The F-35 No Holds Barred topic
- Thread starter overscan (PaulMM)
- Start date
- Joined
- 2 August 2006
- Messages
- 3,256
- Reaction score
- 1,528
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,759
- Reaction score
- 7,698
Sundog said:
Interesting contradiction in the article.
1) Article says there is no longer much commonality anymore with the three airframes BUT three different airframes would cost less
2) Didn't they just say, in effect, there are now three different airframes which is not going to be cheaper anymore because of the lack of commonality but building three different airframes would be cheaper?
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 18,338
- Reaction score
- 12,240
Well they can't discuss that as their vaunted Eurcanards come out not looking so hot.bobbymike said:
More Eurocanards of course. Look how much ink the tiny Brazilian order for Gripens is getting.[/quote]bobbymike said:
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I'm watching this thread for a while, and feel compelled to add my 2 cents.[/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]All this polarized talk pro / against F35 / Eurocanards is quite annoying. They are different products and fit different needs. Up to the customer to decide what they prefer. I'm not anti F35 but still skeptic if it can deliver on LM promises. Curious how small F35 only airforces will work out in the future for some European countries. From this point of view [/font]I'm glad my country (Belgium) didn't buy into the F35 program. We do not need stealth day to day. Currently nobody has a [font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]clue how to pay for F16 replacements, no matter what it will be. I wouldn't mind some Gripen E for Belgium, as this will keep costs down and chances are higher that we can keep an air force. [/font]
[/size]
[/size]And if not bringing a F35 to the party excludes us from participating in expeditionary NATO missions, that i would consider as a good thing.
Best
BJ
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]All this polarized talk pro / against F35 / Eurocanards is quite annoying. They are different products and fit different needs. Up to the customer to decide what they prefer. I'm not anti F35 but still skeptic if it can deliver on LM promises. Curious how small F35 only airforces will work out in the future for some European countries. From this point of view [/font]I'm glad my country (Belgium) didn't buy into the F35 program. We do not need stealth day to day. Currently nobody has a [font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]clue how to pay for F16 replacements, no matter what it will be. I wouldn't mind some Gripen E for Belgium, as this will keep costs down and chances are higher that we can keep an air force. [/font]
[/size]
[/size]And if not bringing a F35 to the party excludes us from participating in expeditionary NATO missions, that i would consider as a good thing.
Best
BJ
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 18,338
- Reaction score
- 12,240
gTg said:
This thread probably isn't for you then.
gTg said:And if not bringing a F35 to the party excludes us from participating in expeditionary NATO missions, that i would consider as a good thing.
Best
BJ
Doesn't mean you won't be coming to the party. It just means your pilots will be the ones doing the dying. But hey, that's a good thing right? :
[/quote]
Well stand by to be disappointed because Belgium is still an F-35 target in the future...
Sundog said:
Is there anyone out there who still believes that the Congress would have funded MRF for the Air Force, AF/X for the Navy, and ASTOVL/SSF for the Marines? The RAND report also admits that the F-35B is the first attempt to develop an operational supersonic STOVL fighter that has progressed beyond the initial development stages into production. Plus adding the complexity of LO and a never before used shaft-driven lift fan. The JSF program probably would have been cheaper if the Marines were left again with nothing.
crabanero said:
Oh dear, Dave Majumdar is looking into the crystal ball again and speculating on what future wars the United States will fight in the next 20 years. So, is it likely that the United States will declare war on the Russian Federation, India, or the People's Republic of China and have to perform aerial battle with the T-50, J-20, or J-31? How many export customers will have these fifth-generation aircraft and how long will it take them to assemble a fifth-generation air superiority force? Plus, what's the point of Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) and the United States Navy A/F-XX program beginning in 2025?
- Joined
- 2 August 2006
- Messages
- 3,256
- Reaction score
- 1,528
Though I'm not a fan of the F-35 my point was the article was stating the obvious. Of course having one aircraft perform all of the missions wasn't going to be as good as individual aircraft and of course it wasn't going to be cheap either way. But I blame the Pentagon for taking the easy way out and trying of sell it as a "panacea" aircraft that could do it all as well as individual aircraft could, which anyone who knows anything about aircraft design knows is complete B.S.
