Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?

[swerve]

F-35 is without R&D and some other costs is at the moment projected to be 104.4 Mn USD at 2,458 aircraft, total program cost including R&D 121.9 Mn USD per plane in 2006 dollars.....

Naah, the $122 (121.98) mn is in hypothetical "then-year" dollars, including a prediction of inflation. It is therefore sensitive to when the money is spent, i.e. the later they're built & paid for, the higher the predicted price. In 2006 USD, the predicted programme unit cost is about $95 mn. But the predicted cost supposedly constant 2002 dollars has gone up every year (currently at $69 mn excluding fixed costs, or >$85 mn programme cost), & I expect it'll probably continue rising.

 

[Grand Danois]

Re the F-22.

To further confuse the issue. The F-22 UFC is 135 m USD in 2007 (p. 1-13) and 148 m USD in 2008 - lot 8 (p. 1-13). The 116 m USD number I gave didn't include non-recurring cost and can actually be as low as 110 m USD (p. 1-16)).

So we do have a UFC of 135 m USD. The Wpn Sys Unit Cost is not the same as UPC as many of the items covered under UPC are catered for under the PALS account (P. 1-13;1-14) and other accounts as well. Thus the UPC of 177 m USD I quoted is actually not the UPC, but "just" the Wpn Sys Unit Cost... Which was curiously the number used in the TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIRLAND COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE, btw!

The result is that the UPC is higher for an export and the 60% number is probably in the ballpark; as the 50% used as a rule of thumb for legacy fighters would be too conservative, and considering that the F-35 has a 58% shift, similar gen tech and the fact that the F-22 is twin engined, it should be a fair assumption.

Include FMS fee and we end up with an export price tag of 224 m USD based on the lower 2007 number.

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070212-004.pdf

Ta-da!

 

[energo]

So we do have a UFC of 135 m USD. The Wpn Sys Unit Cost is not the same as UPC as many of the items covered under UPC are catered for under the PALS account (P. 1-13;1-14) and other accounts as well. Thus the UPC of 177 m USD I quoted is actually not the UPC, but "just" the Wpn Sys Unit Cost... Which was curiously the number used in the TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIRLAND COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE, btw!

The result is that the UPC is higher for an export and the 60% number is probably in the ballpark; as the 50% used as a rule of thumb for legacy fighters would be too conservative, and considering that the F-35 has a 58% shift, similar gen tech and the fact that the F-22 is twin engined, it should be a fair assumption.

Include FMS fee and we end up with an export price tag of 224 m USD based on the lower 2007 number.

It could be interesting to see your break down of the factors differenciating WSC and UPC.

Also, what do you base the F-35s 58% figure on?

Leaving unique political and economical factors aside, on a general note a follow-on batch of 48 units (or perhaps more likely 36 for Norway) would reduce the unit cost. In addition this would probably result in other foreign sales, for instance to Japan or Australia, which would further drive down cost. In some respects the 2005 budget estimate seems a more likely basis for comparison. It postulated a weapon systems cost, based on 271 airframes, of about 105 million USD - plus inflation - after the 2009 timeframe.

While I'm personally not optimistic, it is still possible that Lockeed Martin will live up to its last year claim of providing 48 JSFs to Norway for 2.6 billion USD, or about 55 million USD a piece.


Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy

 

[energo]

By the way, this Chief of general staffs report, is that really the budget for the aquisition from the government? I would like to see a link about the government budget, in norwegian is no problem, because what I've seen so far says 24 Bn NOK.

A search for "kampfly" on www.regjeringen.no should bring up the most relevant bits.

However nothing has been budgeted yet and the DOD itself is not able to finance more than 16 billion NOK under the postulated budget.


Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy

 

[Grand Danois]

It could be interesting to see your break down of the factors differenciating WSC and UPC.

The diff between WSC and UPC is initial spares. What you're hinting at is that there is no official estimate on F-22 UPC as UPC is a number used for export, and there has been made no official calculation on what an F-22 export would cost, as it would be illegal atm. This is why WSC is sometimes used as a substitute for UPC, which you can see in e.g. this document, where you at the bottom also can se a diagram over the definitions. I'm less than sanguine over this use of the WSC, as it is *not* the UPC, which the diagram confirms.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub33.pdf

What you're also hinting at, is that there is no standardised package of "initial
spares" and that it may vary. In e.g. the Aussie SH purchase the package included 10 years worth of spares, while a more typical could be 2-3 years.

But I do assume you're going to do more with your fighter purchase than flying the jet home and park it in a hangar.

Also, what do you base the F-35s 58% figure on?

I've actually seen that figure used in official documents, but darn me if I can Google it up. It was even used as a ref on the APA site. If you're unhappy with this, you're welcome to use or find it through whatever calculations, e.g. procurement budget vs no of airframes (APUC) or diff between UPC and UFC. We can also continue on the basis of WSC as none of it changes the substance of my argument.

Leaving unique political and economical factors aside, on a general note a follow-on batch of 48 units (or perhaps more likely 36 for Norway) would reduce the unit cost. In addition this would probably result in other foreign sales, for instance to Japan or Australia, which would further drive down cost. In some respects the 2005 budget estimate seems a more likely basis for comparison. It postulated a weapon systems cost, based on 271 airframes, of about 105 million USD - plus inflation - after the 2009 timeframe.

Also ignoring that a F-22 export would hurt the F-35 business case, and that the F-22 is an offensive counter air fighter with a very, very limited DEAD role; it is not a jet that is well suited to a Norwegian req. And adding more mission systems will make the UFC/WSC/UPC go up up up...

As the production line is set up under the current MYPs to yield a best case 116 mn USD UFC in case of an unlimited production I am a bit suspicious re above, i.e. it is the real world experience. But I would be curious to get a reference.

While I'm personally not optimistic, it is still possible that Lockeed Martin will live up to its last year claim of providing 48 JSFs to Norway for 2.6 billion USD, or about 55 million USD a piece.


Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy

But it would be a bargain compared to a Gripen C UFC of 40 mn USD.

Cheers
/GD

 

[AGRA]

Include FMS fee and we end up with an export price tag of 224 m USD based on the lower 2007 number.

The US DoD has made it clear that even if the F-22 was released for export by the USG it would need to be a modified export version so as not to contain US eyes only technology and manufacturing processes. The cost of 'proofing' the F-22 for export would be around $1-2 billion. Further these export F-22s would not be coming of the USAF F-22A production line so would not be available with the 'sweet spot' end of production run cost savings. They would be as expensive as the first F-22s.

Why buy an F-22 anyway? It only has a radius of 410 NM. To fly the F-35A's 600 NM radius the F-22 can't supercruise. Which means it loses the one advantage it has over the F-35...

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Why buy an F-22 anyway? It only has a radius of 410 NM. To fly the F-35A's 600 NM radius the F-22 can't supercruise. Which means it loses the one advantage it has over the F-35...

It cant supercruise? why becasue it cant do it to the range outlined initially??? Give me a break. Sitting at M 1.5 without using your burner is supercruiseing, unless you want to use some sort of alternate definition were you draw a line on a map and state that unless you can cruise supersonic all the way out to there its not supercruiseing (which smacks of an agenda to me). I mean i know you hate the platform but at least be reasonable. Sure the F35 is more flexible, cheaper, has a better weapons fit, better HUI, more range, an EO suite and a better weapons fit, but the F22 does have some distinct advantages.

1. It CAN supercruise....
2. It has significantly better kinematic performance
3. It has more comprehensive (wide frequency) VLO..
4. It is a better airodynamic performer with better roll, pitch, yaw, instentainious turn, sustained turn and climb rates, high alfa performance and sprint speeds.
5. biger radar apature and with software upgrades better radar performance...
6. It looks better
7. It has a better name...

Now i'm not saying its a better fighter, but claiming that "supercruise is F22's only advantage over the F35, and that it cant even do it" isn't logical bud.

 

[JWCook]

I'd take issue with #5 the F-35 radar being inferior! IIRC technology is being retrofitted to the F-22, I'd wager the AtoG modes planned will be better in the F-35.
You have to rely on the F-22 getting the spiral upgrades.

Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I'd take issue with #5 the F-35 radar being inferior! IIRC technology is being retrofitted to the F-22, I'd wager the AtoG modes planned will be better in the F-35.
You have to rely on the F-22 getting the spiral upgrades.

Cheers

But once they're upgraded to the same technological level, which they will be, the APG 77's apature will give it more beams, better scan rates, and probably better detection & track radii vs RCS and EA capability (due to better power output) and higher resoloution SAR images because it has more beams. Now maybe it doesent have any more T/R modules but they're just bigger (numbers of T/R modules are classified IIRC) then there system would still have a higher power output.

The APG 81 may be more sophistocated than the APG 77 now, but most of the hardware improvements have allready been incorperated, and the software (once it has been developed) is easy to migrate between systems.

 

[AGRA]

Now i'm not saying its a better fighter, but claiming that "supercruise is F22's only advantage over the F35, and that it cant even do it" isn't logical bud.

Did you even read my post? Or did you jump to your own preconceived idea that I had a preconceived idea and go from there?

The ATF, which became the F-22A, was designed to have a mission radius of action of 600 NM and it would fly that mission cruising at ~Mach 1.6. To do this the YF-22A was designed to carry 25,000 lbs of internal fuel. The F-22A emerged with only 18,000 lbs of internal fuel and its super cruise mission radius was subsequently reduced to 410 NM. To fly the original 600 NM radius, the same as the F-35A is being designed to achieve, the F-22A has to cruise at a subsonic speed.

So what advantage does the F-22A have over the F-35A? While it still retains higher energy manoeuvre potential how that is going to by hugely important in a stealthy aircraft that can’t be tracked by the enemy is really a great mystery. Then there are all the negative factors, much great cost, less sensor ability, less mission system integration, less weapons options, etc, etc, not of course legally un-exportable.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Did you even read my post? Or did you jump to your own preconceived idea that I had a preconceived idea and go from there?

The ATF, which became the F-22A, was designed to have a mission radius of action of 600 NM and it would fly that mission cruising at ~Mach 1.6. To do this the YF-22A was designed to carry 25,000 lbs of internal fuel. The F-22A emerged with only 18,000 lbs of internal fuel and its super cruise mission radius was subsequently reduced to 410 NM. To fly the original 600 NM radius, the same as the F-35A is being designed to achieve, the F-22A has to cruise at a subsonic speed.

No... Thats exactly what i thought you said. Just because F-22A has to cruise sub-sonic to that magic line of 600nm does not somehow mean that it cant supercruise (you didt state that in annother thread sighting the 600nm range as the factor). In realistic strike or CAP profiles both the F-35A & F-22A are going to be takeing trips to the tanker, rather than just cruising out to 600nm's and cruising back, so they can do stuff like maneuver if they actually have to fight or take alterate routs to targets. So even if the ATF target was met, F-22A would seldom supercruise out to that radius anyway. That being said i'm wondering why it matters to a point were you can question the platforms capability.

So what advantage does the F-22A have over the F-35A? While it still retains higher energy manoeuvre potential how that is going to by hugely important in a stealthy aircraft that can’t be tracked by the enemy is really a great mystery. Then there are all the negative factors, much great cost, less sensor ability, less mission system integration, less weapons options, etc, etc, not of course legally un-exportable.

Sure the most vital components of both of the 5th platforms out there are comprehensieve VLO, AESA & an EW/EWSP suite, the combination of which will allow both the F-22A & F-35A to dominate all legacy platforms, especially in conjunction with a decent information gathering and distribution system. But the fact still remains that the F-22A will be able to sustain speeds close to the F-35A's top sprint speeds for long periods of time without useing its burner. Now is this as important as its VLO and APG 81??? Of cource not. However it will give the F-22A some destinct advnatages, noteably much greater tactical flexability in respect to the ability to move arround the battle-space. Raptor will be able to respond to new threats in much less time and reach interception/missile launch points quicker than the F-35A, which will make it a very capable interceptor. The huge sprint, cruise speed and aceleration rates will mean that if any missile actually does get a lock on the raptor it will have a very hard time kinematically of actually hitting, again the same can not be said for the F-35A.

Now these advantages may be offset by the Lightning II's better persisitance or EO suite, as i said before i'm not claiming the F-22A is a better fighter. If you could only buy one you would be stupid not to buy the F35, however claiming that supercruise is the F35's only advantage which is negated by range, which you said here:

Which means it loses the one advantage it has over the F-35...

That is a bit narrow minded IMO, which comeing from someone of your knowlage and experiance seemed to be inconsistent with what you undoubtably know about the systems envolved. Now considering that i thought it may have been a legacy of "past conversations" reguarding said platforms we had here, and therefore less than ballanced. (not haveing a crack at you mate, i'm more guilty than you are)

 

[energo]

Did you even read my post? Or did you jump to your own preconceived idea that I had a preconceived idea and go from there?

The ATF, which became the F-22A, was designed to have a mission radius of action of 600 NM and it would fly that mission cruising at ~Mach 1.6. To do this the YF-22A was designed to carry 25,000 lbs of internal fuel. The F-22A emerged with only 18,000 lbs of internal fuel

Not too sure about this figure. Several credible sources puts the internal fuel capasity at 20650lbs, including USAF Technical Order 00-105E-9 and Air Power Australia's F-22 analysis.


Regards,
Bjørnar Bolsøy

 

[AGRA]

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199

You don’t get more credible than that.

While the USAF open source fire-fighter documents show the F-22A has around 20,000 lbs internal fuel (which APA refer to) not all fuel tanks may still be active.

Also the radius of action figures are the test results. If the F-22A needs 20,000 lbs rather than 18,000 lbs to fly a 410NM radius mission at supercruise then that really doesn’t matter. The range is what is important.

 

[AGRA]

No... Thats exactly what i thought you said. Just because F-22A has to cruise sub-sonic to that magic line of 600nm does not somehow mean that it cant supercruise (you didt state that in annother thread sighting the 600nm range as the factor). In realistic strike or CAP profiles both the F-35A & F-22A are going to be takeing trips to the tanker, rather than just cruising out to 600nm's and cruising back, so they can do stuff like maneuver if they actually have to fight or take alterate routs to targets. So even if the ATF target was met, F-22A would seldom supercruise out to that radius anyway. That being said i'm wondering why it matters to a point were you can question the platforms capability.

Hang on a second here with the semantic garbage. 600 NM was the required mission radius for the F-22 with internal fuel at the start of the program and is the same for the F-35A. I certainly don’t subscribe to the magic circles theory of airpower but this provides a basic fuel performance efficiency level. The F-22 using supercruise in a mission, as opposed to supersonic dashes, has 66% of the range capability of a F-35 or subsonic cruising F-22 per mission. Supercruising comes at a cost of reduced range. Originally USAF planned on building an F-22 with a higher fuel fraction to compensate for this cost but has obviously found supercruising to be so unimportant in a VLO aircraft they have dumped the requirement.

But the fact still remains that the F-22A will be able to sustain speeds close to the F-35A's top sprint speeds for long periods of time without useing its burner. Now is this as important as its VLO and APG 81??? Of cource not. However it will give the F-22A some destinct advnatages, noteably much greater tactical flexability in respect to the ability to move arround the battle-space. Raptor will be able to respond to new threats in much less time and reach interception/missile launch points quicker than the F-35A, which will make it a very capable interceptor.

Ahh yes but this assumes one F-22 for one F-35. Since the cost of acquisition and sustainment between the two types is at least two to one for every F-22 you will have at least two F-35s. Now two aircraft, even with less energy manoeuvre, can provide a lot more reaction capability than a single aircraft.

The huge sprint, cruise speed and aceleration rates will mean that if any missile actually does get a lock on the raptor it will have a very hard time kinematically of actually hitting, again the same can not be said for the F-35A.

But where are these magic missiles coming from? The F-35s will be conducing SEAD/DEAD missions, not just flying around above the Iraqi no-fly zone in danger of surprise attack by GBAD snipers. Plus if the F-35 is surprised and engaged well it does have a >200kN engine, high capability ECM and EA and will be likely flying at 30-40,000 feet… Its not as if it is a sitting duck…

 

[JWCook]

But once they're upgraded to the same technological level, which they will be, the APG 77's apature will give it more beams, better scan rates, and probably better detection & track radii vs RCS and EA capability (due to better power output) and higher resoloution SAR images because it has more beams. Now maybe it doesent have any more T/R modules but they're just bigger (numbers of T/R modules are classified IIRC) then there system would still have a higher power output.

Found a definite reference!!
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/hfradar.pdf (HFRadar.pdf) page 19

331 x F22 require 496500 = 1500 modules
258 x F18E/F require 283800 = 1100 modules
18 x F15C require 27000 = 1500 modules
80 x F16UAE require 80000 = 1000 modules
2852 x JSF require 3422400 = 1200 modules
48 x Global Hawk require 96000 =2000 modules
6.75 x Jstars require 91125 = 13500 modules

There you go!!! a definitive answer with a quotable source...

there was talk of using the JSF 1200 module array in the F-22 as a cost cutting measure, not sure if this has now been done or not.

The F-22 will not have all the modes for AtoG the JSF will have, the JSF IIRC has more than double the software code the F-22 has, I can't see too much effort/expense being put into porting the algorithms to the F-22 (theres a reason why the A in f/a-22 was dropped).
cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Wow nice one cookie! Every picture of the radars i've seen have been blurred + I haven’t found anything, i figured it was classified! Nice...

Your probably right the A2G modes wont be as sophisticated on the F-22A purely because of requirement. Nevertheless in terms of hardware the APG 77 will be more capable, and all those extra modules will help in A2A modes. I would be surprised if a SAR capability was not installed in the APG 77 to increase the Raptors ISR capability. IIRC the USAF was actually impressed by the F-22A's passive ISR capability in recent exercises, and even after it has "expended all of its ordinance" (imaginary of course) they kept it in the battle-space as an ISR platform. Considering all of those T/R modules will give some nice scan rates and SAR imagery. Although the real capability of an AESA is in its software and signal processor, so I guess in aggregate terms the APG 81 may be more capable (I’ll give you that one), considering its A2G modes. However given the bigger aperture the APG 77 should be superior in A2A work, which funnily enough suits both their requirements. Go figure....

So I guess I could argue that in A2A modes the APG 77 should be superior, rather than just a better radar.

Hang on a second here with the semantic garbage. 600 NM was the required mission radius for the F-22 with internal fuel at the start of the program and is the same for the F-35A. I certainly don’t subscribe to the magic circles theory of airpower but this provides a basic fuel performance efficiency level. The F-22 using supercruise in a mission, as opposed to supersonic dashes, has 66% of the range capability of a F-35 or subsonic cruising F-22 per mission. Supercruising comes at a cost of reduced range. Originally USAF planned on building an F-22 with a higher fuel fraction to compensate for this cost but has obviously found supercruising to be so unimportant in a VLO aircraft they have dumped the requirement.

This is beside the point. Just because of an initial requirement was dropped does not somehow negate the F22A cruise advantage, which you argued previously. Now cruising at M1.5 may indeed cost in range, however that does not negate its benefits which is the point I was making (especially considering the subjective nature of maximum range, when you take realistic combat profiles into account). The fact that a higher fuel fraction was not built into the platform would probably indicate the unrealistic nature of supercruising for your whole, 600nm mission rather than supercruise itself not being useful. Considering the need for both platforms to tank, why is that 600nm mark important at all? It only indicates the platforms persistence rather than action radius. Realistically i cant see the internal fuel deficiency effecting the platforms supercruise capability at all.

Ahh yes but this assumes one F-22 for one F-35. Since the cost of acquisition and sustainment between the two types is at least two to one for every F-22 you will have at least two F-35s. Now two aircraft, even with less energy manoeuvre, can provide a lot more reaction capability than a single aircraft.

And that’s assuming that the only factor in the size of your orbat is the platform acquisition cost which is clearly not the case. I agree the F35 will be close to half the price, but that does not automatically mean that you will have 2 for 1. Take the RAAF as an example. If we decided to buy 100 F22A's, had the money put aside for the acquisition of the platform (which we conceivably could afford if we wanted too, 100 F22A's wouldn’t be unachievable for a $1 trillion+ economy) and the yanks pulled the plug, we would not then automatically buy 200 F35's for the same money. That would require twice the crew, pilots, infrastructure, logistical chain, basing and personnel. What we would do is buy 100 F35's at half the price. Now we could spend the saved money on extra Wedgetails which would improve our capability, but we would probably spend the saved cash on hospitals, roads or the tennis. We would still have 100 platforms, and although the F35 would give us advantages in a number of area's, that orbat would give us less tactical flexibility when conducting air superiority missions, which is an advantage that the F22 enjoys. Again in real terms the "2 for 1" argument isnt exactly applicable.

But where are these magic missiles coming from? The F-35s will be conducing SEAD/DEAD missions, not just flying around above the Iraqi no-fly zone in danger of surprise attack by GBAD snipers. Plus if the F-35 is surprised and engaged well it does have a >200kN engine, high capability ECM and EA and will be likely flying at 30-40,000 feet… Its not as if it is a sitting duck…

I didn’t say it was a sitting duck. Its LO and EW suite will be very useful in evading incoming SAM/AAM's. However there is a distinct possibility that at some point someone is going to get a shot off at said platforms, and in that case the F-22A's kinematical performance will make it very hard for a missile to intercept. Now since the F-22A is more capable in this regard it can use its kinematics to greater effect than the F35A, which is an advantage.

Again i'm not saying that these things make the F22 a better platform (which is subjective anyway), but simply are advantages they hold over the F35 (which has its own strengths).

 

[JWCook]

Nevertheless in terms of hardware the APG 77 will be more capable, and all those extra modules will help in A2A modes.

More modules on the APG 77 do certainly help!, but the newer modules on the APG 81 are better than the original APG 77's .. - so in real terms the radars antenna performance might not be as far apart as you might think...

e.g..peak power

JSF 1200 x 10 watts = 12kw
F-22 1500 x 8 watts = 12kw

Does anyone know if the latest F-22 antenna's are now JSF'd???

 

[tphuang]

More modules on the APG 77 do certainly help!, but the newer modules on the APG 81 are better than the original APG 77's .. - so in real terms the radars antenna performance might not be as far apart as you might think...

e.g..peak power

JSF 1200 x 10 watts = 12kw
F-22 1500 x 8 watts = 12kw

Does anyone know if the latest F-22 antenna's are now JSF'd???

I'm pretty sure F-22 has 2000 modules, so it would still have more power than JSF. Regardless, we can generally say that by the next upgrade, it will have same generation of AESA radar as JSF, so this comparison would be a little irrelevant.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Realistically i cant see the internal fuel deficiency effecting the platforms supercruise capability at all.

it does. it effects a number of tactical parameters including:

absolute unrefueled projection
fuel efficiency for relative range to target
flight time
fight time
impact on the rest of the support package as early bingo means layering attacks so as to maintain battlespace overwatch as well as battlespace overmatch.
persistence (because if the attack is unlayered then the defenders will seek to maximise fightback opportunities in the "dead" slots

a greater than 10% disparity might not seem much - but in the opening stages of an air superiority requirement it will as it means loading up the layers.

anyway, I've asked for Air Combat Operations to try and clarify the discrepancies between the AFMIL site and the Tech Orders.

with a bit of luck we'll get a reply.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

it does. it effects a number of tactical parameters including:

absolute unrefueled projection
fuel efficiency for relative range to target
flight time
fight time
impact on the rest of the support package as early bingo means layering attacks so as to maintain battlespace overwatch as well as battlespace overmatch.
persistence (because if the attack is unlayered then the defenders will seek to maximise fightback opportunities in the "dead" slots

a greater than 10% disparity might not seem much - but in the opening stages of an air superiority requirement it will as it means loading up the layers.

anyway, I've asked for Air Combat Operations to try and clarify the discrepancies between the AFMIL site and the Tech Orders.

with a bit of luck we'll get a reply.

Sure more internal fuel is allways a good thing. However i still dont see why the F22's smaller internal fuel capacity somehow negates its supercruise capability considering realistic combat profiles. As i see it its purely a question of persistence.