backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by Spuke.. on Apr 22 at 5:06 PM

F-35 gets cheaper to maintain over its life

The F-35 Lightning II fighter program has received some more good news recently when it was noted that the costs to sustain the aircraft over the program life have been significantly reduced. Officials managing the program say that the $89.4 billion decrease in the estimated sustainment costs over the life of the program are an indication that the program is on better footing than it was previously.
 
“Year after year, the price of the airplane continues to come down and year after year we negotiate ... much lower than the [estimated aircraft] price,” Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, the F-35 program manager, said.
 
“The curve is still coming down, year, after year, after year,” he said. “It’s not coming down as fast as we’d like it.”
 
Officials overseeing the program are working hard to further bring costs down. Recently, Bogdan has been encouraging Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney to make "multiple-year buys and long-term arrangements" with their suppliers to avoid further cost overruns.
 
But while sustainment costs have decreased, the procurement costs of the actual fighters have increased by $7.4 billion. This is due to the fact that an order for 33 fighters that would have been delivered between 2015 and 2018 was delayed.
 
“The two primary drivers that caused that procurement dollar amount to go up were labor rates for our prime contractors and for their major [subcontractors] ... and the fact that some of the partners moved the buy of their airplanes out to the right,” Bogdan said.
 
“When you do that, the curve for the cost of the airplane doesn’t come down as fast as it would have and that’s reflected in the total procurement cost to go up.”

Source: Defense News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The Fed will pay for it
By aurareturn on 4/21/2014 12:16:22 PM , Rating: 2
The Fed printed $85 billion/month in Quantitative Easing money.

What's the big deal? Just have the Fed print some money and we good.




RE: The Fed will pay for it
By shadow002 on 4/21/2014 12:49:01 PM , Rating: 3
And see the US dollar become as valuable as toilet paper by printing tons of it....Supply and demand still applies here you know?


RE: The Fed will pay for it
By aurareturn on 4/21/2014 1:30:23 PM , Rating: 3
Yea I know. It was a sarcastic comment.

But yea, the Fed really was printing $85 billion/month. It's at $55 billion/month now.

I find it surprising that people don't care or don't know about what the Fed is doing yet they throw hissy fits with much less important budget issues.


RE: The Fed will pay for it
By shadow002 on 4/21/2014 2:35:03 PM , Rating: 2
Worst thing is that the USA is already paying over 250 billion a year in interest on the near 18 trillion debt, and the yearly budget is still 600 billion in the red....Before the budget ever gets balanced or even generating a surplus to pay off that federal debt, the USA might be well over 20 trillion in debt and paying 400 billion a year in interest on it.

It's like having a maxed out credit card and not even being able to make the minimum payment, yet they're still screwing around with the F-35 project which since it won it's fly off competition in 1994 against boeing, is now in it's 20th year of existence and still not operational for at least another 4 years.

No plane in US history has ever taken this long to develop, and partners like Canada, Australia, Italy, Netherlands and even England have either canceled or seriously reduced orders, making the plane even more expensive because there's less orders.

So we can't afford it and it sucks relative to the competition and will be the longest plane ever to develop, even longer than the F-22 which was focused on air supremacy exclusively, while the f-35 wants to be a jack of all trades but master of none.


RE: The Fed will pay for it
By StevoLincolnite on 4/21/2014 8:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
The difference is however is that the USA does borrow money from other countries like Japan, China, Brazil etc'
However most of the debt is what it has borrowed from itself.

You need to keep in mind though that the Government is not a household or a person, there is never an immediate need to replay back all it's debt as it's going to be an entity that functions for centuries.

Conversely, because the USA does own it's currency and borrows in that currency it has complete control over that currency, borrowing money to invest/fund research/build infrastructure and other projects, creates jobs and keeps the economic wheels turning.
When a government tries to save money, then invariably something has to give and thus some jobs are lost, jobless rates rise.
Thus, by extension some debt is never a bad thing.

