The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

Japan Selects F-35
Posted by Amy Butler at 12/19/2011 9:54 PM CST

The Japan Air Self-Defense Force has selected the F-35A as the winner of its F-X contest for 40-50 aircraft to replace F-4 Phantoms. The single-engine, stealthy Lockheed Martin jet wins over Boeing’s F/A-18E/F and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Eleven nations are now expected to buy the jet, including those in the nine-member partnership established at the beginning of the program and two foreign military sales customers -- Japan and Israel.

Japan’s deal includes a work package for a domestic final-assembly-and-checkout facility much like Italy’s, as well as component and subcomponent build work in country. A value for the work package has not been provided.

Like Israel, the first nation not in the F-35 partnership to sign up for a buy, Tokyo wants its first aircraft in 2016; the contract for these first four F-35As is expected in Japan’s fiscal year 2012, beginning in April.

Japan’s decision is likely the first of more to come in favor of the F-35 in Asia. Singapore is linked with Israel and likely to follow its buy. And, South Korea is a strong possibility as it often seeks to equal Japan in purchasing high-technology defense equipment. Seoul is expected to hold a competition for 60 aircraft next year.

The aircraft for delivery in 2016 will be included in the low-rate initial production lot 8, and they will include the Block 3 software that the U.S. Air Force will require to declare initial operational capability of its new fleet.

The growing number of customers for F-35, backed by Japan’s decision, “reinforces the F-35 value proposition,” says Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 business development VP. This proposition postulates that the more customers that sign on and add to production orders, the lower the F-35 per-unit cost. This remains, however, to be proven by actual contract prices. The Pentagon is now in negotiations with Lockheed Martin over LRIP 5 pricing after the two parties agreed to equally share the “concurrency cost,” or price to retrofit LRIP 5 jets based on findings in the testing program.

O’Bryan says that the company can accommodate additional sales in LRIP 8 to South Korea should the country follow Tokyo’s lead. “There is capacity available,” he told reporters on a late-night teleconference in the United States. “We have tooling available” for more jets in that lot.

With Israel and Japan signing on for deliveries in 2016, it is possible the Pentagon could further slow its early LRIP buys to reduce the concurrency facing Washington’s piece of the program between development and procurement ramp up without disrupting the overall total delivery number in that year.

O’Bryan suggests that Japan selected the F-35 in part because the work package offers workers access to advanced technologies and manufacturing techniques. “If they wanted to purchase more fourth-generation technology of aluminum and other older technologies, they already had that in the F-15 line,” said Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 business development vice president. “With the F-35 they get advanced composite work, automated milling and machining [and] they also get advanced avionics.”

Both losing contestants remain in other competitions around the globe. Boeing has orders to continue its F/A-18E/F work in St. Louis until 2015, including sales to the United States Navy of the Super Hornet and EA-18G jammer model and Australia. The Super Hornet is also vying against the Dassault Rafale and Saab Gripen for a win of Brazil’s pending tender for 36 fighters.

Paul Lewis, a Boeing spokesman, notes that the Super Hornet is also a potential for forthcoming competitions in Malaysia, Denmark the United Arab Emirates and “other Middle Eastern nations.”

Typhoon, widely considered as least likely to win in Japan, remains alive in New Dehli’s competition to build 126 multirole fighters. BAE announced this fall it was cutting the production rate of Typhoons from 53 to 43; the company has a backlog of more than 260 aircraft, with more than 280 delivered.

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ac711918b-7a3b-45f5-9486-d4047341b1f1&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
 

Attachments

  • ef161a22-8ca8-4117-9589-fe6d29a2ad6c.Full.jpg
    ef161a22-8ca8-4117-9589-fe6d29a2ad6c.Full.jpg
    98.5 KB · Views: 750
BBC-news
Tokyo announced it would buy a total of 42 of the Joint Strike Fighters from defence giant Lockheed Martin, in a deal worth some $8bn (£5bn).

AviationWeek has this to say:
Japan announced Dec. 20 (local) it would buy 40-50 fighters from Lockheed Martin under its F-X competition, further solidifying the long-standing security relationship between Washington and Tokyo. The package includes a final assembly and checkout (FACO) facility in Japan as well as work there to build components – potentially including the wings or center fuselage – and subcomponents. Specific details on the value of this FACO facility were not disclosed. Italy has a similar FACO facility estimated to cost about $800 million.
...
Lockheed officials declined to identify a potential contract value, but some analysts estimate it to be worth $8 billion. The contract for the first four jets, likely to be used for training, is expected in Japan’s fiscal 2012, beginning in April.
 
What will this mean for the Japanese future fighter program and indigenous aviation programs? Are future Japanese fighter aircraft designed in Japan now permenently dead?
 
overscan said:
No.


F-35 replaces F-4.


ATD-X replaces F-15.

That's if the Shinshin can be produced economically - if the F-2 program is anything to go by then ATD-X could run into troubles with costs and we could find more F-35s in the pipeline.
 
While the F-4 and F-15 seemed to represent two really different classes of aircraft, I can't see enough distinction between the F-35 and the ATD-X to justify keeping two different types. To me it is more a case of keeping the Japanese industry busy, which is fine... but from a strict budget viewpoint, ordering a bigger batch of F-35s in two versions would be a lot less costly.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
While the F-4 and F-15 seemed to represent two really different classes of aircraft, I can't see enough distinction between the F-35 and the ATD-X to justify keeping two different types. To me it is more a case of keeping the Japanese industry busy, which is fine... but from a strict budget viewpoint, ordering a bigger batch of F-35s in two versions would be a lot less costly.

The ATD-X is merely a technology demonstrator for a mighty be-all end-all 6th generation fighter F-3 that will not only replace the F-15 but also be designed with enough stealth counter-countermeasures to slaughter the J-20 and production version of the PAK-FA in order to ensure security of Japan's airspace for years to come. I'm not sure an F-35 variant would be enough to satisfy the exact scope of what the Japanese are aiming for. I don't know what exactly defines a 6th generation fighter but I'm sure the F-3, once built, will eat F-35s for breakfast with directed energy weapons, cyber-warfare, vastly improved stealth, avionics, and detection equipment, etc.
 
AAAdrone said:
The ATD-X is merely a technology demonstrator for a mighty be-all end-all 6th generation fighter F-3 that will not only replace the F-15 but also be designed with enough stealth counter-countermeasures to slaughter the J-20 and production version of the PAK-FA in order to ensure security of Japan's airspace for years to come. I'm not sure an F-35 variant would be enough to satisfy the exact scope of what the Japanese are aiming for. I don't know what exactly defines a 6th generation fighter but I'm sure the F-3, once built, will eat F-35s for breakfast with directed energy weapons, cyber-warfare, vastly improved stealth, avionics, and detection equipment, etc.
Assuming they can build the aircraft as such by then, given the enormous investment of money and technological development such an aircraft would require.
 
Kryptid said:
AAAdrone said:
The ATD-X is merely a technology demonstrator for a mighty be-all end-all 6th generation fighter F-3 that will not only replace the F-15 but also be designed with enough stealth counter-countermeasures to slaughter the J-20 and production version of the PAK-FA in order to ensure security of Japan's airspace for years to come. I'm not sure an F-35 variant would be enough to satisfy the exact scope of what the Japanese are aiming for. I don't know what exactly defines a 6th generation fighter but I'm sure the F-3, once built, will eat F-35s for breakfast with directed energy weapons, cyber-warfare, vastly improved stealth, avionics, and detection equipment, etc.
Assuming they can build the aircraft as such by then, given the enormous investment of money and technological development such an aircraft would require.

As a prerequisite the de facto ban on exports would need to be abolished - which would be a tall order.
 
starviking said:
Kryptid said:
AAAdrone said:
The ATD-X is merely a technology demonstrator for a mighty be-all end-all 6th generation fighter F-3 that will not only replace the F-15 but also be designed with enough stealth counter-countermeasures to slaughter the J-20 and production version of the PAK-FA in order to ensure security of Japan's airspace for years to come. I'm not sure an F-35 variant would be enough to satisfy the exact scope of what the Japanese are aiming for. I don't know what exactly defines a 6th generation fighter but I'm sure the F-3, once built, will eat F-35s for breakfast with directed energy weapons, cyber-warfare, vastly improved stealth, avionics, and detection equipment, etc.
Assuming they can build the aircraft as such by then, given the enormous investment of money and technological development such an aircraft would require.

As a prerequisite the de facto ban on exports would need to be abolished - which would be a tall order.

Wish they would so they could export that C-2 and XASM-3.
 
sferrin said:
starviking said:
As a prerequisite the de facto ban on exports would need to be abolished - which would be a tall order.

Wish they would so they could export that C-2 and XASM-3.

You might get your wish! NHK News reported that the Defense Minster is seeking to cut the export ban for jointly-developed weapons - perhaps indigenous weapons might follow (though I wouldn't bet on either!)
 
It still feels immensely dumb to not buy the F-35B, but the political image of a set of them flying from their helicopter carrier may be too much to swallow, despite the utility and force projection capability. That, and the B model is likely to be the only model that can realistically handle a drop in laser module upgrade.
 
ouroboros said:
It still feels immensely dumb to not buy the F-35B, but the political image of a set of them flying from their helicopter carrier may be too much to swallow, despite the utility and force projection capability. That, and the B model is likely to be the only model that can realistically handle a drop in laser module upgrade.
To be honest i do think part of the reason for the F-35 selection was to enable them to order F-35B too at a later date, they are already building the ships as the larger follow on to the Hyuga class which do appear ready to support F-35B. With the PLAN carrier now doing sea trials and with the F-35A due to enter service with the JASDF i think the JMSDF will be able convince the public to allow them to operate F-35B to protect their fleet.
With Japanese model Companies doing kits like these:-
http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10149052
You can see them working on public opinion to make such actions acceptable.
 
Thorvic said:
To be honest i do think part of the reason for the F-35 selection was to enable them to order F-35B too at a later date, they are already building the ships as the larger follow on to the Hyuga class which do appear ready to support F-35B. With the PLAN carrier now doing sea trials and with the F-35A due to enter service with the JASDF i think the JMSDF will be able convince the public to allow them to operate F-35B to protect their fleet.

I think there's a great amount of difference between a helicopter carrier and a ship that can carry an effective number of F-35. The core of the JMSDF is 4 anti-submarine squadrons, each with a DDH. The Hyuga and Ise sit at the core of two of these squadrons now, and the new follow-ons to the Hyuga-class will sit at the core of the other two squadrons. F-35B Carriers just don't fit into the current naval structure - which the DDH 22 and DDH ?? are designed to do.
 
starviking said:
I think there's a great amount of difference between a helicopter carrier and a ship that can carry an effective number of F-35.
What is an "effective" number?
 
starviking said:
I think there's a great amount of difference between a helicopter carrier and a ship that can carry an effective number of F-35. The core of the JMSDF is 4 anti-submarine squadrons, each with a DDH. The Hyuga and Ise sit at the core of two of these squadrons now, and the new follow-ons to the Hyuga-class will sit at the core of the other two squadrons. F-35B Carriers just don't fit into the current naval structure - which the DDH 22 and DDH ?? are designed to do.

Force structure reflects strategic need and what need does Japan have for seaborne strike fighters? Their naval requirements are to keep the sea lanes open to America, Australia and South East Asia. There aren’t any hostile islands that need subduing along those lines of communication. In terms of strike against likely threat nations (Russia, North Korea, China) they have plentiful air bases on solid land. The contemporary world isn’t a mirror image of 1941 and Japan has no crucial need for an aircraft carrier.
 
sferrin said:
starviking said:
I think there's a great amount of difference between a helicopter carrier and a ship that can carry an effective number of F-35.
What is an "effective" number?

Enough to fulfil the role assigned to the ship. I'd assume Japan would be focussing on fleet air defense, so perhaps around 10.
 
starviking said:
sferrin said:
starviking said:
I think there's a great amount of difference between a helicopter carrier and a ship that can carry an effective number of F-35.
What is an "effective" number?

Enough to fulfil the role assigned to the ship. I'd assume Japan would be focussing on fleet air defense, so perhaps around 10.

It doesn't take a CVN to do that. Consider how small the HMS Invincible class were.
 
sferrin said:
starviking said:
sferrin said:
starviking said:
I think there's a great amount of difference between a helicopter carrier and a ship that can carry an effective number of F-35.
What is an "effective" number?

Enough to fulfill the role assigned to the ship. I'd assume Japan would be focusing on fleet air defense, so perhaps around 10.

It doesn't take a CVN to do that. Consider how small the HMS Invincible class were.

True, and in fact the 22DDH is a tad bigger than an Invincible - but there's a lot more to operating VSTOL off a ship than having a hangar and flat-top. The 22DDH would need expanded machine shops, a better engine test area, expanded munitions magazines & elevators, jet fueling arrangements, and the second lift expanded. Probably a lot more. As for the hangar - I know it can accommodate F-35s, but does anyone know the clearance of the F-35 for an engine change? That might not be do-able in the maintenance bays.
 
I'm pretty sure if the Japanese wanted a F-35B carrier they would build one specific for the role and the 22DDH is not it. But like I said before they are a long way from needing one. Especially since the USN provides such a dominant carrier TACAIR capability. Now if the US was to slash their carrier force to under 10 and withdraw the Japanese based carrier then we may see the JMSDF AEGIS ships being supplanted by an air defence carrier.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
While the F-4 and F-15 seemed to represent two really different classes of aircraft, I can't see enough distinction between the F-35 and the ATD-X to justify keeping two different types. To me it is more a case of keeping the Japanese industry busy, which is fine... but from a strict budget viewpoint, ordering a bigger batch of F-35s in two versions would be a lot less costly.

Imagine the situation 20 years from now that you are Japan with all its neighbours and some technical issue will ground your F-35 fleet for some two months. And you don't have any other fighter in inventory... Having two independent types of aircraft is for the nation that can afford it and needs to use its military power a very good choice. Turkey seems to follow the same strategy and I expect they wont stay alone.
 
It's also possible the F-35B could fulfill the same role the A-4 Skyhawk did on the Essex ASW conversions, and the Yak-38 was supposed to do for the Kievs--providing a nominal fighter capability. It's not really "fleet air defense" in the sense of intercepting all possible air attacks against the carrier group, it's about being able to provide a credible threat against maritime patrol aircraft or helicopters.

It's an expensive way to go about it, but you'd only need a few.
 
The August 2011 issue of Japan Military Review speculated that the new 24DDH (included in the FY2012 budget) might carry up to 10 F-35Bs, if fitted with a ski jump.


A 24,000-ton carrier with 10 F-35Bs could be a 21st century Hermes which carried about 8 Buccaneers - could be considered as a 1960's "stealth" strike aircraft by flying below radar cover - plus 12 Sea Vixens in the late 1960's.
 
Funnily enough the JMSDF planned a similar vessel, the DDV, in the 1980s - though it got "sunk" due to adverse publicity.

10 Radar-equipped Harriers and 4 AEW Helos would have been the complement, ASM-carrying Soviet bombers the target.

More here (Link courtesy of Grey Havoc)
 
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II pictured with Lockheed P-38 Lightning

Past met present at Edwards AFB, California, as a World War II-era P-38 Lightning was parked next to today's F-35A Lightning II recently. A group of four World War II P-38 pilots shared their stories and feelings about the first Lockheed Lightning with F-35 Test Force personnel at Edwards on 3 October 2011. The two generations of Lightning were brought together to mark the occasion.
Source:
http://sobchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/lightnings.jpg
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?item_id=1693
 

Attachments

  • lightnings.jpg
    lightnings.jpg
    369.3 KB · Views: 533
  • 2011_Spotlight_F35_P38_BD7_2997Xf_1267828237_4715.jpg
    2011_Spotlight_F35_P38_BD7_2997Xf_1267828237_4715.jpg
    66.1 KB · Views: 506
From Ares: A Defense Technology Blog

"JSF 'Acquisition Malpractice' -- Pentagon Procurement Boss"
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 2/6/2012 10:20 AM

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a2a8f87e0-ad8d-4b78-97ac-f87851e1e0c0&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Putting the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter into production before flight testing had started was "acquisition malpractice," acting Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall told an industry group this morning at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The program, Kendall said, had started with "the optimistic prediction that we were good enough at modeling and simulation that we would not find problems in flight test."

"That was wrong, and now we are paying for that," Kendall added.

Kendall -- who has been nominated to the post of undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, and who faces confirmation hearings in a couple of months -- acknowledged that "I am going to make headlines" for the comment, in response to a question from AvWeek's Amy Butler.

Reaffirming the Pentagon's commitment to the program as "the future of tactical air" and echoing the conclusion of the Quick Look Review report, that "we don't at this point see anything that would preclude continuing production at a reasonable rate", Kendall noted that the program is expected to cover 15-20% of remaining testing per year "for the next couple of years" and that "hopefully, we won't see any more serious problems emerge."

Kendall has a sign on his office door that says "In God we trust -- all others, please bring data," and some of his investigations into metrics are changing policies and approaches relative to his predecessor, Ashton Carter.

Forcing fixed-price incentive and firm fixed price contracts into low-rate initial production (LRIP) batches, a big focus of Carter's approach to JSF, "does not make a difference", Kendall says. What counts in LRIP, he told the CSIS audience, is getting to full rate, "and the way you do that is to succeed in LRIP. If you're doing badly you're likely to be canceled."

Kendall wants to start a process of improving the government's acquisition force -- including conversations with all the service chiefs about elevating the status and promotion prospects of acquisition leaders. "This is rocket science," he says. "It takes smart people." One area that needs improvement is competitive technology development, where, he says, contractors all too often "are not trying to reduce risk, but trying to win".

Summing up, Kendall says this is a joke, but I wonder: "We have two problems in acquisition: planning and execution".
 
In the latest issue of (combat aircraft)? Sorry, don't remember the title, there is a great article that agrees with me completely.


It calls for a new lightweight fighter program, and a new replacement for the A-10. It criticizes the extreme cost/weight of the f-35, and questions the one airplane for all purposes concept.


I think they mention a smaller (some stealth) f-5, f-16 class agile lightweight fighter airplane that is affordable in NUMBERS over what the f-35 can offer. Imagine a full scale war where you're few f-35's are lost to attrition, hangar repairs, or happened to get shot down, the military commanders will be begging for more numbers of capable, cheaper aircraft they can put into service.


Again, the f-35 is a good airplane on many ways, but will never be practical due to its cost. Most often decent aircraft in higher numbers win the day, as you see from past full-scale wars.
 
kcran567 said:
Again, the f-35 is a good airplane on many ways, but will never be practical due to its cost. Most often decent aircraft in higher numbers win the day, as you see from past full-scale wars.

And yet each new generation of aircraft has been more expensive than the last, and the number bought dropped as a result.
 
Hobbes said:
kcran567 said:
Again, the f-35 is a good airplane on many ways, but will never be practical due to its cost. Most often decent aircraft in higher numbers win the day, as you see from past full-scale wars.

And yet each new generation of aircraft has been more expensive than the last, and the number bought dropped as a result.

What's funny is how frequently each generation's prophets are shown to be completely wrong. The F-15, Abrams, AH-64, and Bradley were all predicted by some to be extremely expensive waste's of money. They all proved their worth.
 
sferrin said:
Hobbes said:
kcran567 said:
Again, the f-35 is a good airplane on many ways, but will never be practical due to its cost. Most often decent aircraft in higher numbers win the day, as you see from past full-scale wars.

And yet each new generation of aircraft has been more expensive than the last, and the number bought dropped as a result.

What's funny is how frequently each generation's prophets are shown to be completely wrong. The F-15, Abrams, AH-64, and Bradley were all predicted by some to be extremely expensive waste's of money. They all proved their worth.
I wouldn't criticize the F22, (except for the deadly OBOGS and its brass ring backup) but I don't think it's ever going to get the chance to prove its worth.
 
sublight said:
sferrin said:
Hobbes said:
kcran567 said:
Again, the f-35 is a good airplane on many ways, but will never be practical due to its cost. Most often decent aircraft in higher numbers win the day, as you see from past full-scale wars.

And yet each new generation of aircraft has been more expensive than the last, and the number bought dropped as a result.

What's funny is how frequently each generation's prophets are shown to be completely wrong. The F-15, Abrams, AH-64, and Bradley were all predicted by some to be extremely expensive waste's of money. They all proved their worth.
I wouldn't criticize the F22, (except for the deadly OBOGS and its brass ring backup) but I don't think it's ever going to get the chance to prove its worth.

Yeah they probably said the same thing about the B-1B. 50 years is a long time.
 
sferrin said:
What's funny is how frequently each generation's prophets are shown to be completely wrong. The F-15, Abrams, AH-64, and Bradley were all predicted by some to be extremely expensive waste's of money. They all proved their worth.

I believe that we won't know whether the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program was the correct decision to make until the last F-35 is retired from service and we can evaluate the program through its entire service life. None of us has a crystal ball and can predict the next 20 to 30 years with any certainty. It's just too early to tell whether the F-35 decision was the right one or the wrong one.

The F-35 program is the most expensive ever undertaken by the Department of Defense. Remember to that the selection of the Lockheed Martin and Boeing designs during down selection attributed to the demise of McDonnell Douglas. I also presume that there are stakeholders in the Boeing X-32 program who wish that the X-32 was chosen over the X-35. There are also competitors to Lockheed Martin who I presume would be delighted if the F-35 program was cancelled, or the number of aircraft purchased reduced, and the fighter business was given to them.

Therefore, during the F-35 program's lifetime, commentators will continue to make judgments concerning the F-35 program and the opportunity costs associated with it. It's important to remain civil on this discussion board and to be tolerant of the differing opinions concerning the F-35 program and other possible fighter solutions during the lifetime of the F-35 program.
 
sferrin said:
What's funny is how frequently each generation's prophets are shown to be completely wrong. The F-15, Abrams, AH-64, and Bradley were all predicted by some to be extremely expensive waste's of money. They all proved their worth.

This inspires two reflections:

1°) If they claimed to be prophets and were proven wrong, then they were false prophets. Wait? Didn't these use to be lapidated in olden days?
2°) With all these criticized types that did a fantastic job, one can't help but wonder what careers the less fortunate ones (the one that fell victim to the voices of doom) might have enjoyed...
 
Triton said:
I believe that we won't know whether the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program was the correct decision to make until the last F-35 is retired from service and we can evaluate the program through its entire service life. None of us has a crystal ball and can predict the next 20 to 30 years with any certainty. It's just too early to tell whether the F-35 decision was the right one or the wrong one.
But when you have a program that's a trillion plus dollars then we're talking about the kind of money where you could just BUY the country you're having problems with instead of making fighters to bomb it....

The cost/benefit ratio is getting extremely thin.
 
sublight said:
But when you have a program that's a trillion plus dollars then we're talking about the kind of money where you could just BUY the country you're having problems with instead of making fighters to bomb it....

The cost/benefit ratio is getting extremely thin.

The trillion dollar figure that is thrown around is misleading because it is the guestimated cost of the F-35 program of 2,443 aircraft over its entire 55-year life cycle! It presumes a 25-year production cycle and then a 30-year service life. In addition, the projected cost of fuel, parts, upgrades, and related construction costs is also included with a multiplier intended to account for 55 years of price inflation.

Source:
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2011/July%202011/0711edit.aspx
 
Triton said:
sublight said:
But when you have a program that's a trillion plus dollars then we're talking about the kind of money where you could just BUY the country you're having problems with instead of making fighters to bomb it....

The cost/benefit ratio is getting extremely thin.

The trillion dollar figure that is thrown around is misleading because it is the guestimated cost of the F-35 program of 2,443 aircraft over its entire 55-year life cycle! It presumes a 25-year production cycle and then a 30-year service life. In addition, the projected cost of fuel, parts, upgrades, and related construction costs is also included with a multiplier intended to account for 55 years of price inflation.

Source:
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2011/July%202011/0711edit.aspx

Dude, throwing facts around when discussing the F-35 is no way to make friends. ;)
 
Triton said:
sublight said:
But when you have a program that's a trillion plus dollars then we're talking about the kind of money where you could just BUY the country you're having problems with instead of making fighters to bomb it....

The cost/benefit ratio is getting extremely thin.

The trillion dollar figure that is thrown around is misleading because it is the guestimated cost of the F-35 program of 2,443 aircraft over its entire 55-year life cycle! It presumes a 25-year production cycle and then a 30-year service life. In addition, the projected cost of fuel, parts, upgrades, and related construction costs is also included with a multiplier intended to account for 55 years of price inflation.

Source:
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2011/July%202011/0711edit.aspx
The cost over 55 years makes the pill a bit less bitter, but I would lay hard money down that it wont be in US service in 30 years, much less 55! We are in an age of accelerating technological advancements and I think the service lives of platforms will get shorter and shorter iterations. But I bet the prices wont get smaller with them. The REAL challenge ahead is deciding how much money to lay into a platform based on the knowledge it will be obsolete faster than any platform before it.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom