaders’.

Please next time read and understand the entire sentence rather than just take one part of it and then in your mind apply it to a wider group than to which it was clearly indicated. Your English comprehensive score this week: fail.

Regardless of how you find my English skills, the fact remains that most F-35 opponents aren't psychotic conspiracy-theorists.

General characteristics usually include some or all of the following:
1. Lack of tactical experience (those who have never served and don't understand the huge advantage imparted by seeing the other guy first)
2. Failure to comprehend the greater strategic picture (those who seem to think that air-sovereignty over their particular country is the only mission that matters)
3. Hung-up on a few choice paper stats (the kinematics/wing-loading/thrust-to-weight crowd)
4. Generic opposition to any military expense (as in hippies... to which the previous three attributes are irrelevant)

Even still, there are exceptions. For example, Lt Col Christopher Niemi's recent dressing down of both the F-22 and F-35. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/11/how-the-usaf-shot-itself-in-th.html While I doubt many of his colleagues agree with him, his views give pause to the idea that all F-35 opponents are [insert choice epithet here].

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Regardless of how you find my English skills, the fact remains that most F-35 opponents aren't psychotic conspiracy-theorists.

Sure they aren’t. But what does that have to do with me? I made a particular qualified reference to a sub set of people. You for some reason have taken umbrage at it by assuming I meant a much larger group.

 

[2IDSGT]

Regardless of how you find my English skills, the fact remains that most F-35 opponents aren't psychotic conspiracy-theorists.

Sure they aren’t. But what does that have to do with me? I made a particular qualified reference to a sub set of people. You for some reason have taken umbrage at it by assuming I meant a much larger group.

Fine then, my bad.

 

[kcran567]

I'm genuinely puzzled by the f-35. It is a relatively conventional design with some stealthy curves, alright, modest performance, OK, uses an engine that is relatively compatible with what is already in use on the f-22, has a next generation radar and sensing tech built in, a new helmet with some bling, but nothing too unusual, is put together like any other airplane, is made of materials that industry is well accustomed to fabricating carbon fiber and composites (maybe some new nano coatings)....where is all the expense coming from? I has a couple bomb-bays, it doesn't disappear in the sky from exotic cloaking devices, there is no extreme performance capability, there is nothing unusual or groundbreaking in the f-35 other than a few avionics systems and the lift fan partly borrowed/bought from Yakovlev. I think my intuition tells me it is the best current example of endemic fraud in the military/business/financial system that has culminated in the f-35. Smoke and mirrors, fraud and deception. Weapons for money. The military verision of the banking fraud/collapse/bailout. Where is the outrage at being hoodwinked? There should be a collective putting the foot down and saying "no, we're not going to pay this much for a mediocre fighter that is far from being groundbreaking in any way". Lockheed knows they are the only game in town in a US built new fighter, but other countries are starting to call their bluff on this ridiculousness, business as usual. If you're the only car factory, you can sell Pinto's and Yugo's for the price of a Cadillac I guess.


Before anyone blows a gasket, sure I like the f-35 because I like airplanes in general, but I'm not afraid to critique it, especially based on what we know about it, and the ridiculous amount of money being sucked into the program. It looks like fraud to me.

 

[aam641]

It's not all that expensive compared to other fighters. Consider that it is almost the size of F-15E, but with more expensive avionics. Stealth also requires much tighter tolerances for all external components, which drives the cost further up.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The expense comes from several areas:

• The jet comes with EVERYTHING from day one. Typical fighters start with a radar and that’s about it. Later they get upgraded with bolt-on systems that are not typically are not included in their unit cost calculations. The F-35 comes with an AESA, FLIR, IRST, MLD/MAWS, and HMD with are not typical. Future upgrades will primarily be cheap and software driven.
  Compare this to the F-22. They kept out FLIR/IRST, HMD, etc and said it would evolve into a multirole fighter with later upgrades. Because of the low build numbers, any development for the F-22 is extremely expensive. The latest contract will cost over $37mil per F-22 and is primarily a function upgrade for existing equipment (no HMD, IRST, etc).
• The F-35 does have some unique materials like Fibermat
• There are three versions. While they share a lot of common components, the B has the lift fan & extra doors and the C has folding wings and a LOT more mass.
• It does have the biggest fighter engine ever made (yes, even more than the Mig-25/31).
• What drives the capabilities and upgradeability of the F-35 is software & the F-35 has a ton of it. Everything is integrated, monitored, and that takes a lot of code to run.
• Some of it’s equipment is replicated or more complex than it’s counterparts. The AESA radar is the most advanced flying, its EODAS is much better (read expensive) than other MLDs, its MADL has multiple antennas rather than a single Link-16 antenna, the ESM is rivaled only by the F-22’s, etc.