On the flip side the American government can pay back all it's debt overnight by playing with inflation, but that comes with consequences.


RE: The Fed will pay for it
By gamerk2 on 4/22/2014 7:46:46 AM , Rating: 4
Exactly. The dollar amount of the debt isn't a problem, provided GDP rises to match.

Easy example: You owe $1 Million debt, and have less then $1 Million in assets. Obviously, not a good place to be. By contrast, Bill Gates owes $10 Million in debt and has over $50 Billion in assets. Obviously, Bill Gates is in much better financial health despite literally being 10 times more in debt then you.

As Greece and Co have found out: Lowing debt at the expense of GDP gets you NOWHERE. Heck, Greece's debt load (debt to GDP ratio) has actually gone UP, since GDP has decreased faster then the debt.

Essentially, debt is good if it has the net effect of producing more then the cost of the debt over its lifetime. Infrastructure, salaries, benefits, and the like are good examples of debt that pay themselves off through GDP.


RE: The Fed will pay for it
By Spuke on 4/22/2014 5:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
GREAT POST! Just learned something from here for a change.


RE: The Fed will pay for it
By Solandri on 4/21/2014 3:46:41 PM , Rating: 1
T
quote:
But yea, the Fed really was printing $85 billion/month. It's at $55 billion/month now.

$55 billion/mo works out to $660 billion/yr. Over a $15 trillion economy, that's about a 4.4% rate of inflation, which actually seems pretty reasonable.


RE: The Fed will pay for it
By FaaR on 4/21/2014 4:09:58 PM , Rating: 3
Stop trying to inject reason into the discussion, ya party pooper! You'll ruin that guy's rant, for chrissakes! ;)


RE: The Fed will pay for it
By bug77 on 4/21/2014 5:07:05 PM , Rating: 2
And I'd imagine some of that was only replacing deteriorated, already in circulation, money. Though with the widespread use of CCs these days, I'm not sure whether that amounts to any significant percentage of the printed dough.


RE: The Fed will pay for it
By shadow002 on 4/21/2014 6:29:08 PM , Rating: 1
USA owes more than it's GDP of 15 trillion though, which totals 17+ trillion in debt and climbing fast, and only collects about 3.5 trillion in taxes every year, so we're in deep shit here at would take a stupid amount of time to pay back even half this debt, assuming there were big surpluses every year...

Trade deficit Is massive with china, as most of the manufacturing from the USA has moved there to allow people to buy items of all kinds as cheaply as possible and it'll take years before the average citizen there earns the same as the average American doing the same job.

At witch point those same companies move to another country that pays like crap and the whole cycle starts all over again.


RE: The Fed will pay for it
By eskimospy on 4/21/2014 2:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
QE and US government fiscal policy are two very, very different things.


RE: The Fed will pay for it
By shadow002 on 4/21/14, Rating: 0
RE: The Fed will pay for it
By MrBlastman on 4/21/2014 4:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
Correct. When we spend money, we piss it down the drain. When we buy debt, we at least hold the paper and rights to the interest that is due from it.


So, who foots the bill?
By sorry dog on 4/21/2014 10:33:18 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Recently, Bogdan has been encouraging Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney to make "multiple-year buys and long-term arrangements" with their suppliers to avoid further cost overruns.


So, when PW and LM make 15 and 20 year deals for 3000 planes, and then congress forces the air force to reduce the number bought and delay the contract start (to save the baby warthogs) or one of the foreign partners bail on their buy, then who pays for difference in the contract amounts? Even though it LM's and PW's names on the contract, I don't think they are going to want to take that risk without either compensation or some sort of guarantee....




RE: So, who foots the bill?
By amanojaku on 4/21/2014 10:39:18 AM , Rating: 2
The American tax payer.


RE: So, who foots the bill?
By sorry dog on 4/21/2014 10:56:37 AM , Rating: 1
Correct!

Thank you for playing today's game. Your prize is two cents.

Please expect your prize to shipped to you in 4 to 6 weeks*.

**Postage not included. All prizes sent C.O.D.


hahahaha....
By Amiga500 on 4/21/2014 12:15:22 PM , Rating: 3
What a load of sh_te.

We'll say the program cost has gone down* - as its measured over 40 years, who'll be able to contradict it - to offset the news that after abandoning the F-136 engine going single source with P&W, they are f**king us over by not following the engine price reduction curve they said they would when the threat of the F-136 was still around.

*Given the B model still has fatigue issues, the software is years away from being sorted, the MHPFH and the MTBF are still in the gutter, how on earth can they proclaim lifecycle costs are dropping is beyond me. Unless they are starting with an absurdly high number to claim paper progess!

F-35 ESTIMATED cost per flight hour. i.e. NOT NOW - but some unspecified time in the future.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-est...

For reference, an F-16C is around $22k/hr in 2012.




RE: hahahaha....
By FaaR on 4/21/2014 4:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I had a guaranteed military sale with ED209! Renovation program! Spare parts for 25 years! Who cares if it worked or not?

-D. Jones, OCP.


waste of money
By Tristan XDS on 4/21/2014 2:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
This lame aircraft will never be cheap or fully functional, because this is unprofitable for greedy military companies. They always state 'best in the world', on every crap they create, because want to cheat goverment and grab 100's bln $ to their pocket, on production and maintenance. Naive govs and society will pay 10000$ for screwdriver, because military corp prohibit to use normal (for 1 $) screwdriver because if you use it, then F35 may crash.




Properly the worst militair project ever.
By michael67 on 4/21/14, Rating: -1
RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By corduroygt on 4/21/2014 1:54:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Wrong Russia an China bot make long wave radar now, and stealth dose not work real well on long wave radar.

I highly doubt stealth technology and determining its effectiveness is as simple as you're putting in on one sentence.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By michael67 on 4/21/14, Rating: 0
RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/21/14, Rating: 0
RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By michael67 on 4/21/2014 4:43:14 PM , Rating: 1
Oooo, your right, Russian or china can never beat US high tech, ehhh .. right.

The F35 is a one trick pony, as it traded all aspect that make a good fighter plane in for stealth.

So you bed the farm against that Russia and China can not cost effective defeat stealth?

The USAF has after WWII had some rude awakenings whit what Artem Mikoyan and Mikhail Gurevich there MiGs came up whit to defeat western ingenuity.

And now whit this F-35, a plane that is mostly profit driven, instead of efficiency and result driven, i fear the worst.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/21/2014 5:12:24 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not defending the F-35, but out entire wartime strategy and inventory does not revolve around it. That's all I'm saying. And high-tech radars don't work so good after you blow them up, my other point.

Neither does it rely on stealth exclusively to defeat our opponents.

Our biggest threat is running out of money, not some Russian radar. Russian and China are still using hardware and technology leftover from the Cold War.

Yes the F-35 sucks, but we still have enough combined air power and military might to steamroll just about everybody.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By michael67 on 4/21/2014 5:56:45 PM , Rating: 1
I am not saying the US cant win anymore if they get F-35s.

I am saying the hole purpose of the 850bn F-35 program can maybe be defeated by relative sheep updated tech.

If there is a good chance that stealth is mostly defeated, why bed so heavy on it?
Specially if you can make cheaper and better bet on more horses if you dont go for a bed multi-role plane.

And country's Like Holland and Norway that only gone have F-35s to replace old models F-16s, are gone be in a pickle if they go for the F-35.

A Leatherman like plane is nice to have as a idea, in practices, only with real specialized tools can you do a good job.
http://img.alibaba.com/img/pb/413/408/383/38340841...

And on the end of the day, if you need to drive in some nails, a good old fashion claw hammer is the tool you wane use.
http://www.reactual.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11...