Sundog said:
I'm not sure why you are blaming the Pentagon. Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) and then Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) were politically-motivated programs to address the "death spiral" criticism of military programs. The Department of Defense set the expectation that all three variants of the JSF, for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines, would share 80% parts commonality and cost savings would be realized through economies of scale. All three services were committed to JSF including the United Kingdom. The Congress bought this complete BS and approved the program, even though anyone who knows anything about fighter development knows that the DoD was over-promising and increasing program complexity and risk. When costs rose and Lockheed Martin was under-delivering, the joint nature of the program made it impossible to cancel. JSF in fact being three fighter programs instead of being one.
sferrin said:
My point being that if the Marines had gone it alone with the ASTOVL/SSF program, instead of JSF, the program would probably have already been cancelled due to technical risk and increasing cost. The Marines would probably have been stuck with a SLEP for their AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft. It's been said before that the high cost of developing supersonic STOVL for the Marines, Royal Air Force, and the Royal Navy have been shared in this joint program.
sferrin said:
In the political climate of the 1990s, Congress just wasn't going to finance development of three separate aircraft programs--MRF, A/F-X, and ASTOVL/SSF. Better to get everyone committed to the program so that it is impossible to cancel when the true costs of the program are known.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 18,338
- Reaction score
- 12,240
"Yep" to both of your points. Supersonic STOVL would not be affordable in the low numbers the USMC would purchase if they went it alone. IMO the perfect aircraft for them would have been something like a modern Convair 200 but even that would have cost too much.
In what way did i imply that our pilots dying is a good thing? :sferrin said:Doesn't mean you won't be coming to the party. It just means your pilots will be the ones doing the dying. But hey, that's a good thing right? :
Just because i think F35 is a waste of resource and simply overkill for Belgium needs.What party are you talking about? Playing for nothing in the sand hunting supposed "terrorists" and using up lifetime of expensive assets for nothing? They are so dangerous you can only bomb them with F35, all other planes will be shot down instantly or what ? No intention to fight against China...
- Joined
- 17 October 2006
- Messages
- 2,393
- Reaction score
- 1,197
As for the Marines not getting a new supersonic STOVL aircraft as a separate program, because of the cost...
That would have been a very likely outcome, since US-UK ASTOVL had shown that most of the simple ideas would not work, and the actual operational requirement for RN and USMC LH-class ops is rather small.
It would also be a logical outcome because strategy = matching resources to goals.
Next question - Did the cost of supersonic STOVL disappear when it was rolled into JSF?
That would have been a very likely outcome, since US-UK ASTOVL had shown that most of the simple ideas would not work, and the actual operational requirement for RN and USMC LH-class ops is rather small.
It would also be a logical outcome because strategy = matching resources to goals.
Next question - Did the cost of supersonic STOVL disappear when it was rolled into JSF?
Yet again we see the USMC being apparently singled out as the sole user of the F-35B..what about the UK, Italy, Probably Spain and others in the future. For instance, already Singapore is openly discussing acquiring F-35Bs. Odds on, there will be more F-35Bs sold than F-35Cs. Therefore, why not shift focus to the Carrier variant being the un-needed, and dare I say, undesirable design influence, on the F-35... :
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 18,338
- Reaction score
- 12,240
GTX said:Yet again we see the USMC being apparently singled out as the sole user of the F-35B..what about the UK, Italy, Probably Spain and others in the future. For instance, already Singapore is openly discussing acquiring F-35Bs. Odds on, there will be more F-35Bs sold than F-35Cs. Therefore, why not shift focus to the Carrier variant being the un-needed, and dare I say, undesirable design influence, on the F-35... :
Yep. The F-35B makes it VERY easy for a non-carrier nation to get in the business. I predict both Japan and South Korea will be flying F-35Bs off carriers. (Even the Australian Canberra class of LHDs has a ski-jump. Only one reason they could have put that there.)
GTX said:Yet again we see the USMC being apparently singled out as the sole user of the F-35B..what about the UK, Italy, Probably Spain and others in the future. For instance, already Singapore is openly discussing acquiring F-35Bs. Odds on, there will be more F-35Bs sold than F-35Cs. Therefore, why not shift focus to the Carrier variant being the un-needed, and dare I say, undesirable design influence, on the F-35... :
We're discussing development costs as related to the decision of going with the combined JSF program, not unit sales or cost amortization over the life of the JSF program. The F-35B is still the most expensive variant of the JSF to develop.
Its a moot point now.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 18,338
- Reaction score
- 12,240
Triton said:GTX said:Yet again we see the USMC being apparently singled out as the sole user of the F-35B..what about the UK, Italy, Probably Spain and others in the future. For instance, already Singapore is openly discussing acquiring F-35Bs. Odds on, there will be more F-35Bs sold than F-35Cs. Therefore, why not shift focus to the Carrier variant being the un-needed, and dare I say, undesirable design influence, on the F-35... :
We're discussing development costs as related to the decision of going with the combined JSF program, not unit sales or cost amortization over the life of the JSF program. The F-35B is still the most expensive variant of the JSF to develop.