With that being said, while the F-35 is a serious investment on the front-end, it’s much easier to upgrade on the backend:

• The F-35 was designed from the beginning for ease of upgradeability. Not only are the hardware components cheaper due to economies of scale, the entire avionics suite is designed around “middleware” architecture. What this means is that you can change to a completely different CPU, IRST, display, radar, etc without having to rewrite everything. In fact the CPU has already been changed once (at Blk1) and will again get an upgrade with Blk2B/3I (along with other hardware upgrades).
• A HUGE customer base ensures that development costs are spread across many platforms. Even now, there are more F-35 done or in production than there are combat capable (that ones that would get upgraded) F-22s flying.
• The software is written in C++ so the pool of programmers is larger (read cheaper) to draw from.
• All major components and A2G stations are connected via fiber optic high-speed interconnects. What this means is that as capabilities and data demands increase, there is no need to “re-wire” the aircraft (which is VERY expensive). This is what is often referred to when people say the F-35 is “NGJ ready”.
• There is an empty avionics bay in the tail of the F-35 that can be used for future upgrades when the primary one fills up.

 

[SlowMan]

The full-blown Super Hornet marketing to Canada has begun.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/27/pol-fighter-jets-boeing-superhornet-f-35-milewski.html

Boeing touts fighter jet to rival F-35 — at half the price

Super Hornet less stealthy, but has lower sticker price and operational costs

 

[chuck4]

So?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

So?

Sums it up.

KPMG put the price of Canada's F-35 at $88 million. F-18E/F without the pylons and pod is $67 million in FY2012. On what planet is that half? Boeing marketing term I guess.

http://cdainstitute.blogspot.com/2013/01/replacing-cf18-part-i-fa-18e-super.html

 

[GTX]

From the F-35 news section:

Pentagon F-35 Program Chief Lashes Lockheed, Pratt http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_02_27_2013_p0-553542.xml

“What I see Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney doing today is behaving as if they are getting ready to sell me the very last F-35 and the very last engine and are trying to squeeze every nickel out of that last F-35 and that last engine,”

“I want them both to start behaving like they want to be around for 40 years,” he added. “I want them to take on some of the risk of this program, I want them to invest in cost reductions, I want them to do the things that will build a better relationship. I’m not getting all that love yet.”

“Are they getting better? A little bit,” he said. “Are they getting better at a rate I want to see them getting better? No, not yet.”

“Now, you would think a company like Pratt & Whitney that was just given the greatest Christmas gift you could ever, ever get for a company would act a little differently,”

“If they take money out of development something’s going to have to give. I’m either going to have to push the program out or I’m going to have to shed capability.”

A few comments if I may. I had the opportunity to meet directly with Lt Gen Bogdan this week and also listened to some of the speeches at the Avalon Airshow. I find him highly impressive and a straight talker. A few points he made both individually and in his speeches that doesn't seem to make it to the news stories:

• He is just as critical/demanding of his own JPO staff as he is of LM, P&W or other industry, if not more so;
• He intends to have things change. As a start he has demanded that the contracting side happens much faster. Instead of the 14mths required to negotiate LRIP5, he has said that LRIP6&7 will be finalised by the end of the US Summer and that LRIP8 will be done so by the end of this calendar year. More importantly, this is already on track to happen;
• He also said that he is not concerned by technical issues - these are being resolved;
• He also made the comment that when it comes to the F-35, there are a lot of people with opinions though not necessarily with the facts : ; and
• Finally, he made the categoric statement that the F-35 is not going away; it is not going to be cancelled and it has strong support in both the political and military sides of all countries involved, especially the USA (despite what may be said in the media)

All up, I think Lt Gen Bogdan is the right man for the F-35 and he will ensure it is delivered.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

To add to what Spud has said:

the lift fan partly borrowed/bought from Yakovlev.

The Yak-141 doesn't use a lift fan

Separate engines. No lift fan or clutch or anything. This is another one of those internet falsehoods that doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny, yet persists.

Grossly simplifying what is trying to be accomplished by the F-35 and then complaining about its price without comparisons and context won't help you understand the F-35 or any other high end military tech for that matter.

 

[2IDSGT]

To add to what Spud has said:

the lift fan partly borrowed/bought from Yakovlev.

The Yak-141 doesn't use a lift fan

Separate engines. No lift fan or clutch or anything. This is another one of those internet falsehoods that doesn't stand up to even basic scrutiny, yet persists.

Grossly simplifying what is trying to be accomplished by the F-35 and then complaining about its price without comparisons and context won't help you understand the F-35 or any other high end military tech for that matter.

Also, the Yak-141 is strikingly similar to some of the old sea-control concepts from the 1970s.

 

[quellish]

* The F-35 was designed from the beginning for ease of upgradeability. Not only are the hardware components cheaper due to economies of scale, the entire avionics suite is designed around “middleware” architecture. What this means is that you can change to a completely different CPU, IRST, display, radar, etc without having to rewrite everything. In fact the CPU has already been changed once (at Blk1) and will again get an upgrade with Blk2B/3I (along with other hardware upgrades).

GAO did a study of the "upgradability" of the F-22, which is a very similar platform (there are some differences of course) vs. previous fighters. They came to some interesting conclusions.

http://gao.gov/assets/600/590505.pdf

- "Stealth aircraft design and integrated avionics make retrofits complex and costly" This does apply to the F-35, even though the signature requirements are not as aggressive as the F-22. The F-35 has highly integrated avionics (like the DAS), which is not going to be as easy to upgrade as hanging on a new pod.

- "Reactively modernized when a new mission was added". Well this doesn't really apply to the F-35 since it already does everything, though we know that adding dedicated jamming capabilities would be.... challenging. And no, this is not yet easily solved by software for the AESA.

- "Retrofitting upgrades into fielded aircraft because production has ended". This should not be a problem for the F-35 unless numbers are cut or production ends at some point.

* The software is written in C++ so the pool of programmers is larger (read cheaper) to draw from.

Cheaper than what? And I do believe (I am not certain) that current F-22 software development is done in C-based languages, and the same is true of other avionics programs. Software for a platform like the F-35 and it's various systems is not easy or cheap for a number of reasons, and not many of those reasons are the cost of talent.

* All major components and A2G stations are connected via fiber optic high-speed interconnects. What this means is that as capabilities and data demands increase, there is no need to “re-wire” the aircraft (which is VERY expensive). This is what is often referred to when people say the F-35 is “NGJ ready”.

Well the avionics "backbone" is fibre channel, which does offer certain speeds, but is already becoming obsolete. It may not deliver all the advantages people assume it does.
As far as being "NGJ ready", power and apertures are a challenge.

 

[2IDSGT]

NGJ on F-35=gimmick for the time being.

No need to send false returns when the enemy isn't getting returns at all. Falls firmly in the *do-it-later* category.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Cheaper than what?

Cheaper than the F-22’s ADA or the myriad of other languages that fill the avionics bays of 4th gen assets.

And I do believe (I am not certain) that current F-22 software development is done in C-based languages

Nope, ADA 83 is Pascal based.

Software for a platform like the F-35 and it's various systems is not easy or cheap for a number of reasons, and not many of those reasons are the cost of talent.

Every piece of hardware in a modern fighter has software that drives it. In legacy assets, each subcomponent could have it’s own programming language that would change from supplier to supplier. This is one of the reasons that integration and upgrades cost so much.

By unifying the avionics under a single, very common and understood language it enables easier integration and upgrades. The reason it jacks up the total software line count is that it’s a single entity whereas previous systems were counted separately.

Software is always cheaper than hardware, especially to upgrade.

Well the avionics "backbone" is fiber channel, which does offer certain speeds, but is already becoming obsolete.

Based on what? The F-35 has the highest capacity data channels flying and are already looking into expanding that by 2000-3000% without the need to replace the fiber-optic cables.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/March/Pages/ChangesPossibleforF35sCommunicationNetwork.aspx

As far as being "NGJ ready", power and apertures are a challenge.

The NGJ pods provider their own power and house their own apertures.

Falls firmly in the *do-it-later* category.

True. I think we’ll see it first on the F-35 as a quasi self-protection pod on the centerline station. Use it only for last ditch AAM spoofing, jamming, EA, etc. I would also throw a HPM and DIRCM in it if you’re going to hang something there anyways.