Any professional worker will tell you that, that you need the right tool for the right job.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By laststop311 on 4/21/2014 11:49:17 PM , Rating: 4
Am I the only one who notices god knows what he's doing to the english language?


By michael67 on 4/22/2014 12:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
Your properly the only one that notice that i dont speak native English!

And maybe the form is more important then the message.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By sorry dog on 4/21/2014 5:36:00 PM , Rating: 3
Most of your reasons for putting the F35 down are dubious at best.

First of all... the video you linked to is Pierre Spey putting the plane down for it's wing size. This is the guy who claims to be co-designer of the F16 but about the only thing he really had to do with it helping create the competition specs. After GD won, THEY designed it, and many of his "contributions" to the spec were re-defined anyway to make it multi-role and have decent range. In any case, his comments about wing size really only matter in slow speed maneuvering which is good for air shows, but not so much for air combat. At higher speeds for most fighter aircraft, the limitation of the turn is structural rather than aerodynamic, and a large wing's parasitic drag may more than offset the induced drag. For example the Naval F35 has the larger wing Spey is pining for, yet it's sustain turn and acceleration number are below the "small" winged AF version. In any case, in testing the F35 has been shown to have turning capability that is similar to the F16 and F/A18.

As for one-trick pony, stealth is not the only thing going for it. It has better sensors, better radar, better pilot interfaces, better comms, and better range than about anything else out there. And about your long wave radar, that is typically used as search radar, but doesn't make a very good tracking radar. Simply put, you might know something is coming and maybe even the direction, but you can't reliably fire a missile at it since you don't have precise altitude or distance. Same thing for those magic IR sensor on Russian fighters; they don't give reliable distance.

I'm waiting see what all the F35 haters are going to say when planes end up cleaning everybody's clock at Red Flag and other joint exercises. I expect the plane will even have some success against the F22 which basically no plane has been able to do yet... save for scenarios which Raptors were at a defined dis-advantage.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By shadow002 on 4/21/2014 6:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
You're forgetting a few issues too:

Planes also use infrared sensors and not just radars to track potential enemy planes, and the latest generation of these have gotten quite good, being able to see up to 60+ miles.

Now you can say, who gives a crap because the plane can super cruise so it doesn't need it's afterburner and lowers it's heat signature, but what about the friction of the air on the skin of the plane, which does heat up nicely as the plane approaches and exceeds the speed of sound....kinda sucks for BVR combat if it can be seen that way thru infrared, rather than radar.

The other is basically the deadliest long range missile recently put into service, the meteor missile which will be used on typhoons and Rafales and maybe the European spec F-35, and why is it so dangerous?....It's a scramjet missile flying as mach 8 with both a radar and infrared sensor.

US Ammrams long range missiles fly at mach 4~5 so even if the F-35 gets a lock first and fires on a plane that has that meteor missile, I wouldn't place a bet on which plane gets blown up first given the much higher speed of meteor...It'll cover the same distance in half the time


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/21/2014 7:08:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The other is basically the deadliest long range missile recently put into service, the meteor missile which will be used on typhoons and Rafales and maybe the European spec F-35, and why is it so dangerous?....It's a scramjet missile flying as mach 8 with both a radar and infrared sensor.


Unless you know something I can't find online, only our allies are going to have the Meteor anyway. So it's not really a threat.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By michael67 on 4/21/2014 7:22:38 PM , Rating: 1
And you dont think the Russians and/or Chinese are gone invent something similar in 5, 10 or 15 years.

Well within the lifespan of the any fighter you buy today, and many you.we already have.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/21/2014 7:38:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And you dont think the Russians and/or Chinese are gone invent something similar in 5, 10 or 15 years.


And you don't think we're working on our own right now as we speak? Ha!!

The Russians? I'm tired of hearing about some doomsday Russian POS we need to be scared of. Like how they were going to have rocket torpedoes that traveled at 300 knots or whatever, and was going to unbalance naval power as we knew it. How did that work out for them?

We'll be okay. We didn't get to Superpower status by sitting around and watching people pass us by.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By shadow002 on 4/21/2014 7:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
It took 15 years to develop Meteor...Just saying.

So you better get moving as all US planes are still screwing around with rocket based missiles for both short and long range scenarios.

F-35 is already in it's 20th year of development with another 4 years until it's ready for combat missions, and the biggest mistake is being made right now by building them in concurrency, as they're coming out of the production line with defects so they can be used for training pilots, and when solutions are found, they go back to the factory to be disassembled and the updates installed....It's like building the same plane twice.

Stated by the general supervising the project.....WTF?


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/21/2014 7:54:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So you better get moving as all US planes are still screwing around with rocket based missiles for both short and long range scenarios.


Well clearly the entire US military is doomed. The Meteor is here! Time to close up shop...

/s

quote:
F-35 is already in it's 20th year of development with another 4 years until it's ready for combat missions, and the biggest mistake is being made right now by building them in concurrency, as they're coming out of the production line with defects so they can be used for training pilots, and when solutions are found, they go back to the factory to be disassembled and the updates installed....It's like building the same plane twice.


I seriously doubt it's taken us 20 years of actual work and development to crank out the turd that is the F-35 lol.

But I agree with everything else. I don't like the F-35 anymore than you don't.


By shadow002 on 4/21/2014 8:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
They won the fly out against Boeing in 1994 and the initial plan was to have it in service in 2004....10 years later and it still isn't in service.

Granted, the bar is constantly set higher and higher since improvements for the typhoon and Rafael and the Saab Grippen NU have appeared in the meantime, with better sensors and engines and Aesa radars and conformal fuel tanks and thrust vectoring, not to mention missiles.

Same goes for anything made in Russia or china....The bar is always going higher as time goes on, and the F-35 initial design started in the early 90's.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By shadow002 on 4/21/2014 7:26:29 PM , Rating: 2
Good luck on that....The missile can be sold to countries that are friendly to the 4 nations that researched and designed the missile( England, France, Germany and Italy), but won't be necessarily in such good terms with the USA.

And the bottom line is that it trashes the very reason for the existence of the F-35, if older planes can upgrade their sensor systems, get these missiles and be a real threat to the plane, all for much less money.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/21/2014 7:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And the bottom line is that it trashes the very reason for the existence of the F-35


I'm not defending the F-35, but how exactly is that right?

The F-35 isn't an air superiority fighter, it was never going to be and wasn't designed to be.

I just fail to see how a superior weapon system invalidates the whole existence of the F-35.

Going by your logic that missile also trashes the reason for the existence of the F-22, F-15, F-16 etc etc....our entire inventory!


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By shadow002 on 4/21/2014 7:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
yup....I've always been against the very notion that a plane is good for 50 years, which is what is being used as an argument for fifth generation planes...Do they seriously think people are this stupid?

Technology advances far faster and the only plane in existence today that has served that long is the b-52 bomber...No fighter plane has even been tasked to last that long, no matter how many upgrades have been done to it or how well it's been designed, from any country.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By sorry dog on 4/21/2014 10:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Technology advances far faster and the only plane in existence today that has served that long is the b-52 bomber...No fighter plane has even been tasked to last that long, no matter how many upgrades have been done to it or how well it's been designed, from any country.


Um... I think you forgot about a few.

Fighters: F4 Phantom II - 1960 and still in service, the F5 - 1963 and still in service, the F104 (unfairly derided earlier in the discussion) 1957 to 2005 - 49 years, Mig21 - 1960 and still in service.

Bombers: B57 - 1953 and 3 still in service, A4 - 1955 and still in service, Tu95 - 1956 and still in service.

The list could go on if you include trainers, tankers, and cargo airframes and the Chinese air force keeps operating some older types.

