Couldn't' there have been three distrinct different aircraft with a similar avionics, and maybe similar engine, other common parts, yet have perhaps three different wing designs, fuselage etc to make each aircraft better as either an air to air, strike, or STOL platform. Trying to shoehorn the f-35 into all these roles only makes itsforthcoming competitors better able to exploit its weaknesses. Its a flawed concept we are stuck with unfortunately. It seems like the f-35 isn't going to be adaptable enough for the next 50 years. Lockheed saying it will be is pure insanity and fraud.
The F-35 No Holds Barred topic
- Thread starter overscan (PaulMM)
- Start date
- Joined
- 17 October 2006
- Messages
- 2,354
- Reaction score
- 989
kcran - That certainly seemed like a potentially good idea in the late 1990s and I advocated it on occasion, using the Airbus range as a model.
The problem? The official predictions of the JSF cost and timescale were so awesomely good that nothing else could compete with them.
Hence the importance of RAND's findings....
Also, there are no aircraft with zero commonality (the Blackbirds were probably as close as it gets). For instance, by the late 1980s the F-14, F-15 and F-16 shared an engine family, all used the same gun, and the F-14 and F-15 radars were closely related. Aircraft are made of parts, that range from catalog items to things that are often made (for different aircraft) by the same supplier in the same factory, using the same techniques and machinery.
[/size]
That's why there's only so much to be saved in production from a common airframe shape - another factor quantified by RAND.
The problem? The official predictions of the JSF cost and timescale were so awesomely good that nothing else could compete with them.
Hence the importance of RAND's findings....
Also, there are no aircraft with zero commonality (the Blackbirds were probably as close as it gets). For instance, by the late 1980s the F-14, F-15 and F-16 shared an engine family, all used the same gun, and the F-14 and F-15 radars were closely related. Aircraft are made of parts, that range from catalog items to things that are often made (for different aircraft) by the same supplier in the same factory, using the same techniques and machinery.
[/size]
That's why there's only so much to be saved in production from a common airframe shape - another factor quantified by RAND.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,012
SOC said:Unfortunately, too many people are hung up on "we've already spent $XXX so there's no stopping now," but you do have a good idea there
So perhaps you could explain how cancelling the F-35 will get us three better fighters sooner and for less money?
Is it just me or are others having déjà vu sensations here as well? We have already been over these points before and yet here we go again!
Even if the various services, manufacturers etc had wanted to do three separate programs utilising common systems, though remaining separate, at some point the pressure (from Govt, the Pentagon and dare I say, a lot of you naysayers) to combine them into one would have still become unbearable thus resulting in a merger in to one...which, dare I say, would have been even less efficient/desirable than having done it right from the start as we have with the F-35. I challenge you to say that this would not have occurred! :
Mind you, I still say this is a moot point because speculating about what could have happened is simply that: speculation. I could have just as easily concocted a scenario whereby your fantasy of 2 or 3 separate platforms turned into a huge debacle. Would I be right? Maybe/maybe not. Does it matter or have any relevance for the existing reality? Nope! And as for the comment about relevance to 6th generation fighters…if you believe people aren't taking notice than you are a fool. At the same time though, remember that given the timelines involved, a lot of those involved will be long retied by then. Moreover, one has to remember that, just as the with the F-35, there are a lot of forces (such as politics, economy etc) that will influence developments regardless of what you might think is the ideal. Programs such as this do not operate in a vacuum of a design lab - they operate in the real world, with all its imperfections!
That all said, I have to tip my hat to you lot. You do seem to fight a fine rearguard action…especially when one considers the F-35 program is going from strength to strength:
Even if the various services, manufacturers etc had wanted to do three separate programs utilising common systems, though remaining separate, at some point the pressure (from Govt, the Pentagon and dare I say, a lot of you naysayers) to combine them into one would have still become unbearable thus resulting in a merger in to one...which, dare I say, would have been even less efficient/desirable than having done it right from the start as we have with the F-35. I challenge you to say that this would not have occurred! :
Mind you, I still say this is a moot point because speculating about what could have happened is simply that: speculation. I could have just as easily concocted a scenario whereby your fantasy of 2 or 3 separate platforms turned into a huge debacle. Would I be right? Maybe/maybe not. Does it matter or have any relevance for the existing reality? Nope! And as for the comment about relevance to 6th generation fighters…if you believe people aren't taking notice than you are a fool. At the same time though, remember that given the timelines involved, a lot of those involved will be long retied by then. Moreover, one has to remember that, just as the with the F-35, there are a lot of forces (such as politics, economy etc) that will influence developments regardless of what you might think is the ideal. Programs such as this do not operate in a vacuum of a design lab - they operate in the real world, with all its imperfections!
That all said, I have to tip my hat to you lot. You do seem to fight a fine rearguard action…especially when one considers the F-35 program is going from strength to strength:
- 100+ platforms constructed and delivered (in fact there might even be more accepted if it weren't for delays in the ability of the acceptance side to keep up);
- More coming down a line that is continuing to ramp up (43 in LRIP8, 71 in LRIP9, 115 in LRIP10, 131 in LRIP11 + + +);
- Increased FMS orders coming (Israel, Japan, Sth Korea, Singapore…;
- Contract negotiations proceeding much better (LRIP 6 & 7 finalised and LRIP 8 proceeding well);
- Unit Aircraft Price coming down (a 55% reduction in cost from LRIP 1 - 7) and following the predictions many have been making for years now;
- Concurrency issue reducing ($500M reduction in Concurrency cost from LRIP 1 - 7);
- Additional production line opened up;
- Software development proceeding acceptably and improving;
- Multiple service IOCs announced (and indeed moving forward in some cases);
- Flight Testing and related proceeding well (Still not a single aircraft loss either - point out an equivalent platform that can claim that after so many flight hours/aircraft?); and
- A growing list of customer representatives praising the aircraft and those developing it…despite what some of you might try to say.
LowObservable said:
What happened Bill? I thought you had declared yourself above this thread….
- Joined
- 17 October 2006
- Messages
- 2,354
- Reaction score
- 989
GTX - Which of those points are relevant to the Rand report?
It might make more sense to compare them to the 2001 schedule, since the report is based on comparing predictions at MS B with later predictions.
Sferrin - I don't get your point, since nobody is advocating cancelling the program and starting over. Rand is making a case for taking a different view of jointness in future programs.
It might make more sense to compare them to the 2001 schedule, since the report is based on comparing predictions at MS B with later predictions.
Sferrin - I don't get your point, since nobody is advocating cancelling the program and starting over. Rand is making a case for taking a different view of jointness in future programs.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,012
LowObservable said:
You've never advocated cancelling the F-35 program? That'd be a bit like Obama claiming he never wanted to change healthcare in the US. And while you may realize that it's past that point NOW it certainly hasn't stopped you from trying to influence cutting numbers. (Replacing F-35s with A-10s? Really? :
Giving them to the US Army would be a better idea IMO if the alternative is sending them to the boneyard.)As for "joint" going forward I would say it depends on the program. A future ICBM/SLBM might not be a bad target for "joint". Certainly AAMs and ASMs have worked fine "jointly". (Though, because of differing requirements, you might not end up with an optimal design for both.)
LowObservable said:
Did I say they were? They are however relevant to the overarching debate whereby you and your kind are constantly arguing (in one form or another) against the F-35 (this RAND report "storm in a teacup" (want me to explain what that term means?
) being just the latest itteration - and you know it! : . My post was simply a jab at you lot in general showing how despite all your negative comments, in reality the program is simply getting on and accomplishing success after success.Don't worry, I will be making a more direct response to the RAND Report soon - I am simply reading the entire report first..rather than just the reporting on the report as some seem want to do… :
BTW, so glad you decided to re-enter this debate…I was bored...
- Joined
- 24 January 2006
- Messages
- 1,300
- Reaction score
- 383
GTX said:
Excuse me? The comment about 6th generation fighters was intended to illustrate why the report is relevant beyond the boundaries of the F-35 program, as it's good to know what potholes not to drive through the next time around.
From the News Section…more examples of how the simpletons like to work out aircraft costs:
Ever considered that these amounts include more than just the aircraft? Ah well, I suppose big numbers impress some people...
Now I stand by for the old arguments from the usual players... :
Arjen said:
Ever considered that these amounts include more than just the aircraft?
Ah well, I suppose big numbers impress some people...Now I stand by for the old arguments from the usual players... :
I was also thinking that the RAND report might be politically motivated by the United States Air Force as an argument against future joint fighter programs. The RAND report claims that the Joint Strike Fighter is not optimized for the needs of each service and is a compromise. The services also have historically preferred separate fighter aircraft programs specifically tailored for their needs. The United States Air Force and the United States Navy may want evidence to justify NGAD and A/F-XX as separate programs optimized for their needs.
As for the ATF and the JSF programs, there are political elements who just don't want to pay for the development of new fighters. Period. Plus the fact that the Russian Federation, for financial reasons, dropped out of the manned fighter competition with the west. The need probably would have seemed more urgent for the F-22 Raptor if the Russian Federation had been developing the Sukhoi T-50 and the People's Republic of China had been developing the Chengdu J-20 while the F-22 was in development. The proliferation, or expected proliferation, of fifth-generation fighters to regimes hostile to the west, and the United States in particular, would probably have made the case stronger. The argument against fifth-generation fighters was the claim that they were something that the United States armed forces didn't need because the F-22 and F-35 had no challengers. Discussing manned fighter programs on the Secret Projects forum is really preaching to the converted.
Again I submit that the JSF program was a politically motivated program because the political situation at the time was that the government did not want to pay for three separate programs.
As for the ATF and the JSF programs, there are political elements who just don't want to pay for the development of new fighters. Period. Plus the fact that the Russian Federation, for financial reasons, dropped out of the manned fighter competition with the west. The need probably would have seemed more urgent for the F-22 Raptor if the Russian Federation had been developing the Sukhoi T-50 and the People's Republic of China had been developing the Chengdu J-20 while the F-22 was in development. The proliferation, or expected proliferation, of fifth-generation fighters to regimes hostile to the west, and the United States in particular, would probably have made the case stronger. The argument against fifth-generation fighters was the claim that they were something that the United States armed forces didn't need because the F-22 and F-35 had no challengers. Discussing manned fighter programs on the Secret Projects forum is really preaching to the converted.
Again I submit that the JSF program was a politically motivated program because the political situation at the time was that the government did not want to pay for three separate programs.
I agree. I don't buy the "one aircraft is more affordable" argument anymore and certainly will not do the job as well as 2-3 separate aircraft. The services would be far happier with a separate aircraft with as much in common as possible, but better suited to their particular needs. Maybe distinct aircraft could be purchased in lesser numbers overall because they would be more capable and effective. I still am hoping for a next generation yf-16/a-4/f-5 that would be a low cost solution for our allies needs and for domestic use as well. The f-35 is overkill for many allies who cant afford it, or it doesn't meet their needs or is more than what they need.
kcran567 said:
Hmmm…don't tell Boeing or the USN
Fighter:
Previously:
Now:
Bomber:
Previously:
Now:
Electronic warfare:
Previously:
Now:
Aerial refueler:
Previously:
Now:
Recon:
Previously:
Now:
Or SAAB (and some here) for that matter :
Fighter:
Bomber:
Recon:
Anti Shipping Strike:
;D
:Fighter:
Bomber:
Recon:
Anti Shipping Strike:
;D
And let's not forget the Rafale with its "omnirole fighter" description:
Fighter/Strike:
Bomber:
Recon:
Refueler:
Fighter/Strike:
Bomber:
Recon:
Refueler:
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,012
kcran567 said:
This is probably going to come as a shock to you but the single-mission aircraft went out back in the days of the F-4. The A-10 is the last of a dead breed.
F-16: Mulitmission
F-15: multimission (note that nobody is buying F-15Cs, they're all buying multi-mission F-15E variants)
F/A-18:
F-14: became the "Bombcat"
Even the F-22 can drop bombs. (Though it would be a huge waste of a limited resource to do so.)
GTX/Sferrin I get what you guys are saying...and those are great examples. I was more targeting the F-35. The Gripen, F-18, and now the F-35 can be shoehorned to do all those diverse jobs. Yet the f-35 proves it isn't necessarily going to be more affordable or capable than 2-3 distinct aircraft. If the A-12 was an A-6 replacement, Do you think the F-18 is really better suited in that role? Range, etc? I think the A-12 would be better than the F-18 at least for that role. There would be affordability for 2-3 new aircraft if there was not the level of corruption going on. Thats why the F-35 is so damn expensive.
kcran567 said:
Care to elaborate?
- Joined
- 9 November 2008
- Messages
- 1,070
- Reaction score
- 160
kcran567 said:
Where do people keep coming up with these numbers?
If you look at the F/A-18 (not he notional "Silent" one, but the standard Blk2) and compare it with an FRP F-35, you can only buy 1.25 F-18s for each F-35A.
Switch to the Rafale or Eurofighter and it's either even or in the F-35's favor.
GTX and others, sorry with my rhetoric, its just that the low figure of $159M per aircraft hardly seems affordable. The claim of corruption is due to frustration that the JSF program was intended to be affordable. Even at $159M that is hardly affordable. Those who say it is, have you looked around? Attrition and readiness, will there be enough flying? Numbers are important if you look at history. Look what the Germans had at the end of WWII in spite of great technological advantage of their aircraft. Thats the scenario which will apply to the F-35 in real combat.
- Joined
- 9 November 2008
- Messages
- 1,070
- Reaction score
- 160
It depends on what you mean by $159 per F-35A.
Is it the cost to build one (REC Flyaway)?
Is it the cost to build one to include the Nonrecurring Cost (NRC) items (things that are not done for every fighter but change from year to year), this is called Total Flyaway.
Here is what is included in the latest NRC:
Then there is the final annual cost figure, Gross Weapon System. This includes the Total Flyaway and all the support costs. However, this last part will vary greatly from year-to-year since it includes much more than just tools, parts & manuals for the F-35.
For example, here are some items from this years support costs that are not part of a normal annual buy.
This year's budget also includes 2 Full Mission Simulators (last year had 4) which are not part of the normal annual buy.
As you can see many numbers can be thrown around so it is imperative that when talking cost, that both parties are referencing the same variables.
So, what is the $159?
Is it Rec Flyaway, Total Flyaway, or Gross Weapon System?
Is it the cost to build one (REC Flyaway)?
Is it the cost to build one to include the Nonrecurring Cost (NRC) items (things that are not done for every fighter but change from year to year), this is called Total Flyaway.
Here is what is included in the latest NRC:
Then there is the final annual cost figure, Gross Weapon System. This includes the Total Flyaway and all the support costs. However, this last part will vary greatly from year-to-year since it includes much more than just tools, parts & manuals for the F-35.
For example, here are some items from this years support costs that are not part of a normal annual buy.
This year's budget also includes 2 Full Mission Simulators (last year had 4) which are not part of the normal annual buy.
As you can see many numbers can be thrown around so it is imperative that when talking cost, that both parties are referencing the same variables.
So, what is the $159?
Is it Rec Flyaway, Total Flyaway, or Gross Weapon System?
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
kcran567 said:
So we are approximately 100 aircraft into a 2400 to 3000 (including allies, etc.) production run and we are supposed to speculate/compare/contrast Me-262's and P-51 Mustangs. A little premature don't you think?
Besides at this point it looks like the US could have the largest AND most technologically advanced air force.
Re-watching the Four Corners documentary "Reach for the Sky" yesterday, it appears that Alan Williams, Former Assistant Deputy Defence Minister of Canada believes that the Lockheed Martin marketing machine low-balled the cost of purchasing and maintaining the F-35 Lightning II to get an early purchase commitment from the government of Canada. Lockheed Martin set the expectation of $16 billion while the Auditor General of Canada after an audit stated that the cost of 65 aircraft was closer $25 billion. In addition, the government of Canada committed to the aircraft without a detailed comparison of other aircraft that could be used to replace the aging CF-18. The media in Canada has labeled the F-35 procurement a national scandal and fiasco. Hence, the appearance of corruption in the JSF program.
If a member of the government of Canada believes that Lockheed Martin low-balled the cost of the F-35, it calls into question the cost projections and the schedules that decision-makers used to make the initial JSF decision. Did Lockheed Martin deliberately misrepresent the cost and complexity of the F-35 program? What should we make of the assurances made by Lockheed Martin or the JSF program office concerning the capabilities of the aircraft?
If a member of the government of Canada believes that Lockheed Martin low-balled the cost of the F-35, it calls into question the cost projections and the schedules that decision-makers used to make the initial JSF decision. Did Lockheed Martin deliberately misrepresent the cost and complexity of the F-35 program? What should we make of the assurances made by Lockheed Martin or the JSF program office concerning the capabilities of the aircraft?
Triton said:
Referencing that piece of drivel destroys your credibility straight away...
Triton said:
So, if you're not going to take what the JPO or LM (and their partners - how many times must people be told, this is not a simple one company development?!) both of whom have been audited numerous times and are responsible for the actual work to be performed, then who will you listen to? Perhaps Carlo Kopp, Peter Goon, Elric Palmer, Winslow Wheeler and all those other fools, none of which have any access to the details of the program, have never worked in such a program and have openly stated biases already? I am sure they will give the 'correct' answers! NOT!!!
bobbymike said:
Could have?
The US already has the largest and most technologically advanced Air Force in the world....
The second largest force of aircraft in the world isn't another country.... It's the Navy....
- Joined
- 24 January 2006
- Messages
- 1,300
- Reaction score
- 383
GTX said:
Funny APA should be mentioned. Remember the reduced performance minimum standards after the 2012 DOT&E report? 4.6 sustained g's at 15K feet (down from 5.3, down from 6.0), 63 seconds to accelerate from 0.8 to 1.2 Mach at 30K feet (down from 55), to name a few. Well, it's completely hilarious that those numbers are basically what APA "accused" the F-35's performance of being in the first place. It'd seem that a bunch of engineers and test pilots might have a slight clue. Aerodynamics, RCS calculations, fuel fractions, etc. do not work differently in the Southern Hemisphere.
sublight is back said:The US already has the largest and most technologically advanced Air Force in the world....
The second largest force of aircraft in the world isn't another country.... It's the Navy....
Not that it's on the same technological level but China's air arms are not small. I'd bet the PLAAF is larger than the USN. I'd have to dig around and come up with some numbers because the ones published recently were laughably bad. Andreas might be able to come up with a credible number quicker.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,572
- Reaction score
- 7,208
sublight is back said:bobbymike said:
Could have?
The US already has the largest and most technologically advanced Air Force in the world....
The second largest force of aircraft in the world isn't another country.... It's the Navy....
Yes of course but I was talking about the future force of F-22, F-35.
Dragon029
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 17 March 2009
- Messages
- 881
- Reaction score
- 440
Although I sympathise, I don't think it would help much; you would likely then be dealing with the old issue of having multiple threads requiring moderation. While sometimes interesting, this thread does ultimately act as a containment field for dry debate.
bobbymike said:
But where's our Festivus Pole?
Seriously though, having a single "venting station/pressure release valve" such as this thread prevents such discussions contaminating other threads (as has been the case in the past. Moreover, those who aren't interested can simply ignore the thread.
You forgot to mention Pierre Sprey in your list, GTX, former Pentagon analyst and member of the "Fighter Mafia." Again, members aren't actually reading what I am writing and going off on their own tangents. I never said that Carlo Kopp, Peter Goon, Elric Palmer, or Winslow Wheeler had the "correct answers. What I am saying is that when Lockheed Martin went into marketing mode, it set cost, development, and delivery schedule expectations. Much of the criticism that is directed at the JSF program is of Lockheed Martin's and the JPO's making by over-promising, under-delivering, and downplaying program risks and technical complexity. Should the customer have known better and have been more skeptical of Lockheed Martin's promises?
Further, contractor's in the JSF program have to fix issues with the aircraft so that it can meet current IOC deadlines. Or when it comes close to the IOC dates, will the JPO and Lockheed Martin have to re-set expectations?
Further, contractor's in the JSF program have to fix issues with the aircraft so that it can meet current IOC deadlines. Or when it comes close to the IOC dates, will the JPO and Lockheed Martin have to re-set expectations?
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,908
- Reaction score
- 11,012
Triton said:
You might want to check Boeing's track record. Last I checked, some of them are doing time for their shenanigans. I can only imagine the levels of hysteria we'd be hearing today had the X-32 been chosen.
SOC said:
Its too bad they all but destroyed their credibility with so many other dubious claims, hyperbole, exaggeration, half truths, double-talk, and sometimes outright lies.
They also don't help themselves when they try to change their position on things...for instance with the Super Hornet. They originally wrote poetically about it being a wonderful aircraft after Kopp flew in it, then completely threw that aside when the RAAF actually purchased them and they proceeded to destroy them:
Original:
http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html
But then later on:
http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html
Of course, adding this disclaimer to their original article just makes it all the funnier ;D:
So I guess things do work differently in the southern hemisphere ... or do they? I guess we will just have to wait to see how many of the northern hemisphere naysayers change their tune on the F-35... :
sferrin said:
So in other words, don't hate the playa; hate the game. :
It will be interesting to see what happens in Canada if they proceed with a competitive and transparent program to replace their 138 McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet fighters. Is public opinion so poisoned against the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II due to the F-35 procurement scandal that the government may go with another contender? The Boeing F-18 Advanced Super Hornet perhaps?
I
