F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[JWCook]

Your last post failed to provide any factual data about the issue at hand but a lot of long draw supposition and slander. No one in the US has been ordered to look at alternatives to the F-35 but some congressman have got all huffy as is their want.

What! that press release by LM wasn't factual!! Australia Curtailing the Air 6000 wasn't factual! they are both directly related to the issue at hand regarding affordability.

OK heres a fact - Committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) wants Carter to report back within a week on what the Pentagon sees as an alternative to JSF if the Pentagon’s goals are not met. this seems to make your "No one in the US has been ordered to look at alternative" statement look like an LM affordability presentation.

Now with the massive increase in fuel costs (and aerospace materials) to date and into the future there has been a huge increase in estimated sustainment cost of the F-35 (fuels and spares). But this is cost shared across all aircraft in this time frame and as you link to a shorter legged aircraft (like Typhoon, Rafale, Super Hornet) would need considerable additional cost via IFR to meet F-35 range.

The JSF isn't that long ranged why don't you compare the best JSF Varient with a clean Typhoon and they are not the make or break your suggesting, The JSF is a pretty thirsty beast, and you may just be surprised by who is the short legged one.

And for the simple minded cost reduced by 30% via design efficiency but increased by 400% due to inflation results in a net gain of 280%. The only way to drive down cost would be to revert to 1940s technology: reciprocating engines, all aluminium airframes and low avionics content.

If thats the only way to reduce costs I fear your favourite fighter program is heading for a nasty end. Unaffordable means just that, The only alternative i can see is a 800-1200 JSF buy.

So no matter how you squint your eyes to make the figures look better, blame those pesky arabs for oil prices, or compare titanium prices to a 2002 index while standing on one leg, its not got any cheaper and unfortunatley for your point of view, unaffordability trumps the whole lot.


Good night...

 

[Sea Toby]

We have heard this story before with Senators and Congressmen questioning the value and price of a new fighter aircraft... For example, this link below involving the Super Hornet during the year 1992... The real fact is that there are those who have an agenda against defense spending, especially new fighters...

You can bet jet fuel calculations have gone through the roof during the last nineteen years... Simply put, no one knows how much fuel costs will be next year, much less what it will be thirty years in the future... We are not psychics... I am more interested in how much the flyaway costs are today, not some phantom support figure involving thirty years...

F/A-18E/F DEVELOPMENT (Senate - May 05, 1992)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What! that press release by LM wasn't factual!! Australia Curtailing the Air 6000 wasn't factual! they are both directly related to the issue at hand regarding affordability.

If you bend and pervert such things to fit your warped narrative they cease to be factual. Like the great AIR 6000 “competition” curtailment canard. The Government decided they had enough information to make a decision. The whole point of the process to that date was to inform Government.

OK heres a fact - Committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) wants Carter to report back within a week on what the Pentagon sees as an alternative to JSF if the Pentagon’s goals are not met. this seems to make your "No one in the US has been ordered to look at alternative" statement look like an LM affordability presentation.

Like I said it’s not an order. Carter works for the President not the Congress who have “requested” he inform them about alternatives. The difference is very important but such issues are lost on the anti F-35 crusaders.

The JSF isn't that long ranged why don't you compare the best JSF Varient with a clean Typhoon and they are not the make or break your suggesting, The JSF is a pretty thirsty beast, and you may just be surprised by who is the short legged one.

LOL, a “clean” Typhoon. What is the point of a “clean” Typhoon? Rapid transport for one person? This is typical of the loaded assumptions used against the F-35. Well if the Typhoon can fly without a load then so can the F-35. And guess what, an F-35 can fly a lot further than 1,200 NM when it isn’t carrying 4,500 lbs of weapons.

If thats the only way to reduce costs I fear your favourite fighter program is heading for a nasty end. Unaffordable means just that, The only alternative i can see is a 800-1200 JSF buy.

The F-35 isn’t my favourite fighter and idiots like you have been declaring it will fall over for years. Maybe you should chose a date, like May 21, 2011 (opps that day was taken, so what about the Mayan end of the world day) and claim to all that the F-35 Judgement Day is coming and the project shall end and the righteous shall be transformed into FB-22s designed by Air Power Australia and all the wicked believers in LM power points transformed into F-105 Thunderchiefs. Blah, blah, blah.

So no matter how you squint your eyes to make the figures look better, blame those pesky arabs for oil prices, or compare titanium prices to a 2002 index while standing on one leg, its not got any cheaper and unfortunatley for your point of view, unaffordability trumps the whole lot.

I’m not blaming the Arabs for oil prices. It’s not their fault there has been a long term increase of 50% per annum in jet fuel. They are pumping out as much as they can. Its increased demand which is mostly the fault of rich westerners and newly rich Chinese and Indians. You don’t need to stand on one leg to see that the price of Titanium and other aerospace materials has skyrocketed in the past eight years as well. Since these are fundamental inputs to price what else should we look at? The price of consumer electronics has gone down. Napster has cut the price of pop music. Its much cheaper to buy non designer brand clothing. Well maybe we should build an alternative to F-35 fighter out of iPods, Lady Gaga and cheap Tees… Is this the affordable fighter you are looking for? Certainly isn’t the Typhoon which costs more now than the worst predictions for the F-35.

 

[Scorpion82]

But this is cost shared across all aircraft in this time frame and as you link to a shorter legged aircraft (like Typhoon, Rafale, Super Hornet) would need considerable additional cost via IFR to meet F-35 range.

This claim is based on what? The F-35 reportedly struggles to achieve its KPP for combat radius which is 590 nm! Typhoon's combat radius with 3 x 1000 l drop tanks is reportedly 750 nm and that's with external weapons and in fact 11% LESS fuel than the F-35 carries internally. Rafales combat radius is about 1000 nm during a strike mission with 4 x MICA, 2 x Scalp-EG and 3 x 2000 l drop tanks. That equates to ~60% more range with just 15% more fuel!
F/A-18E's combat radius is 805 nm for an antiship mission with 3 x AAMs, TGP, 2 x AGM-84 and 3 drop tanks (let's assume 480 G). That's more than 30% the range with 33% more fuel. Thus the Super Hornet offers a similar range, the ECDs according the data available between 25% & 60% more range with 11% less or 15% more fuel respectively! So which aircraft is really going to need more IFRs?
One may argue that without exact mission profiles these numbers may not be 100% accurate, but they give you an idea!

 

[jack412]

1. I guess they all have the agility/acceleration of a clean f-16 in those load outs too ?

2. have you got rough RCS and Infrared numbers ?

3. If they wanted to, what could be the max external fuel that the wet points could carry on a f-35 ?

4. leaving out the obvious of meeting the KPP , do you think there are plans in place for longer range strike refuelling, that they feel is better than 6,000 lbs external fuel loading ?

5. sometimes the weapon range is added to the planes range in "combat radius" have you checked that with your numbers ?

6. what are the G and speed limits on your loads, from memory the rafale is subsonic and 5g just with a fuel tank

7. just for a bit of background, USN have found that 1 ex. tank is best on the SH load outs, there comes a point where demishing returns negated by drag becomes the rule
the 3-5 tanks are refuelers

 

[rip]

There is a significant amount of difference between a frontline combat aircraft and a combat support aircraft like the E-2, or the C-2 airframe which it is based off of.

Because of the nature of the aircraft roles (cargo/passenger transport or surveillance), there is not an aircraft requirement to carry ordnance, or be able to operate above certain speeds, or engage in violent manuevers. Instead there is a requirement to carry onboard cargo, passengers, or systems operators and their consoles. Also there is no significant speed requirement, and the only violent manuevers the aircraft are expected to undertake are carrier take offs and landings. In short, the design will most likely stay in service until there is no longer a need to provide such capabilities to a carrier, or future platform capabilities are sufficiently advanced and advantageous to trigger a new aircraft design.

One area which might see near-term replacement would be the surveillance role of the E-2 AWACS, which might be taken over by high-endurance UAVs operating from land bases and/or carriers and acting as AEW dismounts.

-Cheers

You are correct in all of your facts but you miss the point I was trying to make.

The E-2, or the C-2 airframe has remained stable over time because further increased utility was to be found in upgrading their systems and not in improving the airframe.

We are already capable of creating air frames that can take more G’s during flight than a human body can withstand. The advancement of stealth technology was in its self a new bid to get increased utility from an aircraft in a different way,different than from just trying to push the flight envelope a little bit more.

The Russian Su-35 probably has a greater flight envelope than the F-22 but it isn’t a better fighter.

Further increases in this one aspect of the fighter weapons systems utility, have less and less value because nobody can fly them if they are built. A factor that will not be true for unmanned aircraft which will be able to sustain much higher G’s without killing their pilots because they will not be on board.

So when I said that the next generations of aircraft might, just might, be the last to be manned for missions where high seed maneuverability is an important factor, it was not because, neither ether men nor fighter/attack aircraft will disappear but those rolls will be changed because new advances will be primarily found in other areas.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

One may argue that without exact mission profiles these numbers may not be 100% accurate, but they give you an idea!

The mission profiles don't mean as much compared to the performance envelope. A big, small wing plane like the F-35 needs to burn a lot more fuel to get up to altitude and speed than the big wing planes (Typhoon, Rafale, Super Hornet) but once up in the air burns less to cruise because of its lower drag (no external stores). So for sustained flight should need less tanking.

Then of course you are comparing apples to oranges. For the Typhoon et al to carry out a strike mission with anything like the F-35's survivability it needs to fly nap of earth all the way. Terrain masking doesn't quite equate to stealth but its a start. So the Typhoon's mission radius is 350 NM compared to 580 NM for the F-35A.

 

[JWCook]

LOL, a “clean” Typhoon. What is the point of a “clean” Typhoon? Rapid transport for one person? This is typical of the loaded assumptions used against the F-35. Well if the Typhoon can fly without a load then so can the F-35. And guess what, an F-35 can fly a lot further than 1,200 NM when it isn’t carrying 4,500 lbs of weapons.

Hmm it was indeed loaded.. but in favour of the JSF: , and clean in this case refers to a Typhoon with 4 AMRAAMs and two ASRAAMS but NO droptanks.

For the Typhoon et al to carry out a strike mission with anything like the F-35's survivability it needs to fly nap of earth all the way.

Lol for someone who is complaining about loaded assumptions your doing quite a bit of loading yourself


Just take some time to look at the figures.. I think you'll be surprised by the facts.


Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Hmm it was indeed loaded.. but in favour of the JSF: , and clean in this case refers to a Typhoon with 4 AMRAAMs and two ASRAAMS but NO droptanks.

So what's the mission radius of a F-35 carrying four AMRAAMs and two ASRAAMs? Its a lot, lot further than 600 NM. Based on similar figures for internal weapons carriage with other aircraft and a figure like 1,000 NM is not out of the ballpark. This being for an aircraft with a degree of lethality and survivbility that the Typhoon could never match.

Anyway I never suggested this was a "make or break" situation as you misrepresented it to be. But rather the JSFPO and Lockheed calaculated that it was a significant part of reducing sustainment cost compared to the legacy platforms it was replacing (F-18, F-16, et al). That you cling to a set of circumstances not part of the assessment is all to typical of anti F-35 crusaders.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Lol for someone who is complaining about loaded assumptions your doing quite a bit of loading yourself

Just take some time to look at the figures.. I think you'll be surprised by the facts.

What is your objection to the F-35?

Capability? Provides the most lethal and survivable strike fighter available today and projected for the future. Unmatched stealth and situational awareness capability compared to Typhoon, Rafale, Super Hornet, J-20, PAK-FA, et al.

Cost? Unit cost from reasonable production batches is LOWER than far less capable aircraft like the Typhoon and Rafale. Factoring in enhanced work rates is also competitive with cheaper alternatives like Super Hornet but also much more lethal and survivable.

Industrial? Unmatched capacity for smaller nations like Australia to be involved in production efforts of modern fighter aircraft via the partner system.

Address these three issues and you might find the atmosphere a lot more conducive to discussion. Continue to obfuscate and misrepresent various press statements and this will just be a silly debate. So how can you provide a more capable and cost effective alternative to the F-35?

 

[B3LA]

Capability,

No objections there, the F-35 will probably mature as the best Striker ever, question is only when, but why not use cruise missiles instead ?
You can buy 200 Tomahawks for each F-35, or 485.165 Tomahawks instead of 2.443 F-35s.
Yes, I know the Tomahawk are very seventies, but they can still perform what they were intended to do.

When air defence are out, F-22 can rule the sky and a low priced updated A-10 can mop up and perform CAS.


Costs,

The costs estimated from the outside and the actual prices we've seen so far from LM differs significantly. My guess is that LM is carefully aligning their price with the old expectations for the early birds not to scare customers away from final production. Keep the customers happy and focused and don't let their gaze wander, until it's too late and they don't have any other choices left.


Industrial,

Here is one of the major drawbacks of the entire project. If LM instead had kept all production inside LM and/or US, we would probably not have experience the current delays. The shared development is only there to hook the partners and it looks good for their respectively governments, but it's not a good way to manage a project of this size and complexity. Counter trade rarely works in the end anyway.

If the US have a nice thing for sale, its friends will line up and buy.
It's the ol' KISS principle all over again...

 

[JWCook]

What is your objection to the F-35?

My main objection is people blindly following the LM marketing without thinking about what is happening.


Capability? The main focus of the JSF is to attack ground targets in a heavily defended airspace, UCAV's provide the same or better capability to attack those targets without the risk of losing a pilot or having one captured, and cruise missiles really are a better alternative as mentioned above.
In a supersonic dash situation the JSF becomes the short legged one, it is not designed to be 'comfortable' in the supersonic regions, this becomes an issue across the top of Australia because of its size, netcentrically its good. having stealth is useful, but not at any cost.


Cost? is much higher than we signed up for.. Typhoon costs around $88m USD now. JSF is 20% higher and still climbing, I think we cover this earlier when you were stating it was cheap at any price.

BTW the (admittedly rough)cost to buy all the fuel for 2400 JSF's for the next 30 years is ~$36 to $50B USD, hardly the major portion of the Trillion $ sustainment.

Industrial? Unmatched capacity for smaller nations like Australia to be involved in production efforts of modern fighter aircraft via the partner system. Thats bull! any of the real goodies are hidden behind 1 billion dollars of security sealed boxes, if you want to be relagated to tin bashing ( or plastic wrestling) then JSF is Ok, if you wanted real partner status with access to the codes and real high tech development work then Typhoon would be a better choice and you would have got teir 1 status.

So how can you provide a more capable and cost effective alternative to the F-35?

Hmm what happens to the Australian aircraft industry when its all over, you have been screwed over, your not getting the high value stuff thats going to be in demand in 20 years, your industry was seduced by the thought of 3000+ jsfs and providing the plastic screw covers and warnining stickers would earn more than writing source code or AESA dev.

Name the high tech high value work Australia has won and put it in $$$ values.

Where is Australia getting the next generation technology from to make it independant of US controls?

You just sold an entire industry and paid for the pleasure of doing it, and you don't even realise it.

Cheers

 

[Volkodav]

Capability,

No objections there, the F-35 will probably mature as the best Striker ever, question is only when, but why not use cruise missiles instead ?
You can buy 200 Tomahawks for each F-35, or 485.165 Tomahawks instead of 2.443 F-35s.
Yes, I know the Tomahawk are very seventies, but they can still perform what they were intended to do.

When air defence are out, F-22 can rule the sky and a low priced updated A-10 can mop up and perform CAS.


Costs,

The costs estimated from the outside and the actual prices we've seen so far from LM differs significantly. My guess is that LM is carefully aligning their price with the old expectations for the early birds not to scare customers away from final production. Keep the customers happy and focused and don't let their gaze wander, until it's too late and they don't have any other choices left.


Industrial,

Here is one of the major drawbacks of the entire project. If LM instead had kept all production inside LM and/or US, we would probably not have experience the current delays. The shared development is only there to hook the partners and it looks good for their respectively governments, but it's not a good way to manage a project of this size and complexity. Counter trade rarely works in the end anyway.

If the US have a nice thing for sale, its friends will line up and buy.
It's the ol' KISS principle all over again...

So LM can do better on their own can they? Develop technology, know how and production expertise they don't currently have and incorporate it into the design in less time for less cost that it has taken going to specialist companies around the globe?

I don't think so.

This project would have hit even more hurdles if so much of the work hadn't been offered to competitive bids, if there wasn’t the input from other companies and research organisations outside of LM, if there wasn’t funding from other countries etc.

 

[Sea Toby]

Compare the costs of the Typhoon over the years... From Wiki...

In 1988, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces told the UK House of Commons that the European Fighter Aircraft would "be a major project, costing the United Kingdom about £7 billion". It was soon apparent that a more realistic estimate was £13 billion, made up of £3.3 billion development costs plus £30 million per aircraft. By 1997 the estimated cost was £17 billion; by 2003, £20 billion, and the in-service date (2003; defined as the date of delivery of the first aircraft to the RAF) was 54 months late. After 2003 the Ministry of Defence have refused to release updated cost estimates on the grounds of 'commercial sensitivity', however in 2011 the National Audit Office estimated the UK's "total programme cost would eventually hit £37 billion".
By 2007, Germany estimated the system cost (aircraft, training plus spare parts) to €120m and said it was in perpetual increase. On 17 June 2009, Germany ordered 31 aircraft of Tranche 3A for €2,800m, leading to a system cost of €90m per aircraft.
The UK's Committee of Public Accounts reported that the mismanagement of the project had helped increase the cost of each aircraft by 75 percent. Defence Secretary Liam Fox responded that "I am determined that in the future such projects are properly run from the outset, and I have announced reforms to reduce equipment delays and cost overruns."

The Typhoon's costs are at a full production rate, whereas the current costs of the Lightning IIs have not reached full production. Economies in scale has always been factored in by the governments who have bought the Lightning IIs from the programs inception. Unfortunately, the Lightning IIs critics haven't...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Where is Australia getting the next generation technology from to make it independant of US controls?

You just sold an entire industry and paid for the pleasure of doing it, and you don't even realise it.

Cheers

wtf would we want to go to other countries for capability when the US gives us access way beyond what a lot of NATO countries even get?

the only country with comparable access is the UK and even they aren't getting a seat at the critical theatre tables such as whats coming out of PACOM.

this hysterical bleating that we are selling our souls to the US is just rubbish.

show me what we're missing out on with non US companies and how we actually see ourselves conducting the fight and you might have a case. if you can name the capabilities that we're missing out on and how we're sacrificing our independence of decision making I'd be more than surprised.- I'd be gobsmacked.. Show me the relevance of any euro system in our area of fighting interest especially when our principle fighting partner lives across the lake and we share training, force integration, systems and procedures. Apart from the UK having some people on exchange (as do the French, Canadians, Kiwis) in the big house, tell me where we have greater warfighting integration beyond the obligatory seats in our respective headquarters. What profound logic is there in getting euro systems which are not sympathetic to our force and systems structures etc etc.... At a complex systems and theatre level we share and exchange with a principle partner who is also likely to be the one we fight with as we have common theatre and regional interests.

as for cost,. you seem to forget that the RAF exchange pilot who gave his speech about the Typhoon at R1 stated that it was $120m - that was 2009 AUD. 300 other people were in that room and they heard the same thing that I did.

you also seem to ignore the fact that the RAAF still sees the costs as way under your new figure for Typhoon (Typhoon magically has lost financial weight by 33%) - or are you going to do the APA thing and virtually call RAAF Snr staff liars as welll who don't know what they're on about.?

Just as much as you think that there is a blind devotion to LM you could also absorb some of that and consider your religious pursuit of the JSF has got nothing to do with balance but is perhaps polluted by your own devotion to the Typhoon

Pleading about australian independence of operation is a desperate canard - especially when it doesn't stand up to the reality of whats actually happening on a day to day basis

 

[Abraham Gubler]

My main objection is people blindly following the LM marketing without thinking about what is happening.

LOL. Just because we disagree with you does not mean we are “blindly following” anything. Your constant reversion to conspiracy theory and personal attacks on everyone else wears very thin.

Capability? The main focus of the JSF is to attack ground targets in a heavily defended airspace,

Not true at all. This is a canard totally unrelated to the actual design missions specified at the start of the JAST and later JSF program. The core mission being a multi role mission where the aircraft has to defeat air and ground threats.

PS I will endeavour to upload an image of this mission profile. Added the JAST mission profile which lead to the JSF core mission profile.

UCAV's provide the same or better capability to attack those targets without the risk of losing a pilot or having one captured, and cruise missiles really are a better alternative as mentioned above.

LOL. A UCAV may be a better option in 10-20 years when one has actually been developed and fielded. Until then this is just wishful thinking. Write it up for the objective force but don’t confuse it with current forces. As for the ‘superiority’ of cruise missiles such an argument overlooks the need to find targets and to provide enduring presence. If you want to pull a Duncan Sandys of the 21st century and declare the future is all missile then please do so. But that isn’t the anti F-35 argument you and others have been making to date.

In a supersonic dash situation the JSF becomes the short legged one, it is not designed to be 'comfortable' in the supersonic regions,

Sure and its also not designed to be a fighter in the 1950s so its not a huge problem. The F-35 will operate in a system including considerable situational awareness from other assets. In the case of the RAAF these will include AEW&C and JORN. Under these circumstances there is sufficient advanced warning to avoid the need for frequent and sustained supersonic dashing.

this becomes an issue across the top of Australia because of its size,

LOL. Apart from the fact that the ADF is no longer postured to defend the north of Australia because there hasn’t been a threat since 1943 this argument is bogus. Long range sensors provide sufficient warning to provide response at a stately subsonic cruise. Air Power Australia had to invent the craziest scenario ever offered to make an argument needed for supersonic cruise across the north of Australia. It was Mars Attacks stuff.

netcentrically its good. having stealth is useful, but not at any cost.

Good thing it isn’t at any cost and considering the fundamental importance of stealth it is actually necessary at any cost. The F-35 can only be detected by radar at 20% or less of the range of aircraft like the Typhoon. This is a huge advantage that totally counters the enemies situational awareness.

Cost? is much higher than we signed up for.. Typhoon costs around $88m USD now. JSF is 20% higher and still climbing, I think we cover this earlier when you were stating it was cheap at any price.

Well if you compare non contextual figures you can achieve almost any outrageous ratio. So, taking your figure as a certain, 260 units (55%) into its production run the Typhoon flyaway cost is down to $88m (~2010 TYD) so in order to compare this to the F-35A it needs to be at a similar position half way through production and you need to baseline inflation. So using data from the latest F-35 SAR that would be F-35A no. 970 which is due to be produced in 2026 which is costed at $67m total flyaway cost per unit in 2002 BYD which factoring in USD inflation comes in at $81m today which is actually cheaper than your Typhoon…

BTW the (admittedly rough)cost to buy all the fuel for 2400 JSF's for the next 30 years is ~$36 to $50B USD, hardly the major portion of the Trillion $ sustainment.

Did you calculate this yourself? Let me guess… 6,000 lbs of fuel per hour, 200 hours per aircraft per annum, 2,400 aircraft, 30 annums: which is 39.3 million tonnes, which at a cost of $1,000 a tonne equals roughly your $36 to 50 billion figure. But did you think there might be inflation? Considering the report in question stretches out to 2065 and during that time there will be over 106,000 F-35 years in the US forces (factored in build up rate) this will require a gross total of 58 million tonnes of fuel. If the current rate of jet fuel inflation was to continue (40% per annum, which has been sustained for 10 years) then the cost of this fuel will be $4,500 per tonne in 2035. Even if this to be the peak cost of jet fuel and sustained from 2035 to 2065 the price of fuel for the US DoD F-35s up until 2065 would be $265.5 billion. If inflation of jet fuel was to continue from 2035 to 2065 at 5% per annum (thanks to next generation nuclear reactor process heat converting coal to synthetic fuels) then the total cost of US DoD F-35 fuel to 2065 would be $560 billion. So you start to see where a trillon dollars comes from…

Industrial? Unmatched capacity for smaller nations like Australia to be involved in production efforts of modern fighter aircraft via the partner system. Thats bull! any of the real goodies are hidden behind 1 billion dollars of security sealed boxes, if you want to be relagated to tin bashing ( or plastic wrestling) then JSF is Ok, if you wanted real partner status with access to the codes and real high tech development work then Typhoon would be a better choice and you would have got teir 1 status.

Hmm what happens to the Australian aircraft industry when its all over, you have been screwed over, your not getting the high value stuff thats going to be in demand in 20 years, your industry was seduced by the thought of 3000+ jsfs and providing the plastic screw covers and warnining stickers would earn more than writing source code or AESA dev.

LOL. Fantasy overdose. In case you didn’t notice Australia didn’t just design and build the Hornet and F-111. This is not 1952 when we are signing up to a re-engining of the Sabre rather than building our own CA-23. Your amazing fantasy about tier 1 in Typhoon is staggering. Even if we were we would just be buying the best of 1980s Britain. Yay. Really all we would be doing is assembling knock down kits and going as far with it as we did with similar from the Hornet and Miro. And even worse it wouldn’t be state of the art. Like building Miros in the 1970s.

So to date you’ve made no real argument over capability, cost or local participation. But you have been very illuminating about the simplistic notions and fantasies that support your worldview.

 

[JWCook]

Show me the relevance of any euro system in our area of fighting interest especially when our principle fighting partner lives across the lake

Subs! you could have had some nice Upholder class subs at a terrific price, which the Canadians snapped up and there may be an aircraft carrier on offer soon..

as for cost,. you seem to forget that the RAF exchange pilot who gave his speech about the Typhoon at R1 stated that it was $120m - that was 2009 AUD. 300 other people were in that room and they heard the same thing that I did.

I didn't forget, I still have the original notes, that wasn't a flyaway price, I not quite sure what it also included. and there was never 300 in that room, ~80 tops.

your saying that were so closly aligned with the US that euro systems are not sympathetic, thats exactly the point its self fufilling, Aus is like Japan only buying US fighters (So Far), or south korea, When it reaches that level its unhealthy, do you think that the senior procurement officers in those countries are guilty of being economical with the truth? there must be occasions where even you would admit that an open and transparent competition would have produced a different result. does that make those officer incompetant/liars or what?.

 

[Scorpion82]

Then of course you are comparing apples to oranges. For the Typhoon et al to carry out a strike mission with anything like the F-35's survivability it needs to fly nap of earth all the way. Terrain masking doesn't quite equate to stealth but its a start. So the Typhoon's mission radius is 350 NM compared to 580 NM for the F-35A.

And who says that this level of survivability is required in every single mission? When was exactly the last low level strike? Two decades ago?

So what's the mission radius of a F-35 carrying four AMRAAMs and two ASRAAMs? Its a lot, lot further than 600 NM. Based on similar figures for internal weapons carriage with other aircraft and a figure like 1,000 NM is not out of the ballpark.

You must be extremely optimistic to believe that a 1000 nm figure is achievable, if the aircraft already struggles to reach 600 nm! Lesser weight of AMRAAMs vs JDAMs will certainly have an impact but you won't get some additional 400 nm by cutting ~1.5 t on weight and we're still talking about internal carriage don't we?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

And who says that this level of survivability is required in every single mission? When was exactly the last low level strike? Two decades ago?

You don’t need LO flying enduring CAP over Afghanistan or other low intensity missions. But if every mission you were flying was offensive CAP and strike against a medium to high intensity force equipped with contemporary GBAD and fighters well you would need LO on every mission. Typhoons and the like would be stuck flying nap of earth to avoid being shot down by GBAD and hoping they get early warning before they get bounced by enemy fighters.

 

[JWCook]

Did you calculate this yourself? Let me guess… 6,000 lbs of fuel per hour, 200 hours per aircraft per annum, 2,400 aircraft, 30 annums: which is 39.3 million tonnes, which at a cost of $1,000 a tonne equals roughly your $36 to 50 billion figure. But did you think there might be inflation? Considering the report in question stretches out to 2065 and during that time there will be over 106,000 F-35 years in the US forces (factored in build up rate) this will require a gross total of 58 million tonnes of fuel. If the current rate of jet fuel inflation was to continue (40% per annum, which has been sustained for 10 years) then the cost of this fuel will be $4,500 per tonne in 2035. Even if this to be the peak cost of jet fuel and sustained from 2035 to 2065 the price of fuel for the US DoD F-35s up until 2065 would be $265.5 billion. If inflation of jet fuel was to continue from 2035 to 2065 at 5% per annum (thanks to next generation nuclear reactor process heat converting coal to synthetic fuels) then the total cost of US DoD F-35 fuel to 2065 would be $560 billion. So you start to see where a trillon dollars comes from…

Hmm funny your not using LM 2002 then year dollars in this example!!:roll, (You might want to check your figures) but you may be right, which is unfortunate for the JSF because they can't do anything about it, and ttherefore the JSF is doomed to be unaffordable, and that means severe cuts to the numbers, and a price death spiral..

So either your right and the JSF is wrong or your wrong and the JSF may be alright.

Pity they didnt see that coming.