That question was answered a decade ago. Three separate programs would cost more than one joint one. Class dismissed.
sferrin said:
No, that it isn't true. The JSF program did not meet its initial goal of 80% parts commonality among the three service variants as originally planned. Parts commonality among the three variants declined over time increasing research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) and procurement costs and the common airframe also increased program complexity and technical risk. JSF over-promised and under-delivered in regards to development costs. I agree that JSF was the right decision to make politically at the time, but the evidence does not support the claim that three separate programs would cost more than one joint one.
- Joined
- 9 November 2008
- Messages
- 1,070
- Reaction score
- 164
The parts that are not common are the parts that have the smallest impact on the lifetime cost of the airframe.
The largest impact on the F-35's lifetime cost (in regards to parts) are the expendables, LRUs, maintenance procedures, and future development.
In the F-35, these are nearly 100% across all three versions.
The largest impact on the F-35's lifetime cost (in regards to parts) are the expendables, LRUs, maintenance procedures, and future development.
In the F-35, these are nearly 100% across all three versions.
That's the conclusion of the RAND report Do Joint Fighters Save Money?
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 18,338
- Reaction score
- 12,240
Triton said:
Let's say they're right. How is that relevant NOW? Wait, wait, wait, I know. Let's cancel the F-35 and build three NEW individual designs. Surely that will result in three aircraft for less money, sooner, and cheaper. Not trying to be a smartass but when haven't Monday-morning quarterbacks been able to come up with a "shoulda, woulda, coulda" scenario?
- Joined
- 24 January 2006
- Messages
- 1,322
- Reaction score
- 470
sferrin said:
Studying such information just might be relevant if you want the USAF and USN to be thinking about 6th generation fighters. Although in that case I'd bet it'd work out a bit better as you're eliminating one of the JSF's complications by default. So, yeah, it doesn't rescue us from this mess but it might help keep us out of the next one.
sferrin said:
Unfortunately, too many people are hung up on "we've already spent $XXX so there's no stopping now," but you do have a good idea there
- Joined
- 17 October 2006
- Messages
- 2,393
- Reaction score
- 1,197
"Monday morning quarterbacking" is a term widely used by those who resist learning from their own, or others' mistakes.
Like most sports metaphors, it is of limited usefulness, because life is not about bats and balls.
Like most sports metaphors, it is of limited usefulness, because life is not about bats and balls.
Couldn't' there have been three distrinct different aircraft with a similar avionics, and maybe similar engine, other common parts, yet have perhaps three different wing designs, fuselage etc to make each aircraft better as either an air to air, strike, or STOL platform. Trying to shoehorn the f-35 into all these roles only makes itsforthcoming competitors better able to exploit its weaknesses. Its a flawed concept we are stuck with unfortunately. It seems like the f-35 isn't going to be adaptable enough for the next 50 years. Lockheed saying it will be is pure insanity and fraud.
- Joined
- 17 October 2006
- Messages
- 2,393
- Reaction score
- 1,197
kcran - That certainly seemed like a potentially good idea in the late 1990s and I advocated it on occasion, using the Airbus range as a model.
The problem? The official predictions of the JSF cost and timescale were so awesomely good that nothing else could compete with them.
Hence the importance of RAND's findings....
Also, there are no aircraft with zero commonality (the Blackbirds were probably as close as it gets). For instance, by the late 1980s the F-14, F-15 and F-16 shared an engine family, all used the same gun, and the F-14 and F-15 radars were closely related. Aircraft are made of parts, that range from catalog items to things that are often made (for different aircraft) by the same supplier in the same factory, using the same techniques and machinery.
[/size]
That's why there's only so much to be saved in production from a common airframe shape - another factor quantified by RAND.
The problem? The official predictions of the JSF cost and timescale were so awesomely good that nothing else could compete with them.
Hence the importance of RAND's findings....
Also, there are no aircraft with zero commonality (the Blackbirds were probably as close as it gets). For instance, by the late 1980s the F-14, F-15 and F-16 shared an engine family, all used the same gun, and the F-14 and F-15 radars were closely related. Aircraft are made of parts, that range from catalog items to things that are often made (for different aircraft) by the same supplier in the same factory, using the same techniques and machinery.
[/size]
That's why there's only so much to be saved in production from a common airframe shape - another factor quantified by RAND.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 18,338
- Reaction score
- 12,240
SOC said:Unfortunately, too many people are hung up on "we've already spent $XXX so there's no stopping now," but you do have a good idea there
So perhaps you could explain how cancelling the F-35 will get us three better fighters sooner and for less money?