The B1 and B2 are both expected to operate past 50 years unless sequestration gets the Bone.

While the F35 may not be cutting edge many years from now, it doesn't mean there isn't a mission that it can't do effectively. The avionics and software are a big reason of why the F35 is taking so long to implement. Given that, it better last a while since a 6th gen plane will probably take another 20 years from RFP to IOC.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By shadow002 on 4/21/2014 10:54:04 PM , Rating: 2
How many of those are in a modern air force?

F5's ended production in 1987, Phantom II ended combat missions in 1996 and were in production until 1981, F104 flew with the national air guard until 1975, but was retired from the air force in 1969.

Phantoms being the longest at roughly 30 years from introduction to retirement, still far short of 50 years....F16 is the old warhorse, being introduced in 1976 and still flying today, yup 40 years.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By sorry dog on 4/21/2014 11:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
The F4 is still used operationally by South Korea, Japan, and Turkey. Greece and Turkey probably don't count. Germany used it until last year. The F4's still flying has extensive avionic and radar upgrades which help them still be quite capable for air defense and reconnaisance.

The F5 really never was a front line aircraft for the U.S. but is still used in aggressor squadrons. It is still used operationally by Taiwan. It's a comparatively primitive jet, but is still used because it is very economical to fly, is still effective in an air defense role, and is very reliable. The USAF still uses the T38 for the same reasons. If I won the super lotto, a F5-B or F5-F would be on my shopping list (and a Citation X).

The F104 was used by Italy until 2005. In terms of raw speed, it will still out run the majority of modern fighters out there at altitude and every single one of them on the deck. There is a civilian air show outfit that operates ex-CF104 planes. In my lotto dreams, if an F5 isn't available, the 104 would be my next pick.


By shadow002 on 4/21/2014 11:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough, but it's why I used the modern airforce and I was surprised that Germany still used them and that japan still used them, though that might be due to terms of surrender from WW2....

The pilots I wouldn't want to screw with at any price...Isreal's air force and highly advanced( block 60) F16's which are way more advanced than the block 30 used in the US air force...I suppose having 7 other countries surrounding them an more than willing to wipe them off the map makes them more paranoid...niol

T-38's are used at NASA these days to move astronauts from installation to installation for training.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By sorry dog on 4/21/2014 9:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The other is basically the deadliest long range missile recently put into service, the meteor missile which will be used on typhoons and Rafales and maybe the European spec F-35, and why is it so dangerous?....It's a scramjet missile flying as mach 8 with both a radar and infrared sensor.


Scramjet?? I thought those were still experimental....

Don't know much about that missile, but Wikipedia says it's speed is Mach 4 which is similar to an AMRAAM.

IRST sensors are useful add ons that demand respect in tactics. With that said they really can't be relied on as a primary means of target acquisition since they don't work well through clouds or haze and higher advertised numbers are under good conditions for very hot sources like jet or missile exhaust trails, as well as having a relatively small aperture of detection. Distance to target must be derived but flying straight and level for a period of time, and detetion ranges of ojects like reading sun glint off aircraft skin have a much shorter range like 20 miles or less. That is well within the radar range of a F35 even operating in a low power search mode, so the 35 should get the first shot off. Which is the whole point of the F35. Whether the jet's power to weight ratio is 10% higher or not, the fighter that shoots first is usually the one that wins.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By shadow002 on 4/21/2014 10:22:36 PM , Rating: 2
My bad, it's a ram jet powered missile, so a jet engine with all the moving parts removed and only the shape of it compresses the air and burns it once injected with fuel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Meteor

It still out classes AMRAAM missiles with 3 to 6 times the kinematic performance....Means it's one fast missile, as it speed alone causes a lot of damage even if it didn't have an explosive warhead that detonates on contact or proximity

It says over Mach 4 but obviously won't say exactly how fast is this thing for security reasons.

