which to cut F-35B or F-35C

[Pingu]

The way UCAV technology is evolving why bother with Super Tucano. As soon as you add a pilot in the loop you have to build-in and plan for CSAR, which impacts mission planning, resources and tollerable level of risk to crew factors. UCAV's will soon be able to carry the same payload as a ST into high risk environments without the need to have a USAF combat medic + crew waiting by a helo in the event your ST gets shot down. There are already studies being undertaken into a common control station, which can fly/operate more than one type of UAV/UCAV. The USMC could in theory operate rotary and fixed wing UAV platforms from the same dedicated C&C centre aboard a Wasp Class or deployable ground station.

I can see a role for ST in counter narcotics and CAS (for nations with small budgets), but not for the USMC/USN which is investing in a wide range of next generation UAV's.

I agree that the use of a UAV would have its benefits but I would argue that is part of a broader argument. For example, you could say, why not have an armed Fire Scout instead of the Cobra. I think that as a manned platform, the F-35B would need to be replaced (if cancelled) with a manned system. Armed UAVs would be part of a seperate requirement to supplement manned systems within the USMC.

Speaking of UAVs, I think that rather than developing a new system, a good choice would be to go for an armed Fire Scout as it is a low risk solution and has commonality with the basic Fire Scout to be used by the USN. Alternatively, I would like to see the A-160 Hummingbird developed as a modular system that can be used as a recon/armed recon but also as a cargo carrier as per the prototype competing against the KMAX.

Apologies, I have digressed from the main topic of this thread.

 

[Pingu]

I often wonder when looking at the JSF programme, whether the idea of producing an aircraft of three variants with high commonality to replace many legacy types has actually been worthwhile.

In theory of course, it is an excellent idea but in reality, we have ended up with an expensive system that is naturally compromised. If the B-model is to be deleted, that would add to the argument even further because I would say that most of the compromise of the F-35 has been to make it STOVL capable. I still cannot understand why the unit cost of the F-35 is so high when it will be produced in enormous volumes. I perhaps think that a lot of cost estimates are perhaps quite high.

But rather than this three-variant approach, I wonder, for the US at least, whether it would have been better to have simply produced more advanced Super Hornets for the USN and more advanced F-22s for the USAF (Anyone remember the so called FB-22 idea?).

I agree that the benefits of huge production and exports are very appealing but unfortunately, those benefits seem to have been offset by the fact that the F-35 is an incredibly challenging requirement and has come at a great cost.

 

[Sea Toby]

I often wonder when looking at the JSF programme, whether the idea of producing an aircraft of three variants with high commonality to replace many legacy types has actually been worthwhile.

In theory of course, it is an excellent idea but in reality, we have ended up with an expensive system that is naturally compromised. If the B-model is to be deleted, that would add to the argument even further because I would say that most of the compromise of the F-35 has been to make it STOVL capable. I still cannot understand why the unit cost of the F-35 is so high when it will be produced in enormous volumes. I perhaps think that a lot of cost estimates are perhaps quite high.

But rather than this three-variant approach, I wonder, for the US at least, whether it would have been better to have simply produced more advanced Super Hornets for the USN and more advanced F-22s for the USAF (Anyone remember the so called FB-22 idea?).

I agree that the benefits of huge production and exports are very appealing but unfortunately, those benefits seem to have been offset by the fact that the F-35 is an incredibly challenging requirement and has come at a great cost.

But they are developing three different but similar aircraft, not one. Unfortunately, all of the pundits consider the development falsely as one... If they had developed three different but non similar aircraft, without a similar cockpit, development costs would have been higher, not less...

 

[Pingu]

But they are developing three different but similar aircraft, not one. Unfortunately, all of the pundits consider the development falsely as one... If they had developed three different but non similar aircraft, without a similar cockpit, development costs would have been higher, not less...

I agree, but this was theoretical and in practice, it is hard to see these cost savings. Because the challenge of building the F-35 is so great, it is expensive and therefore, for me, it seems to have negated any economies of scale.

 

[SASWanabe]

I agree, but this was theoretical and in practice, it is hard to see these cost savings. Because the challenge of building the F-35 is so great, it is expensive and therefore, for me, it seems to have negated any economies of scale.

so you advocate building 3 completely different 5th gen aircraft over 3 different variants of 1 as a cost saving measure

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I agree, but this was theoretical and in practice, it is hard to see these cost savings. Because the challenge of building the F-35 is so great, it is expensive and therefore, for me, it seems to have negated any economies of scale.

Hang on a second. All you are saying is because it costs a lot there can’t be any savings from commonality across three versions or the scale of a single 3,000 unit production run? Wether the gross cost of a single program is high or low does not have any bearing on wether it would be cheaper or more expensive to do structure the program in a different way like splitting it into three separate programs. This is an argument completely lacking in any logic but rather simply overawed by pure size.

 

[Pingu]

so you advocate building 3 completely different 5th gen aircraft over 3 different variants of 1 as a cost saving measure

No, you need to read my post more thoroughly. I didn't advocate but mused at the idea of an enhanced Raptor and Super Hornet. None of them would "New" fifth-gen fighters but extended production runs of existing fighters and therefore a low risk and potentially low cost option. I did not mention a third type either, so where "3" came from, I do not know. As I proposed earlier on in the thread, the F-35B could replaced with he Super Tucano.

 

[Pingu]

Hang on a second. All you are saying is because it costs a lot there can’t be any savings from commonality across three versions or the scale of a single 3,000 unit production run? Wether the gross cost of a single program is high or low does not have any bearing on wether it would be cheaper or more expensive to do structure the program in a different way like splitting it into three separate programs. This is an argument completely lacking in any logic but rather simply overawed by pure size.

I wasn't saying that the large production run was the reason behind the high cost, in fact, I am completely aware that it will significantly reduce costs. I am fairly sure I have demonstrated my understanding of this by the term "Economies of scale".

I am not making the point of high volume being a cause of high cost but rather, the requirement to produce an aircraft capable of all three requirements has lead to a difficult process and therefore a costly process. In other words, asking to produce an aircraft that perform CTOL and STOVL and Carrier operations (albeit as three seperate types) is a very tall order and tall orders mean expensive solutions, i.e. the F-35 with a massive unit cost.

 

[Sea Toby]

I wasn't saying that the large production run was the reason behind the high cost, in fact, I am completely aware that it will significantly reduce costs. I am fairly sure I have demonstrated my understanding of this by the term "Economies of scale".

I am not making the point of high volume being a cause of high cost but rather, the requirement to produce an aircraft capable of all three requirements has lead to a difficult process and therefore a costly process. In other words, asking to produce an aircraft that perform CTOL and STOVL and Carrier operations (albeit as three seperate types) is a very tall order and tall orders mean expensive solutions, i.e. the F-35 with a massive unit cost.

What excessive unit cost? Have you checked the unit cost of the Typhoon and Rafael? They aren't cheap either... Furthermore, the USMC and US Navy wish to use their amphibious assault ships for troop carrying helicopters with several landing zones, not to use the entire flight deck as a runway...

 

[Pingu]

What excessive unit cost? Have you checked the unit cost of the Typhoon and Rafael? They aren't cheap either... Furthermore, the USMC and US Navy wish to use their amphibious assault ships for troop carrying helicopters with several landing zones, not to use the entire flight deck as a runway...

To be fair, I was about the end of last post by saying that in comparison, other fighters such as Typhoon are just as expensive and in fact, perhaps more. I was simply putting across the idea of whether the seperate enhanced versions of existing fighters may have been a cost effective measure.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I was simply putting across the idea of whether the seperate enhanced versions of existing fighters may have been a cost effective measure.

at a through life sustainment level?, hell yes

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I wasn't saying that the large production run was the reason behind the high cost, in fact, I am completely aware that it will significantly reduce costs. I am fairly sure I have demonstrated my understanding of this by the term "Economies of scale".

And where in my response did I mention anything about economies of scale? I was referring to the gross size of the project.

I am not making the point of high volume being a cause of high cost but rather, the requirement to produce an aircraft capable of all three requirements has lead to a difficult process and therefore a costly process. In other words, asking to produce an aircraft that perform CTOL and STOVL and Carrier operations (albeit as three seperate types) is a very tall order and tall orders mean expensive solutions, i.e. the F-35 with a massive unit cost.

And the point being how is this somehow more expensive than three different projects? The cost drivers in the F-35 project are not making an aircraft that can do all three roles. But making an aircraft with the kind of mission systems capability that the F-35 has.

You just seem to be cherry picking factoids and misrepresentations and then throwing them into the air with an unfounded hypothesis. Have you ever considered a career in defence journalism?

 

[aussienscale]

As I proposed earlier on in the thread, the F-35B could replaced with he Super Tucano.

Could you please explain to me how you propose that a Super Tucano can replace the F-35B ? How would it replace the intended use of the B ? What capability matches will it have ? How will it tie into future force structure and force construct ? It is not just a matter of Wiki searching for an aircraft that might be able to take off and land on a phatship

 

[ADMk2]

I often wonder when looking at the JSF programme, whether the idea of producing an aircraft of three variants with high commonality to replace many legacy types has actually been worthwhile.

In theory of course, it is an excellent idea but in reality, we have ended up with an expensive system that is naturally compromised. If the B-model is to be deleted, that would add to the argument even further because I would say that most of the compromise of the F-35 has been to make it STOVL capable. I still cannot understand why the unit cost of the F-35 is so high when it will be produced in enormous volumes. I perhaps think that a lot of cost estimates are perhaps quite high.

Simple. The full rate production cost will not be so high. Low rate production airframes are always expensive, no matter the program .

But rather than this three-variant approach, I wonder, for the US at least, whether it would have been better to have simply produced more advanced Super Hornets for the USN and more advanced F-22s for the USAF (Anyone remember the so called FB-22 idea?).

I agree that the benefits of huge production and exports are very appealing but unfortunately, those benefits seem to have been offset by the fact that the F-35 is an incredibly challenging requirement and has come at a great cost.

Yeah they could have continued with legacy aircraft for a while. So long as you're willing to accept legacy capability when the threats you're facing are rapidly increasing.

Oh and the USMC would have had to get out of the STOVL aircraft business.

But hey that's okay because the USMC could just fly F-22A's couldn't it?

:rotfl

 

[Pingu]

And where in my response did I mention anything about economies of scale? I was referring to the gross size of the project.



And the point being how is this somehow more expensive than three different projects? The cost drivers in the F-35 project are not making an aircraft that can do all three roles. But making an aircraft with the kind of mission systems capability that the F-35 has.

You just seem to be cherry picking factoids and misrepresentations and then throwing them into the air with an unfounded hypothesis. Have you ever considered a career in defence journalism?

I wasn't suggesting that you did mention economies of scale. I have clearly shown my understanding of how large production runs reduce unit cost and was simply highlighting the fact that I am aware of this. It is a very simple science and I am a little insulted that you think I have not understood this. You were clearly implying that I did not understand this along with many of your other dismissive and slightly rude comments. Remember also, that I am not saying that three seperate projects be devised as that would unquestionably be more expensive. Developing existing systems is what I was proposing.

You could say that I am throwing these ideas in the air, but I would prefer to say throwing them into a forum, which is what this is. I am not spending your taxes on my ideas, I am not saying that they are supported by information, because they are not. I am simply putting the thought forward as this is a forum.

I will agree with you completely that most of the increased cost of the JSF has come from the technical challenges that lie outside of making an aircraft compatable with all three services. I was simply putting forward the idea of whether a different approach may well have been cheaper. Not supporting it, not proposing it, not neccesarily even suggesting it, but mentioning it.

 

[Pingu]

Could you please explain to me how you propose that a Super Tucano can replace the F-35B ? How would it replace the intended use of the B ? What capability matches will it have ? How will it tie into future force structure and force construct ? It is not just a matter of Wiki searching for an aircraft that might be able to take off and land on a phatship

I have not wiki searched with a "That'll do" solution. If you read earlier on in the thread, the point I am making is that the requirement itself needs to change, a bit of lateral thinking as it were. In other words, I am not saying that the ST is equivalent to the F-35 because it is not, but in terms of suiting a revised requirement i.e. a more modest and strict CAS role, the Super Tucano would be an ideal solution. Remember, the B-model may well be cancelled anyway, regardless of anything else and so there will be no fixed-wing aviation from an amphib deck.

Remember that the USAF are considering a system such as the ST; a thought that would not have even been imagined 10 years ago.

 

[Pingu]

Simple. The full rate production cost will not be so high. Low rate production airframes are always expensive, no matter the program .



Yeah they could have continued with legacy aircraft for a while. So long as you're willing to accept legacy capability when the threats you're facing are rapidly increasing.

Oh and the USMC would have had to get out of the STOVL aircraft business.

But hey that's okay because the USMC could just fly F-22A's couldn't it?

:rotfl

The high cost I was refering to is the total unit procurement cost which goes beyond just LRIP.

Remember that the "legacy" systems I am referring to are the Super Hornet and F-22; hardly lacking in capability.

I was not suggesting the USMC use the F-22 but rather, the USAF. Did you fail to see my proposal (about four times) for the Super Tucano?

 

[ADMk2]

The high cost I was refering to is the total unit procurement cost which goes beyond just LRIP.

Remember that the "legacy" systems I am referring to are the Super Hornet and F-22; hardly lacking in capability.

by all means then, please let us know how you're going to save us money by buying F-22 instead then. Be sure to do an apple to apple comparison though and use the total unit procurement cost for F-22 as well...

Then of course you can factor in some reasonable upgrade costs to actually include the capability addition the F-22 would need to do the F-35's job...

The Super Hornet most certainly is lacking in capability compared to the F-35. Even the GAO admits this...

I was not suggesting the USMC use the F-22 but rather, the USAF. Did you fail to see my proposal (about four times) for the Super Tucano?

I'm afraid so, without going much into it, I fail to see what the point would be? It meets none of the USMC's requirements

Might as well recommend bringing back the A-1D Skyraider. It was even carrier capable...

 

[Pingu]

by all means then, please let us know how you're going to save us money by buying F-22 instead then. Be sure to do an apple to apple comparison though and use the total unit procurement cost for F-22 as well...

Then of course you can factor in some reasonable upgrade costs to actually include the capability addition the F-22 would need to do the F-35's job...

The Super Hornet most certainly is lacking in capability compared to the F-35. Even the GAO admits this...



I'm afraid so, without going much into it, I fail to see what the point would be? It meets none of the USMC's requirements

Might as well recommend bringing back the A-1D Skyraider. It was even carrier capable...

In terms of apples to apples, I would of course be assuming that the JSF had never been conceived, developed etc and therefore, no money sunk. The production of the F-22 would go from sub 200 to perhaps 1500-2000. Unit procurement cost therefore decreases. Granted, the flyaway cost of the F-22 is high but no money would have been spent on R&D for the F-35, which AFAIK is around about the 50 Billion mark. Yes, further development costs would be seen through giving the F-22 a multirole ability but compared to an entirely new aircraft, this is small. As for the Super Hornet, not once did I suggest that it was superior or even comparable to the F-35, but I was saying that it is not legacy in the same sense as the F-15,16 etc. Boeing have proposed advanced, more stealthy versions that seem quite interesting.

To say that the ST meets none of the USMC's needs seems a bit too far. NONE? really? Surely a modest CAS, Armed Recon role would be ideal for the USMC. Also, perhaps take a look at the point I made about the USAF interest in the Super Tucano; surely if it is that useless as your claim suggests, the USAF are out of their minds? As I have said before, any role beyond that could be handled by the USN. Yes this would result in a significant capability loss but the US DoD is having to handle huge cost cuts.

I don't see the point in the large capability overlap between the USN and USMC and hence, while my suggestion may not fit well into the current forces structure, it is because I suggesting a more holistic approach.

I do think you need to read my posts a little more thoroughy because you seem to miss quite a bit.

 

[ADMk2]

In terms of apples to apples, I would of course be assuming that the JSF had never been conceived, developed etc and therefore, no money sunk. The production of the F-22 would go from sub 200 to perhaps 1500-2000. Unit procurement cost therefore decreases. Granted, the flyaway cost of the F-22 is high but no money would have been spent on R&D for the F-35, which AFAIK is around about the 50 Billion mark. Yes, further development costs would be seen through giving the F-22 a multirole ability but compared to an entirely new aircraft, this is small. As for the Super Hornet, not once did I suggest that it was superior or even comparable to the F-35, but I was saying that it is not legacy in the same sense as the F-15,16 etc. Boeing have proposed advanced, more stealthy versions that seem quite interesting.

Please go for all the hypotheticals you care for. F-35 development money is sunk cost, so again, I see it as rather pointless imagining it not happening. It has...

As much if a fan as I am of the Rhino, none of it's customers are particularly interested in operating it beyond 2030 at the outside, even in upgraded form and new customers don't seem particularly interested in it. Australia had a very unique circumstance, that the Super Hornet was uniquely positioned to fill.

Without those circumstances I see it unlikely to be exported as it simply doesn't offer enough bang for buck in the longer term.

To say that the ST meets none of the USMC's needs seems a bit too far. NONE? really? Surely a modest CAS, Armed Recon role would be ideal for the USMC. Also, perhaps take a look at the point I made about the USAF interest in the Super Tucano; surely if it is that useless as your claim suggests, the USAF are out of their minds? As I have said before, any role beyond that could be handled by the USN. Yes this would result in a significant capability loss but the US DoD is having to handle huge cost cuts.

None worth the cost. USMC would be better off investing in Harvest Hawk than Super Tucano. ST having no "at sea" capability whatsoever, so it would be pure land based operations. As a replacement for the capability an F-35b would provide, it's an extremely poor offering.

As to USAF's interest, you are again looking at apples and oranges. If the USAF were replacing the F-35A with the ST you might have a point, but they aren't. They are looking at introducing a light attack aircraft for a niche special operations role only currently with a requirement for about 35x aircraft. Not as their sole source of fixed wing aerial fire support...

On top of whch it's unlikely even to be politically viable in the US. Raytheon would be rightly up in arms, with it's popular AT-6B Texan II providing basically the same capability, but one that is designed and built wholly in the USA, being an obviously more politically attractive option, if you are going to decimate USMC air power and bring it down to little more than armed trainer status...

I don't see the point in the large capability overlap between the USN and USMC and hence, while my suggestion may not fit well into the current forces structure, it is because I suggesting a more holistic approach.

I do think you need to read my posts a little more thoroughy because you seem to miss quite a bit.

For starters, USMC air makes a big contribution to filling out carrier air wings, so if you slash Marine Air you either spend the money on more USN capability, in which case you are spending the same money anyway so what difference does it make or you drive half empty carriers around the ocean, or reduce the number of carriers. All are unacceptable options for capability and political reasons.

Secondly, Marine Air exists because of the long history of Navy and USAF neglect of USMC fire supports needs, because they are busy concentrating on their own roles (according to USMC anyway).

USMC historically fights fairly lightly (in terms of armour and fire support) and without adequate air support they are in a fairly unpleasant place and despite all the attempts in the world at force "Jointness" and getting USN/USAF to adequately support them, they have found through experience, that without dedicated air support flown by Marines they don't get what they need.

Finally, USMC is an extremely well supported service (politically) and because of this, usually gets what it says it needs.

So the Marines have their own fixed wing Air Power. That won't be changing anytime soon, though even I've argued it probably should, given the tightening fiscal times we live in.

Still, I would bet a considerable amount that IF the -B model were to be cancelled, we'd see USMC ordering more -C models and getting approvals for zero-lifing and upgrading their AV-8 Harrier II's...