F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked

A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Pyongyang said:
And when this is said, compared to the first protoypes, todays generation of F-35 has taken a step away from the first extremly stealthy design, why?

It's kind of open. I'm a stronger believer in jamming and a new generation anti-radiation missiles.

But what do you think about the number of F-22s in service? Kind of low compared to the F-35? Will basically end up with the same pricetag???
Click to expand...
Drinking the Air Power Australia/Bill Sweetman kool aid are we?

Perhaps you could describe in detail how the F-35 has "moved away" from the first extremely stealthy design?

As to the same price tag issue, current F-35A's are USD$122m a piece for SDD and LRIP airframes.

F-22A's at the end of full rate production aren't even this cheap at USD$135m per pop...

Do you imagine that when in full rate production, F-35's will somehow increase in cost as larger numbers of aircraft are built and manufacturing becomes a stable process, rather than the decreases we are able to see in every combat aircraft, including the F-22?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Feanor

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think the assumption is that cost overruns will continue, and production costs will rise as the current prototypes are still under development.
 
S

SpudmanWP

The Bunker Group
I just saw this (then I uploaded it to Youtube) and just about fell out of my seat.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vBLQoaaJuQ"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

MBDA has confirmed a few things:

1. ASRAAM will be part of SDD both external and internal (on the door)

2. MBDA has done ground testing with the internal launch trapeze/rail.

3. Confirms, now here is the part where I almost lost it, that the study in 2008 showed that 4 (YES 4) Meteors can fit in each bay. That INCLUDES the F-35B! Further development in this area is being funded as we speak.
 
B

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
SpudmanWP said:
I just saw this (then I uploaded it to Youtube) and just about fell out of my seat.

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.

MBDA has confirmed a few things:

1. ASRAAM will be part of SDD both external and internal (on the door)

2. MBDA has done ground testing with the internal launch trapeze/rail.

3. Confirms, now here is the part where I almost lost it, that the study in 2008 showed that 4 (YES 4) Meteors can fit in each bay. That INCLUDES the F-35B! Further development in this area is being funded as we speak.
Click to expand...
Spudman, thanks very much for the video link mate. Very interesting stuff! Glad to hear ASRAAM is a shoe-in and that Meteor is looking promising too. Makes me wonder which way the RAAF will jump for their SRAAM selection once the F-35 goes in-service, ASRAAM integration on the CTOL model or just order up more AIM-9X besides what they're acquiring for F/A-18F?
 
S

SpudmanWP

The Bunker Group
I am waiting for a clarification from Stephen Tremble on whether it's 4 per bay or 4 total.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed. :)
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
IPA35 said:
The Dutch plans have been shelved awaiting the new government. Luckely the new government will see that the plane is too expansive and the 42 available within the budget too few.

JSF voorlopig in ijskast - DePers.nl
Click to expand...
Aren't you reading an awful lot into a postponement of of contract signature due to an election? :)

Btw, Energo posted this on JSF costs on the Ares blog. JPO vs JET estimates. Note that they're in FY2002$, so needs to be normalised.

http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac164/1w4kar/JET2008.jpg

Additionally, the Danish defmin just left office, so I predict you'll see a postponement of type selection in Denmark (should have been medio 2010).
 
Last edited:
V

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Grand Danois said:
Aren't you reading an awful lot into a post bonement of of contract signature due to an election? :)

Btw, Energo posted this on JSF costs on the Ares blog. JPO vs JET estimates. Note that they're in FY2002$, so needs to be normalised.

http://i896.photobucket.com/albums/ac164/1w4kar/JET2008.jpg

Additionally, the Danish defmin just left office, so I predict you'll see a post bonement of type selection in Denmark (should have been medio 2010).
Click to expand...
Well, I think it's still too early to say how the cost of F-35 will develop. For instance, It's still not clear whether we will see a Nunn-Mccurdy breach or not -- the risk seems to be there.

F-35 Nunn-McCurdy?

IOC may also shift although that seems to be not clear yet either(?)

Not Date Driven

2010 will be a very interesting year for F-35 development... Crossing my fingers and hope the LM engineers can fix the issues and get back on track. :)
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Well, that Nunn-McCurdy seems to be a program issue and not an air vehicle issue, i.e. costs for partners should not be affected. (And if they were air vehicle issues, the SDD/PFSD MOU would have to be reopened for renegotiation, which I have not heard anything about.).

The same applies to R&D.

Second, both DK, Norway and the Netherlands look to replace their jets after 2016 (discounting a single test LRIP for the Dutch), so the immediate number for them (us) to look for is the URF/UFC.

Which the supposedly ultra-conservative JET08 study apparently puts very close to the L-M offer to Norway (!).

So it's a real monetary and operational issue for the Yanks...

But of course it's interesting to follow - there are plenty of people on the webs claiming it will never get below $100M...

Btw, I had gotten into my head that the F-16's came off the assembly line with a structural life of 8k flt hrs - apparently not so.
 
V

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Grand Danois said:
Well, that Nunn-McCurdy seems to be a program issue and not an air vehicle issue, i.e. costs for partners should not be affected. (And if they were air vehicle issues, the SDD/PFSD MOU would have to be reopened for renegotiation, which I have not heard anything about.).

The same applies to R&D.

Second, both DK, Norway and the Netherlands look to replace their jets after 2016 (discounting a single test LRIP for the Dutch), so the immediate number for them (us) to look for is the URF/UFC.

Which the supposedly ultra-conservative JET08 study apparently puts very close to the L-M offer to Norway (!).

So it's a real monetary and operational issue for the Yanks...

But of course it's interesting to follow - there are plenty of people on the webs claiming it will never get below $100M...

Btw, I had gotten into my head that the F-16's came off the assembly line with a structural life of 8k flt hrs - apparently not so.
Click to expand...
Nunn-Mccurdy is a program issue -- however if there are substantial changes to the program, it could in the end also affect the partners.

As for the JET estimates being "ultra-conservative" -- I think it's too early to tell. Considering that we now have offically 13-month delay already, they may not be so "ultra-conservative".

Also, looking at other large defence programs in recent years; how many did not experience significant delays? A400m comes to mind -- and Norway is still waiting for NH90 helicopters to the Nansen frigates. Etc. The JSF program is huge compared to any other program. Looking at it from am empirical point of view It would be both unusual and unexpected to not have large delays and cost increases.
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
OK so let me re-phrase that: JET uses a parametric (aka "empirical") model - which could be considered conservative compared to the bottom up model used by LM. I note they arrive at approx. the same URF/UFC. The JET estimate happens to be the one used to ridicule the LM estimates. "Ultra-" may be to colourful. :D

Yes, it could affect the partners, however, it does not seem to be the case in this instance.

13 months delay may be worst case with Lynn/Gates in overhaul mode.

and an attachment just for the sake of it.
 
Last edited:
V

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
GD, you reveal yourself as an optimist? :D

My guess: The announced 13-month delay is not a worse case scenario. It is more likely a best case scenario.
 
S

Sea Toby

New Member
SpudmanWP said:
GD, do you have an original document for that graphic?
Click to expand...
That graph is an old graph several years old, don't know exactly. But the graph does show if the planes are ordered as planned, the price of the aircraft will drop significantly as planned. The numbers on that graph are probably dealing with FY dollars of several years ago also. FY 2010 dollars are not the same as FY 2005 dollars, mind you I am guessing as what the FY dollars are.

Attempting to use old documents to exactly fill in numbers is at best impossible with a large, multi-year program. Its like guessing what your car will cost ten years from now to the exact cent.

The long multi-year program is bound to have engineering delays, which result in price increases. Murphy's Law does exist. Nothing goes as planned.

But as more aircraft are bought the price should drop significantly as planned....
 
S

Sea Toby

New Member
Well I stand corrected. Never the less projecting then years dollars five or six years ago isn't an exact science? Plus projecting engineering delays exactly six years ago is guessing as well.

My point is the downward curve in price has come true, and more future downward curve is planned and expected. The downward curve on both graphs are very similar.
 
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
G

Grand Danois

Entertainer
yes, that can be helped, but there are no big revelations in it, other than they forgot to remove the dollar values from that graph. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top