As for the IRST's, it may be true that their strong points are for incoming hostile missiles, but if does warn of one and the plane can avoid it, then doesn't the F-35 lose it's first shot first kill objective in BVR and be forced into a dogfight against a plane designed from the ground up to be a dogfighter above all else?


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By sorry dog on 4/21/2014 10:54:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for the IRST's, it may be true that their strong points are for incoming hostile missiles, but if does warn of one and the plane can avoid it, then doesn't the F-35 lose it's first shot first kill objective in BVR and be forced into a dogfight against a plane designed from the ground up to be a dogfighter above all else?/quote>

Maybe, but probably not. If the fighter was able to defeat the 1st missile shot, he is probably is a low energy state from losing speed in max effort turns as well probably now being in a position less likely to detect the F35 (distracted from radar operation or now outside of radar/IRST cone.

The F35 is as capable as the F16 kinematically in a dogfight in combat configurations it will also have the advantage off-bore sight acquisition and targeting advantage from EODAS and the AIM9X is capable of high off bore shots.

However, considering it's very dangerous for any fighter, super maneuverable, super stealth, or whatever to be fighting in visual range, then F35 tactics will be to avoid close range fights if the opponent might also carry a HOBS capable missile. Same thing for F22's. Successful pilots try to fight towards their strengths, and that is BVR for the F22 and F35.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By shadow002 on 4/21/2014 11:23:22 PM , Rating: 2
Eurofighter outmaneuvers the F-16 easily since it was made to handle angles of attack up to 70* without stalling the engines( F-16 might do 30* before the engine stalls) and has a smaller radar signature than the F-16, despite being a larger plane, as well as being able to shoot off bore sight with it's iris T missiles and helmet mounted hud and super cruise and has an AESA radar too, which is the same type as the F-35.

Only thing the F-35 has is that it's still less observable, but only when carrying weapons internally and when using pylons on the wings, it just lost that too so I wouldn't want to call this a fight on who might win or lose, but the Eurofighter has been in service for several years now, crews have a lot more flight time on them and there's the plain fact they're far cheaper than the ever rising cost of the F-35, so countries looking to modernize their air force may look towards it or the rafale as serious options.

The only version that has no competition is the SVTOL version since there really is nothing that competes with it.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By sorry dog on 4/22/2014 12:01:34 AM , Rating: 2
The F35 has been tested to 50 degree angle of attack. However, keep in mind that these crazy angles of attack are more useful for air shows than air combat. Ultra high angles of attack are done at very low air speeds, and are more about fly by wire stability. If a pilot gets to an air speed low enough to use that ability then the fight has already not gone the way he wants it to.

You might want to re-check the price of those Euro-canard planes. I've been reading that the Rafale price tag is now north of 100mil and the Eurofighter bids have historical been even higher than the Rafale. The only "bargain" plane from there might be the Gripen, but it's a much less mature platform.


By shadow002 on 4/22/2014 12:23:28 AM , Rating: 2
Well imagine a simple situation where both planes are already in a dogfight and in a roll to see which can turn the hardest and get behind the other( I know not ideal), but the Eurofighter can use the extra 20* to point the front of the plane at the F-35, and shoot off their Iris-t close range off bore sight missiles at it.

The price was based on the pricing Canada would get for 100 Eurofighters, compared to the 65 F-35's it signed on initially, but the defence minister got into serious hot water by lying to public on the real cost, which in the 2010 announcement was for each F-35 to cost 66 million and not having a fly off against any competitors like the ones we've talked about.

The general accounting officer set the record straight 2 years later when the actual cost would be twice as high, and the maintenance costs also be twice as high, for a grand total of 25 billion.


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By michael67 on 4/21/2014 7:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In any case, in testing the F35 has been shown to have turning capability that is similar to the F16 and F/A18.

Yeah your right it dose, but it also loses its momentum when it dose use vectored trust turning.

So it has a sustain turn and acceleration problem, compared to F16s and new F18 Super Hornet.

quote:
stealth is not the only thing going for it. It has better sensors, better radar, better pilot interfaces, better comms

So dose lets say the new F18, Euro-fighter, Dassault twin-engined Rafale have
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/boeing-touts-fight...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-s-french-riva...
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2010/06/eurofighter...
I could also post Norwegian and Dutch links, whit the same msg.

quote:
and better range than about anything else out there.

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or Rafale has 50% bigger combat radius then the F35!
https://www.google.com/#q=f-35+vs+f-18+super+horne...
http://defensetech.org/2011/05/13/f-35a-combat-rad...

quote:
but you can't reliably fire a missile at it since you don't have precise altitude or distance.

Welcome to the power of compute video card like that of the $5K nVidia Tesla K20X (GPU is also used in the Titan), that can better filter out the noise then old analog radars could, and give better and higher detail then ever before.

My brother works for www.pgs.com and they do seismic surveys, that works a lot like radar, and they upgraded to K20X's for there seismic map renderings, and he said to me that they have now the compute power of rendering about 20x higher resolution then there old DSP/CPU based system.

A GK110 of the Tesla K20X has 50% more processing power (TFLOPS) then the 1999 worlds most powerful supercomputer in one card.
http://www.top500.org/static/media/uploads/20/top-...

And you think they are not gone use that power to analyze radar signals?


By sorry dog on 4/21/2014 9:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
Your range comparison is flat wrong.

You just compared ferry range to combat range on internal fuel. Airplane range numbers have lots of variable that affect the outcome, but that's about as apples and oranges as it gets and quite misleading. A more real comparison would be the S Hornet's combat radius of 390nm versus 590nm for the F35. To get close to the same range, the Hornet must carry external fuel, but that is at the cost of higher radar return, reduced loadout, and reduced maneuverability.

BTW - the F35 does not use vectored thrust. As for acceleration and sustained turns, how you compare it determines the result. A clean F16 hauling nothing in air show trim will out accelerate it from mach .8 to 1.2 at 30k feet. Add a tank and 4 missiles and the acceleration is the same. Add two more bombs and the 35 is quicker. Pilots that have flown both say that with a combat load, the 35 is the better performer.

quote:
http://whythef35.blogspot.com/2012/06/first-non-te...


As for the radar, I don't know anything about seismic radar or how that related to air defense radar, but I guess your point is that increased processor power makes them more accurate. I'm sure there are benefits to additional processor power, but remember that if your talking about an intercepting aircraft or missile that processing must be packaged to fit within the limitations of power, weight, space, temperature/pressure environment, and system integration that aviation puts on onboard equipment. And it must be fast enough to do it in real time with virtually no lag. I suspect those operating demands are quite different from those of a mapping radar.

As for the other advances in the F35, in addition to the radar I was also referring to the EODAS system and integrated networking for search and targeting. The F35 will have the best tools for pilot situational awareness of any plane flying. That is a huge advantage.

Even if it's stealth capabilities were completely defeated it would still be a very capable plane. Counter stealth capability is more likely to happen in small increments over time which may be countered itself.

So what else do you have against the plane that I haven't explained?


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By FaaR on 4/21/2014 4:15:55 PM , Rating: 1
If the US and partners were to spend $850bn teaching you grammar and spelling, do you think they could do a better job than with the F-35? Reading your posts is giving me a darned headache! ;)


RE: Properly the worst militair project ever.
By michael67 on 4/21/2014 4:23:00 PM , Rating: 3
You try posting in Dutch or Norwegian, or any other languish, ok?

Dutch is my native languish, and Norwegian i learned during 3y night school when i immigrated to Norway.

English i learned during high school, and is mostly self learned.


By Makaveli on 4/22/2014 12:12:03 PM , Rating: 3
Well done michael considering.

Everyone assumes people posting are from north america and they speak english.

The internet is world wide folks!


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki