Isn't it interesting when a new storys is released which criticizes the JSF the cynics freely link it, whereas when a news story is released which praises or is positive with the JSF the cynics ignore it... I question the cynics not so hidden agenda?
F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
Sea Toby , FYI , I'm very much pro the F35. It will clearly offer capabilities that are unmatched in relation to it's intended role.
In fact I wish it were already here in service now. But you have to keep things in perspective without being blindly for or against this aircraft. If information surfaces that is relevant it should be shared. Nothing cynical about that , I'm just trying to be part of an unbiased discussion. In point of fact , given the apparent capabilities of the aircraft it's hard to understand why anyone would have any serious concerns in relation to it being the best choice an airforce could make.
Obviously info in the public domain is filtered and leads to certain assumptions and guesswork for those of us "on the outside' of the F35 project.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I could be mistaken but ST's point is that there are a number of individuals and groups which are very biased against the F-35 and tend to go to great lengths to advertise any time that there are errors, issues, faults or concerns with the F-35. Some times going to rather convoluted logical extremes to argue their positions. APA (not that I wish to advert or give them any more air...) is a prime example of such behavior, and while those who do not follow defence matters might have a problem recognizing their failures of logic, most here should not have much trouble, particularly with their scenarios offered and complete lack of appreciation for a systems construct approach.
The flip side of such biased behavior, which I think is what ST was really on about, is that announcements of the F-35 meeting or exceeding programme goals and benchmarks is much more muted.
-Cheers
so the f-35 should have a cooler plume and lower IR sig, given they both have a 18k lb fuel sink, on what is released
then we go to just speculation, unless the f-22 is using other tech on the exhaust eg, electrostatics, which can be used to quiet the exhaust or create more turbulence to reduce heat sig
Research Publications | Gas Dynamics and Turbulence Laboratory
Well it depends on how high they are and how fast they are. At the same speed and altitude the F-22 will have a lot lower power setting on its engines compared to the F-35’s engine setting. But while super cruising compared to the F-35 flying at low transonic the F-22’s engines will be pumping out a lot more exhaust plume heat.
As to the surface temperature there can be a range of differences depending on everything from drag (causing friction) to skin coatings and surface materials as well as the cooling heat sink. One key element of IR management is using coatings to ensure that the heat you have to emit is in a different frequency to that of the IR seeker threats. The F-35 is going to have an advantage in this regard via 10 years or so of additional intel about the threat and so on. One of the reasons the F-22 needs to be refreshed via upgrade.
I've largely been supportive of the F35, but I can't help thinking now with the recent discussions on price for what was originally supposed to be a low cost attack fighter, that Lockheed has botched this project to such a degree, that maybe it should be scrapped.
This article from Nov last year makes a quite compelling case for instead, ordering a small number of F22s, and supplying aircraft from more manufacturers. A big advantage is that it will keep more aircraft manufacturers viable, and maybe allow the technology for the F35 to mature a bit more:
Kill the F-35
PS. I'm surprised Boeing is so timid right now, perhaps as its more profitable to push advances in existing designs like Superhornet? If I was them, I'd offer to develop a low cost stealth fighter to replace say, the F16, without all the STOVL nonsense Lockheed is still wasting resources on, perhaps a variant on their earlier JSF bid? IMO they should get back in the game.
This article from Nov last year makes a quite compelling case for instead, ordering a small number of F22s, and supplying aircraft from more manufacturers. A big advantage is that it will keep more aircraft manufacturers viable, and maybe allow the technology for the F35 to mature a bit more:
Kill the F-35
The proposed program of F22's (pure air superiority), F15se's (on-going air superiority), F16's (bomb trucks), and F18 e/f's and drones (Navy / Marines), looks pretty attractive.
PS. I'm surprised Boeing is so timid right now, perhaps as its more profitable to push advances in existing designs like Superhornet? If I was them, I'd offer to develop a low cost stealth fighter to replace say, the F16, without all the STOVL nonsense Lockheed is still wasting resources on, perhaps a variant on their earlier JSF bid? IMO they should get back in the game.
Last edited:
It was never meant to be a "low cost attack fighter". It is a multi-role fighter aircraft. Not a dedicated "attacker" but an aircraft able to conduct the full range of tactical fighter operations.
As for cost, why don't you look at the cost of the current batch of 4th Gen fighters and see what they REALLY cost to buy before deciding how much of a "failure" the F-35 is?
The reason the cost is increasing is because Congress keeps slashing the production rate and numbers of the aircraft. It is quite simply economics. The more you purchase, the cheaper the aircraft becomes. If you downsize the order, the price goes up. Which is why the Eurocanards are all so expensive.
Hint, if it's produced in the numbers planned it IS going to be cheaper than any other Western jet available...
Boeing's been pushing additional purchases of Super Hornet and F-15's for years. What do you think the F-15SE is all about? They managed to have their supporters in Congress win orders for 126 more Super Hornets than the US Navy ever wanted and ditto with the C-17's, but they haven't been as successful in competing for or against the F-35.
The reason why is that although it is easy just to buy off the shelf, when that fighter has to be your main combat aircraft for the next 40 years, you then have aircraft which aren't up to the job over the longer term.
I doubt too many people would find STOVL to be "nonsense" if they have to land a fixed wing aircraft on a WASP Class.
If I were Boeing, I would not be wasting resources on developing a fighter that does NOT meet any user requirements, is NOT going to be effective for the next 40 years and is NOT going to be ordered, but then I'm no businessman so what would I know? Maybe they should...
Scorpion82
New Member
It's not just about numbers, but about the efficiency of the program structure and other factors. The initial goals wrt timelines and costs were unrealistic and that punishes now. According the original plans from the second half on the 90s the US should have purchased ~3100 JSF and total program cost was planned to be ~200 bln USD including R&D. The USMC should have achieved IOC around 2008. What we now look at is a program with IOC dates many years later, at best 2443 aircraft and total program costs almost twice of what was being planned. And don't forget about the fact that the F-35 will remain in production for quite some time and that the aircraft won't be delivered in the planned "current" spec until 2036. The real costs will rise as well, something people forget about. That's one of the reasons why a Eurofighter for example is more expensive than planned, because people left out the costs required to keep the aircraft updated. It much looks like they are doing the same error with the F-35 and I wouldn't be to surprised to see the aircraft becoming even more expensive. Believing that such a highly complex and advanced aircraft like the F-35 would come in at a 30-40 mln USD fly-way cost figure is already ridiculous. Even new F-16s are a fair deal more expensive than the earlier models for the very same reasons, increased complexity and that despite a large production run!
I don't disagree but the problem is that Government continually asks for unrealistic capability levels at unaffordable prices and with unrealistic schedules.
Now, the F-35 has not worked out as well cost or schedule wise as originally promised, but that doesn't mean the project should be abandoned, the enormous investment in it should be thrown away and a far less capability, that has already been passed over as unacceptable many times should now be accepted.
If you push the boundaries of what is possible, than the usual result is increased cost and delays until the program matures. Governments have to be mature enough to accept that.
And so does the internets...
It was always intended that the aircraft would fill a variety of roles outside of pure air superiority. If you look at those roles today, all of them are more than adequately met by the 4 and 4.5 gen aircraft. The multi-role concept has some appeals, like the idea that systems / technology can be built into just one aircraft that eases maintenance and upgrade costs moving forward. But that was predicated on Lockheed actually achieving the goals of the program, which involved applying the learning's from other aircraft programs, and modern integrated design/tooling technology, to build an aircraft that is cost effective to maintain. With hindsight we can now see that goal was unrealistic, the F35 will never be cost effective at for example, a bomb truck role, versus say an F16.
Because there were mistakes in the past, does not excuse why Lockheed has made so many mistakes with this program. IMO if another manufacturer has also been designing at the same time as was the case with the F18 and F16, it is quite possible that Lockheed would not have gone down as many blind alleys, would have simplified the aircraft sooner to make it cost competitive, and would put STOVL on the back burner for a future development.
I understand the economics of more volume equals lower cost per aircraft, but it is not then a carte blanch to run a program as poorly as Lockheed has this one. Why are they multiple billions over budget, and years behind schedule? I can assure you it is not because congress has downsized its order. IMO it is a combination of:
- trying to incorporate too much new technology in the first version of the aircraft ("mission creep")
- underestimating the cost of not being allowed to simply port over F22 technology
- failing to pull the "plug" when technology was proving more difficult than anticipated (STVOL)
- just pure greed (and yes, having been involved in running large projects I have seen this, fat contracts / big dollars makes corporations lazy). IMO this wouldn't have happened had Lockheed been held to a fixed contract, rather than what they kept expecting and getting, another profitable billion dollar bail each time they "failed".
I understand its importance to the Marines, but I question that the military capability has any significant value today beyond their pride and the infrastructure they wish to keep justifying. It should not though have been a reason for the cost overruns for all the other forces.
This can never though be an unlimited license to print money, which is what we see now. The F35 is projected to cost more than a trillion dollars (the entire GDP of Australia):
The F-35: A Weapon That Costs More Than Australia - Dominic Tierney - National - The Atlantic
How does that make sense at a time when the economy is facing the possibility of a massive debt crisis / downgrade? It is perfectly reasonable to reconsider now, based on the concepts of the article I posted, for example:
- allowing the F35 to continue to develop (like with the stealth destroyers)
- allowing UCAV's to continue to develop
- purchasing off the shelf aircraft that are more than capable of performing the simple roles needed in the combat zones the US is flying in once the area is secure (bomb trucks)
- keeping more manufacturers viable, which is perfectly fair given how badly the F35 program has gone.
The JSF was a great "concept" but I think the idea of having one basic fighter for all roles fails on a few counts:
- the monopolistic manufacturer has incompetently delivered / is milking the program
- there is insufficient competition to keep the manufacturer tight / on budget
- a less complex aircraft would perform many of the roles more cost effectively
- it simply isn't affordable anymore.
Anyway, if the program is cancelled, the sky is not going to fall down (although it may be challenging for some allies, which in itself isn't a bad thing for maintaining US preeminence). The US will continue to have the dominant air force in the world, and IMO a more suitable more cost effective solution can be designed over the next decade with existing aircraft used in the interim.
Except when you need to go up against a modern air defence system. Then the F-35 becomes very cost effective compared to the F-16...
If you are going to drop LGB's and JDAM's on insurgents forever, then even the F-16 lacks cost effectiveness. An AT-6B turboprop would be a better bet....
No, it makes it even more critical people understand that modern projects are technically complex and ARE going to run into schedule difficulties, but by no means does that mean that there is no benefit from continuing with them...
Plenty said the exact same thing about the Osprey before it entered service. Now it is proving daily in real life operations that it can do things no other aircraft can.
Furphy. That is the projected cost of the planned entire fleet of F-35 aircraft over 65 years of operations. Hardly a useful figure except for the media and those who wish to take a few cheap shots at the program.
Anyways, let us agree to disagree. The funny thing that is never considered in relation to F-35, is what would the cost have been if the individual US services had each developed their own aircraft to fulfill the multitude of roles the F-35 will?
I would suggest it would grossly exceed what the F-35 will cost. L-M may be fat and lazy. I hardly see evidence that Boeing isn't and I don't see any other company producing jet fighters in the US these days...
I think the valid question there though is, was a more complex aircraft needed for all of those roles, versus continued upgrade of off the shelf aircraft? IMO that's where this project has failed. The original theory was that a more capable aircraft could perform the simple roles cost effectively due to scale, but that capable aircraft is turning out to be more complex and costly to develop / build and maintain than anticipated.
Scorpion82
New Member
That's the very nature of the program. It's the politics and some short sighted military planners who come up with unrealistic specifications, schedules and cost targets. The tragedy about that is that the industry says "ok we'll do it", albeit it is simply unrealistic from the very beginning. Afterwards everyone is whining about schedule slippage and rising costs, something totally inevitable under these circumstances.
Agreed on this one.
Governments should be more realistic in the first place and industry should be honest enough to say "listen guys what you demand doesn't work out". Unfortunately that's not the way it works.
In economics this is known as a "sunk cost". You don't make decisions based on sunk costs though, you make them on future cost / benefits. There have been many examples of hugely expensive military programs in the past that have been cancelled (like the stealth ships, are they really missed? or the future combat systems). It doesn't mean that much of the technology won't find its way into future programs / aircraft though, it just means this project failed. With a bit of luck, the lesson learned may mean the next one is more cost effective, Lockheed can go back to the drawing board and think with a clean sheet of paper, "what went wrong", and the forces can think a bit more clearly about what they really "need" versus what they "want".
This project has only failed, when it fails to deliver the aircraft and support that is required of it. So far albeit delayed compared to some of the original schedules, L-M is doing just that.
The aircraft is meeting it's requirements in terms of capability with only a very few minor issues (the one about the aircraft being 16nm or so short of it's desired range that came out the other is the biggest post SWAT issue it's had...) that will be resolved during it's testing and continued development.
You are looking at it from a purely economic POV, but Government and a Defence Force isn't private business and holding to such a standard is a waste of time.
Going back to the drawing board isn't an answer either. Then you start a development program all over again PLUS you have to do something about the tired old airframes that will have to be replaced before the end of this decade or your tacair becomes non-existant, with no guarantee the next development will run smoother than the last nor produce a more capable product, particularly where cost is going to remain an independent variable, nor indeed be cheaper.
Yes, tech from the F-35 mght be useful for other projects and we're already seeing F-35 tech migrate across to F-22, but replacing current worn out airframes with new build legacy aircraft, cancelling F-35 and starting a new development progam for a fighter or a series of different fighters to replace all the aircraft the F-35 will, is NOT going to be cheaper than completing and acquiring the F-35 in it's current form.
I don't care how many lessons there are to learn. Such a plan is only going to benefit the "lazy" manufacturers you already think are bleeding the taxpayer dry. It will do no good for the services involved in these projects nor the taxpayers...
Scorpion82
New Member
One of the problems with that approach is the time involved to develop such a complex weapons system. The unfortunate reality is that it will never work out the best way, as too many people are involved in the decision process and there are too many different opinions and priorities. You usually end up with a compromise which may or may not fulfil the visions of its forefathers.
If the F-35 would be scrapped, what would be the alternative? Buying further upgraded 40 years old designs to keep them in service for another 3 to 4 decades? It's rather short sighted to believe that the world will remain in the shape it is today! And how long would it take to start over again? Who guarantees that a new program will actually fare any better than the current one?
If the F-35 would be scrapped, what would be the alternative? Buying further upgraded 40 years old designs to keep them in service for another 3 to 4 decades? It's rather short sighted to believe that the world will remain in the shape it is today! And how long would it take to start over again? Who guarantees that a new program will actually fare any better than the current one?
The article I posted a link to provided a pretty compelling case for the alternaitve, which would be considerably cheaper, and would maintain capability (except for marines STOVL, which is probably dead anyway since RN pulled out of F35b). Order a few more F22's to ensure air superiority (also a bone for Lockheed). Order some F15se's (combat air support), order some Superhornets (Navy / Marines), order some F16's (bombtrucks), i.e. don't put all eggs in one basket. And at the same time, spend some money to keep the research going on the F35, and also ucav drone programes. In a decade, re-evaluate the options.
And if nothing else, from a purely selfish viewpoint, having more types of planes and contracts is going to be a lot more interesting to discuss and evaluate than just watching Lockheed rake in the bucks for the F35 for the next 30 years ;-)
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Honestly, the arguments being put forward so far do not make much sense to me. So far, it seems much of the argument is to keep a testing/development programme for the F-35 going, but not initiate production.
LRIP orders have already been placed for various variants of the F-35, with IOC currently expected for some of them in ~2016.
If the USAF suddenly put in orders for new F-15E Strike Eagles, and/or F-16 Block 50/52+ Vipers, depending on production scheduling they might enter service around the same time as the F-35 starts to reach IOC.
For the USN/USMC, there is already ongoing production of SHornets, additional orders could just get tacked on to the end, but IIRC the numbers still awaiting production already run to around the time the F-35 begins to reach IOC.
Now, the F-35B might still have a problem, but in 2012 a decision will be made whether that is to be kept or not. Such a decision is not only an economic one, as the elimination of a V/STOL fighter from USMC inventory would have an impact on MEU operations, deployment and doctrine.
In short, with the aircraft so close to entering service, short of a massive issue with the programme (like all test/LRIP aircraft falling out of the sky) it would seem foolish to stop the programme now and order legacy aircraft instead.
-Cheers
Only if you ignore the needs of the various defence forces as approved by their governments and the reality of the F-35 project.
LOL. We’ve heard this every day since the UK’s SDR in the form of some throw away line by some casual observer. But “tell it to the Marines”, tell it to the Italian Air Force and the Italian Navy. All of which maintain their numbers required for the F-35B. Even at original requirement the British (mostly RAF not just RN) requirement for the F-35B was less than 20% of total numbers. Sensationalism not factual.
So rather than put eggs in the basket designed for future air combat, lets put them in a couple of old rickety baskets past their due date? Where were you in the 1930s? You could have cancelled the Spitfire and the Hurricane because the Gloster Gladiator was good enough…
Especially when they all get shot down by future threats, won’t that be interesting, can generate lots of internet discussions while air force families bury their relatives…
- Status