The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[dannydale]

so you can assume there wont be any gay beach volleyball in this movie

Ah dangit, that's the best part!

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Defence Management

02 March 2012

'The government must end the uncertainty over its F-35 plans'

Labour's Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy has called on Defence Secretary Philip Hammond to give a full and public explanation of the future of the carrier programme. Below is the full text of Murphy's letter calling for greater clarity on the size and nature of the UK's F-35 order

Dear Philip,

I am writing regarding worrying suggestions concerning the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter programme and the possible impact on the future construction of the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier. There are increasing fears in the United States and in other countries that the proposed programme for aircraft for our new aircraft carriers will not be completed to time and on budget. There are real worries that time and money may have been wasted.

It is vital that there is now clarity on the government's plans for this vital area of the defence equipment programme. In particular the public need to know whether the government are proceeding with the plans outlined in the SDSR to introduce the carrier variant of the JSF in 2020, and whether any consideration is being given to reversing the decision to abandon the Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing variant of the F-35.

Decisions taken by the Coalition government in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review significantly distorted UK carrier strike capability. The decision to scrap the Harrier fleet means the UK will have no carrier aircraft capability from 2011-2020 and then only one operational carrier. The SDSR decision to change the aircraft flown from the carrier from the STOVL variant to the carrier variant of the JSF required significant and costly modification to the operational carrier with the installation of catapult and arrestor gear. These modifications introduced greater cost and delay to the programme. The in-service date of the new carrier was extended from 2016 to "around 2020", as stated in the SDSR, and the Public Accounts Committee has said that the cost of conversion will be up to £1.2 billion, but that the Department does not expect to have a better understanding of total costs until the end of this year. Both the PAC and the National Audit Office conclude that this decision has increased uncertainties around cost, technical, safety and commercial issues.

This uncertainty is increased by the rising cost of the unit price of the JSF. There have been delays in the US order of F-35, a cut in the Italian order and signals that other countries may follow suit. The overall cost of the programme is now unknown, as was confirmed by the Minister for Defence Equipment and Procurement in Defence Questions on 20th February.

I am concerned that the cost of conversion combined with the increased unit cost could be prohibitive to the plans as outlined in the SDSR being realised. Indeed, we have already learnt that on current plans the UK will have just six operational JSF aircraft in 2020, which is an insufficient capability. The SDSR itself stated: "the single carrier will therefore routinely have 12 fast jets embarked for operations while retaining the capacity to deploy up to the 36 previously planned."

It is now time for a full and public explanation of government plans in order to give the defence community and the country confidence. In particular we need to know what consideration the Government is giving to returning to the STOVL variant, which may reduce costs, bring forward the in-service date and retain interoperability with our allies, notably the US Marine Corps.

There is a need for clarity on this strategic defence project for the sake of our nation and the thousands of high-skilled jobs that rely on certainty about this project.

I hope you will answer the concerns expressed within this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Rt Hon Jim Murphy MP Shadow Secretary of State for Defence

The Guardian

Thursday 1 March 2012 14.21 EST UK aircraft carrier plans in confusion as ministers revisit square one

By Richard Norton-Taylor

Decision expected by Easter on which US joint strike fighter Britain will buy: ministers now want to revert to original choice

Britain's troubled and increasingly expensive plan to equip the navy with new aircraft carriers has been plunged into fresh turmoil as ministers consider reversing their earlier decision to change the type of plane that should fly from them, it has emerged.

The government announced in last autumn's strategic defence review that it had decided to buy the "cats and flaps" (catapults and arrester gear) version of the US joint strike fighter. This would have a "longer range and greater payload ... the critical requirement for precision-strike operations in the future", the government stated.

Moreover, the government added, it will be cheaper. It would also enable French planes to land on British carriers, and vice versa, inkeeping with the new UK-French defence spirit of co-operation.

Now, in an extraordinary volte-face, the Ministry of Defence says the "cats and flaps" planes may well be cheaper but it would be too expensive to redesign a carrier – more than £1bn – to accommodate them. The ministry is thus faced with the prospect of renegotiating a deal with the US, reverting to its original plan –namely buying the short take-off and vertical landing version of the aircraft, even though it is acknowledged to be less effective and more expensive .

The latest chapter in the troubled saga of Britain's future aircraft carriers – whose own estimated costs have soared – was raised on Thursday in a letter to the defence secretary, Philip Hammond, from Jim Murphy, his Labour opposite number.

Murphy referred to "worrying suggestions" that the government was about to change its mind about the kind of aircraft to buy from the US. "It is vital that there is now clarity on the government's plans for this vital area of the defence equipment programme," he wrote.

Murphy said the decision in the defence review to scrap the Harrier fleet meant the UK would have no carrier aircraft capability until 2020 – and then only one carrier would be operational.

Defence officials said that the government was "re-assessing" its earlier decision because, they indicated, of pressures on the defence budget.

HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first carrier, will be mothballed immediately it is launched in 2016, according to existing plans. The second, HMS Prince of Wales, will be able to put to sea by 2020, but it is not known how many planes will be able to fly from it – nor what kind.

The two carriers, originally priced at £3.5bn, are now estimated to cost £6.2bn. According to the Commons public accounts committee, the cost is likely to increase to as much as £12bn.

The government, which originally said it wanted more than 100 joint strike fighters, says that it will have just six operational ones by 2020. The unit cost of the joint strike fighter, made by Lockheed Martin, has soared because of production problems and delays caused by US defence budget cuts. Britain's BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce have big stakes in a future deal adapting the joint strike fighter for British forces.

A spokesperson for the MoD said: "We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the equipment plan. As part of this process, we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed. The defence secretary expects to announce the outcome of this process to parliament before Easter."

The Telegraph

6:20AM GMT 02 Mar 2012 Navy aircraft carrier plans hit by further delays

Britain could be left without an aircraft carrier equipped with fighter jets for the next decade after soaring costs threw Ministry of Defence plans into doubt.

The Defence Secretary is to reconsider plans for up to 50 new fighter jets, which have been billed as the world’s most advanced warplanes, after the government admitted it had no idea what the programme would cost.

The rethink also comes amid fears that a design flaw in the new Joint Strike Fighter makes it unable to land on aircraft carriers. Leaked Pentagon documents found the plane had failed eight simulated landings.

A redesign is likely to prove costly and delay the project meaning that when Britain’s only aircraft carrier comes into service in 2020 it may have no jets.

Philip Hammond may be forced to choose an alternative model of the Joint Strike Fighter, which would throw into doubt an agreement between France and Britain to share weapons and equipment, including aircraft carriers .

Ministers are currently reviewing the “risks” and expect to make an announcement to MPs on the future of the programme before Easter.

The decision to scrap the Harrier fleet means that Britain will have no carrier aircraft capability between 2011 and 2020. The next aircraft carrier, the Queen Elizabeth will not be operational for another eight years.

However, fears have been raised that further delays could result from it.

Jim Murphy, Labour’s shadow defence secretary, wrote to Mr Hammond last night, demanding urgent assurances on the future of the Joint Strike Fighter programme.

“There are increasing fears in the United States and in other countries that the proposed programme for aircraft for our new aircraft carriers will not be completed to time and on budget,” he said.

“There are real worries that time and money may have been wasted.

“It is vital that there is now clarity on the Government’s plans for this vital area of the defence equipment programme.”

The F-35C Joint Strike Fighters were chosen as the MoD’s preferred aircraft to replace the Harrier jet because it would be easy to operate from aircraft carriers belonging to military allies of the UK.

The planes are being built in America with expertise from Britain and other partner countries.

However, the “carrier variant” of the F-35s require modifications to be made to aircraft carriers, including fitting them with catapults and arrestor gear for take-off and landing.

When a fighter lands on a carrier the arrestor cable catches a hook attached to the aircraft, preventing it from overshooting and ditching into the sea.

Early trials of the model caused major concerns in the United States after the hook design was found to be flawed.

In January, it was reported that Pentagon documents found that a design flaw in the fighter had caused eight simulated landings to fail.

The cost of the programme is likely to increase after the Pentagon postponed orders for 179 planes for five years to allow more testing.

These delays and pressure to rein in spending at the MoD are believed to have contributed to the decision to review the British orders for the jets.

Development of the fighter is being jointly funded by Britain, the US, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Canada and the Netherlands.

Military sources said the early design problems were not the major cause of the review.

Mr Murphy added: “It is now time for a full and public explanation of Government plans in order to give the defence community and the country confidence,” he said.

The US government then decided to delay its order for the carrier variant jets and instead invest in the alternative model, which features a short take-off and vertical landing capability.

There have also been reports that Australia and Canada are reconsidering their investment in the carrier-variant model of the jets.

The Defence Equipment Minister, Peter Luff, confirmed to MPs that the uncertainty meant that the cost of the British order was likely to rise, adding that “the honest answer is that we do not know” how much the final bill will be.

In 2010, France and Britain signed a defence and security co-operation treaty in which the two countries agreed to share weapons and equipment, including aircraft carriers.

Work is already underway, with British pilots learning French in preparation for deployment on France’s aircraft carrier.

MoD sources said the carrier variant of the JSF was easier than the vertical landing model to deploy from French and American aircraft carriers. However, design difficulties are not thought to be insurmountable.

A spokesman for the MoD said no decision had been taken on the future of the programme but insisted that ministers are “committed” to a new “carrier strike capability” from around 2020.

“We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the equipment plan,” the spokesman said.

“As part of this process we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed.

“The Defence Secretary expects to announce the outcome of this process to Parliament before Easter.”

Im betting the UK changes its mind about four more times before this is all said and done I guess someone finally did the math and realized it was cheaper to buy the F-35B rather than redesigning an entire ship.

 

[kulus]

Pentagon Relaxes Two F-35 Perfomance Targets
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/133255/pentagon-relaxes-f_35-performance-targets.html
Strange way to achieve perfomance targets

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Pentagon Relaxes Two F-35 Perfomance Targets
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/133255/pentagon-relaxes-f_35-performance-targets.html
Strange way to achieve perfomance targets

The U.S. Air Force’s top uniformed officer played down changes to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s requirements that allow the multibillion-dollar jet to meet flight test goals.

Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, told members of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee that reducing the combat radius of the F-35A by five miles is more cost-effective than modifying the fighter to meet performance goals set a decade ago.

“The difference between the key performance parameter for distance versus the estimate for performance is five miles,” Schwartz said at the March 6 hearing. “The question to me is: How much do we want to invest in order to recover that five-mile margin? It was a judgment call and I think not an unreasonable one.”

Last week, InsideDefense.com reported that the Pentagon had shortened the combat radius requirements for the F-35A, the Air Force version of the fighter jet. The website also reported that DoD officials had increased the take-off length of the of the F-35B, the Marine Corps version.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120306/DEFREG02/303060008/Schwartz-Defends-Reduced-Combat-Radius-F-35

 

[kulus]

F-35 in trainining flights http://defense-update.com/20120307_f35a_training.html

 

[kulus]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/133433/f_35-unit-cost-tops-%24200m.html
dearnese better to buy improved F/A-18

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/133433/f_35-unit-cost-tops-%24200m.html
dearnese better to buy improved F/A-18

Cheaper yes, better no. This is still initial low rate production, that won't be the final sticker price.

 

[sferrin]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/133433/f_35-unit-cost-tops-%24200m.html
dearnese better to buy improved F/A-18

It can't be "improved" enough to equal an F-35. Deal with it.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/133433/f_35-unit-cost-tops-%24200m.html
dearnese better to buy improved F/A-18

It can't be "improved" enough to equal an F-35. Deal with it.

 

[sferrin]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/133433/f_35-unit-cost-tops-%24200m.html
dearnese better to buy improved F/A-18

It can't be "improved" enough to equal an F-35. Deal with it.

Oh ho, that's a keeper.

 

[RyanC]

Cheaper yes, better no. This is still initial low rate production, that won't be the final sticker price.

That's the thing. In order to get the cheap ass F-35, several hundred have to be built first of the *final* design configuration.

We still haven't finalized the configuration (look at all the problems recently); and even once it's finalized, the first production aircraft will cost a shedload.

Someone is going to have to buy those. And it's going to be the US that will be stuck with the early F-35s which need expensive rework to bring up to combat status, while our allies wait for the relatively cheap F-35 mid-life buys.

 

[sferrin]

Cheaper yes, better no. This is still initial low rate production, that won't be the final sticker price.

That's the thing. In order to get the cheap ass F-35, several hundred have to be built first of the *final* design configuration.

We still haven't finalized the configuration (look at all the problems recently); and even once it's finalized, the first production aircraft will cost a shedload.

Someone is going to have to buy those. And it's going to be the US that will be stuck with the early F-35s which need expensive rework to bring up to combat status, while our allies wait for the relatively cheap F-35 mid-life buys.

Sounds like what we did with the F-16. How many did we buy that had no BVR and limited strike capability? Hundreds.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Cheaper yes, better no. This is still initial low rate production, that won't be the final sticker price.

That's the thing. In order to get the cheap ass F-35, several hundred have to be built first of the *final* design configuration.

We still haven't finalized the configuration (look at all the problems recently); and even once it's finalized, the first production aircraft will cost a shedload.

Someone is going to have to buy those. And it's going to be the US that will be stuck with the early F-35s which need expensive rework to bring up to combat status, while our allies wait for the relatively cheap F-35 mid-life buys.

Sounds like what we did with the F-16. How many did we buy that had no BVR and limited strike capability? Hundreds.

exactly, its nothing new. The final batch of F-14s were block 170's and then they were still being upgraded up to 2004. Its a constant evolution.

You may also like:

 

[Racer]

..which is still faster than an F-35

 

[Abraham Gubler]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/133433/f_35-unit-cost-tops-%24200m.html
dearnese better to buy improved F/A-18

It can't be "improved" enough to equal an F-35. Deal with it.

Oh ho, that's a keeper.

There is a big difference between an X-35 and an F-35. Otherwise the project wouldn't be running late and over budget. Many of the issues Lockheed face in turning the X-35 into the F-35 - that is cutting weight and sticking lots of mission systems on-board - would not be so hard with the X-32 design. Contemporary stealthy systems fighters need to go out of their way to accommodate huge weights for mission systems. This was the big lesson of the ATF project that had not sunk in for the JSF down select. Either that or Boeings poor showing with the hover trials and a Texan President wanting a Texan project all lead to the current mess.

 

[sferrin]

There is a big difference between an X-35 and an F-35. Otherwise the project wouldn't be running late and over budget. Many of the issues Lockheed face in turning the X-35 into the F-35 - that is cutting weight and sticking lots of mission systems on-board - would not be so hard with the X-32 design. Contemporary stealthy systems fighters need to go out of their way to accommodate huge weights for mission systems. This was the big lesson of the ATF project that had not sunk in for the JSF down select. Either that or Boeings poor showing with the hover trials and a Texan President wanting a Texan project all lead to the current mess.

I'm sure you're aware that Boeing's design was so poor they intended to completely change it's design vs. what they actually flew. Also its mode of propulsion would have made any weight increases much more problematic with the STOVL version. And I'm pretty sure George Bush didn't personally select the winner. Boeing's design was a dog, and an exceptionally ugly one at that.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'm sure you're aware that Boeing's design was so poor they intended to completely change it's design vs. what they actually flew.

No they didn’t. There was nothing “wrong” about their original design just the USN changed the control requirements during the project meaning Boeing had to install a conventional tail to meet the changed requirements. It meant very, very little for the design of the aircraft though it may have looked very different to a casual observer.

Also its mode of propulsion would have made any weight increases much more problematic with the STOVL version.

Using engine thrust alone for vertical lift may make weight increases more problematical if all things were equal but they weren’t. Boeing’s aerostructure design was far lighter. Boeing’s mission systems integration was far lighter. Also the engine was far lighter (no lift fan). Which makes weight increases far less significant. Also any weight increase becomes a plus, plus game with the engine thrust to maintain vertical lift. And the engine has shown considerable thrust increases.

And I'm pretty sure George Bush didn't personally select the winner. Boeing's design was a dog, and an exceptionally ugly one at that.

Well the chief executive tends to have a bigger say than anyone else in the organisation. Look to how GDFW lost the FB-111H to NAR for the B-1B under Reagan as a good indicator. To call the Boeing design a dog and make fun of its looks just shows a considerable degree of ignorance to aircraft design and the JSF project. Confirmed by the factually incorrect assumptions you made above.

 

[Broncazonk]

Abraham Gubler wrote, "To call the Boeing design a dog and make fun of its looks just shows a considerable degree of ignorance to aircraft design and the JSF project." The X-32 lost because it was so DAMNED ugly. (That's a catagorical statement.) Furthermore, the X-32 deserved to lose because it was so DAMNED ugly. Everythime I see a picture of that thing the word, "abomination" comes to mind... For God's sake, what was Boeing thinking.

Bronc

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The X-32 lost because it was so DAMNED ugly. (That's a catagorical statement.) Furthermore, the X-32 deserved to lose because it was so DAMNED ugly. Everythime I see a picture of that thing the word, "abomination" comes to mind... For God's sake, what was Boeing thinking.

They were probably thinking how can we design an aircraft to meet the specification... A plane that needs to carry a heap of weapons, fuel and black boxes internally yet be light enough for vertical landing. And to be built to a budget.

What an awful shame Lockheed weren’t thinking the same. Otherwise we could have the JSF in service now without having to spend an extra X billion dollars. Further for the beauty is skin deep crew with a proper grey paint job compared to the experimental duck white and the production intake it didn’t look so bad.

The ugly duckling could have become a lethal grey swan.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

I always thought the X-32 was an engineering marvel. Much simpler solution ergo less weight. It's an honest straightforward design really.

 

[tacitblue]

The X-32 lost because it was so DAMNED ugly. (That's a catagorical statement.) Furthermore, the X-32 deserved to lose because it was so DAMNED ugly. Everythime I see a picture of that thing the word, "abomination" comes to mind... For God's sake, what was Boeing thinking.

They were probably thinking how can we design an aircraft to meet the specification... A plane that needs to carry a heap of weapons, fuel and black boxes internally yet be light enough for vertical landing. And to be built to a budget.

What an awful shame Lockheed weren’t thinking the same. Otherwise we could have the JSF in service now without having to spend an extra X billion dollars. Further for the beauty is skin deep crew with a proper grey paint job compared to the experimental duck white and the production intake it didn’t look so bad.

The ugly duckling could have become a lethal grey swan.

Yeah, ditto. The plane was ugly, yes. The plane was also quite aerodynamic from my armchair QB position. Between the X-35 and the X-32, both of them couldn't be 3rd runners up in a beauty contest even if the judges were deaf, dumb, and blind.
I'd be willing to wager a dollar or two that the X-32 (F-32) would have been a little faster than the F-35. Despite being so asethetically unappealing to human beings, the X-32 doesn't have all the bulbous features of the -35, and looks like its got a small frontal cross-section, both traits which may have meant the -32 might have met or exceeded the accelleration performance required, in which the F-35 failed because it is so fat (wide) and has bulbous weapons bays.
Roll rates don't look like they'd be too good in the -32, but if it has thrust vectoring, then that would have aided in turn radius, and pitch qualities for the Navy. Really, the -32 wasn't that bad and it would have been redesigned if selected, so who knows...

 

[sferrin]

No they didn’t. There was nothing “wrong” about their original design just the USN changed the control requirements during the project meaning Boeing had to install a conventional tail to meet the changed requirements. It meant very, very little for the design of the aircraft though it may have looked very different to a casual observer.

It would have been a 4-tail, conventional wing, instead of a delta. Very different. The only way it could have been more different is if they'd added variable geometry as well. Different loads, different aerodynamics, different weight.

Using engine thrust alone for vertical lift may make weight increases more problematical if all things were equal but they weren’t. Boeing’s aerostructure design was far lighter. Boeing’s mission systems integration was far lighter. Also the engine was far lighter (no lift fan). Which makes weight increases far less significant. Also any weight increase becomes a plus, plus game with the engine thrust to maintain vertical lift. And the engine has shown considerable thrust increases.

It had to be far lighter due to it's less efficient use of engine power. Despite it's higher weight, the X-35 had plenty of margin whereas the X-32 had to be taken down to sea level and leave parts on the ground just to do vertical flight.

Well the chief executive tends to have a bigger say than anyone else in the organisation. Look to how GDFW lost the FB-111H to NAR for the B-1B under Reagan as a good indicator.

Seriously? The FB-111H was in no way anywhere near as capable as the B-1B. Grasping at politics to explain that decision reeks of despiration.

To call the Boeing design a dog and make fun of its looks just shows a considerable degree of ignorance to aircraft design and the JSF project. Confirmed by the factually incorrect assumptions you made above.

Which "factually incorrect assumptions" did I make? If anything, it sounds like you are the one making laughable assumptions. [/quote][/quote][/quote]

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It would have been a 4-tail, conventional wing, instead of a delta. Very different. The only way it could have been more different is if they'd added variable geometry as well. Different loads, different aerodynamics, different weight.

LOL. Mate you don’t know what you are talking about. The wing hardly changed at all. They just chopped off a b it at the back so as to fit in the new tail. The structure of the wing, you know the bit that holds the plane together, all of its fuel, generate lift and all that hardly changed at all. There was weight gain from the extra tail but that was to meet a new minimum requirement and hardly a game changer. As to your comment about VG that is so wrong it isn’t funny.

It had to be far lighter due to it's less efficient use of engine power. Despite it's higher weight, the X-35 had plenty of margin whereas the X-32 had to be taken down to sea level and leave parts on the ground just to do vertical flight.

Less efficient to not be carrying around a tonne or two of redundant lift fan? LOL. Direct thrust is more efficient it’s just hotter which causes other problems. No one is refuting the reality that the X-32 had trouble with vertical lift. But it was a demonstrator not the finished product. What was important was the weight and lift of the F-32B in this regard.

Seriously? The FB-111H was in no way anywhere near as capable as the B-1B. Grasping at politics to explain that decision reeks of despiration.

It wasn’t a unit for unit capability based competition. It was force versus force and there were many more FB-111Hs on offer than B-1s. You are just inputting more ignorance into your flawed decision making again.

Which "factually incorrect assumptions" did I make? If anything, it sounds like you are the one making laughable assumptions.

All of the above plus the others in the first exchange. In short your claims about the reasons why and level of the X-32 redesign plus now your lack of understanding of the FB-111H vs B-1B decision.

 

[Broncazonk]

My previous post was tongue in cheek commentary--obviously. Serious question though: Are 'ugly' designs (designs without any aesthetic appeal whatsoever) discriminated against in the selection process? Does anyone have evidence, even anecdotal evidence, of this ever occurring with anything?

Bronc

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

so who knows...

And that's the Crux of the problem. There is no alternate universe machine to check and see how it would have gone had the X-32 been selected. I doubt given the complexity of the JSF concept that F-32 would have sailed through without issues/ redesigns. It would have a lot of problems, different problems, but still problems that most likely would cause delays and monetary heartache. Maybe it would have done just peachy and would be in service right now. But we won't ever know.

Both had pros and cons at testing and these were weighed and measured and the F-35 (for a myriad of reasons, including im guessing classified stuff that was never publicly mentioned)

 

[shedofdread]

Something that was raised in the UK Carriers thread has got me thinking - if the FAA / Joint Lightning Force / Whatever is to have the 'C' (and I'm aware there's an 'if' in there), what is to be done re carrier tanking? In the good / bad old days, Buccs could refuel Buccs so will F35 get a buddy system? Just pondering...

 

[GTX]

so will F35 get a buddy system? Just pondering...

Interesting. I don't recall seeing it ever raised as a option or similar. Though there should be no technical reason why it couldn't be done. I will ask the question.


Regards,


Greg

 

[GTX]

Someone is going to have to buy those. And it's going to be the US that will be stuck with the early F-35s which need expensive rework to bring up to combat status, while our allies wait for the relatively cheap F-35 mid-life buys.

Actually, increasingly, the foreign partners and FMS customers will be getting many of the aircraft from the first LRIPs. The US are still taking the majority, but their proportion is reducing. It is not the case that non-US are simply waiting for "cheap F-35 mid-life buys".

 

[LowObservable]

Actually, increasingly, the foreign partners and FMS customers will be getting many of the aircraft from the first LRIPs.


We'll see how that shakes out in reality versus MoUs. It's the kind of situation seen in game theory. Individually, partners benefit from sliding to the right and moving buys into FRP, but if they all do it, FRP gets delayed again and the promised land of 200+ jets/year may never be reached at all.

The fans may have a good laugh at Boeing, but the simple fact is that LockMart won the competition with a design that couldn't be built at anything like the target OEW, or in the promised time or cost.

The core truth is that the required performance, cost and schedule was probably unattainable.

 

[sublight]

You know the whole point of having three different variants based on the same design was for cost savings based on parts/platform commonality. In all these different debates in this thread over the platform, I have yet to see one where the commonality cost savings were actually demonstrated. It seems as though the inverse has come to pass, the commonality increased the cost/complexity of the platform. Have they given up trying to prove there is still a cost savings, or is there some factual propaganda proving the savings out there?

 

[GTX]

I have yet to see one where the commonality cost savings were actually demonstrated... or is there some factual propaganda proving the savings out there?

Ignoring for a moment the deliberately antagonistic use of "propaganda", exactly what sort of information would you want to see? Here is the cost with commonality vs here is it without? Exactly how is anyone supposed to give that information without being accused of bias?


All I can say is that when it comes to subsystems (where the real commonality lies), having larger numbers to produce (say 90 instead of three lots of 30) certainly leads to cost savings since one moves down cost curves much, much faster. Similarly, commonality also saves greatly in training and operating costs.

 

[sublight]

I have yet to see one where the commonality cost savings were actually demonstrated... or is there some factual propaganda proving the savings out there?

Ignoring for a moment the deliberately antagonistic use of "propaganda", exactly what sort of information would you want to see? Here is the cost with commonality vs here is it without? Exactly how is anyone supposed to give that information without being accused of bias?

Let me assure you my use of the word "propaganda" is not to antagonize, but to lampoon the "tone" of the data/marketing presented by the contractor. What I am interested in hearing is if members think a program that created a shared A/C version and a completely separate design of a STOVL platform would have been cheaper than the current situation. Especially since an A/C version would have had a lot more commonality and WAY less tradeoff's if not for the presence of the B version.

 

[GTX]

Apart from the different propulsion system or more specifically the lift system since the core engine is still the same and the slight airframe modifications to achieve that where do you think these supposed savings would come from? As I stated above, at the sub system level the commonality between all three variants is extremely high. In fact, reducing the program to a A/C + seperate B style like you appear to suggest would potentially increase overall costs.

 

[sublight]

I have yet to see one where the commonality cost savings were actually demonstrated... or is there some factual propaganda proving the savings out there?

Ignoring for a moment the deliberately antagonistic use of "propaganda", exactly what sort of information would you want to see? Here is the cost with commonality vs here is it without? Exactly how is anyone supposed to give that information without being accused of bias?


All I can say is that when it comes to subsystems (where the real commonality lies), having larger numbers to produce (say 90 instead of three lots of 30) certainly leads to cost savings since one moves down cost curves much, much faster. Similarly, commonality also saves greatly in training and operating costs.

But aren't the subsystems like electronics, actuators, etc common to many planes and not just the JSF? I think EHAS will be in many platforms including commercial aircraft.

 

[sublight]

Apart from the different propulsion system or more specifically the lift system since the core engine is still the same and the slight airframe modifications to achieve that where do you think these supposed savings would come from? As I stated above, at the sub system level the commonality between all three variants is extremely high. In fact, reducing the program to a A/C + seperate B style like you appear to suggest would potentially increase overall costs.

No, I am not suggesting doing this now. I am asking what the cost consequences would have been if this had been done in the first place.

 

[GTX]

But aren't the subsystems like electronics, actuators, etc common to many planes and not just the JSF? I think EHAS will be in many platforms including commercial aircraft.

Generally not, though some are potentially finding application on other platforms AFTER they were developed for the F-35.

 

[GTX]

No, I am not suggesting doing this now. I am asking what the cost consequences would have been if this had been done in the first place.

Well now we are in the realm of total speculation and no-one can say what would have been the truth. I might say it would have been more expensive and you might say less expensive. Regardless of which viewpoint, there is no way of proving it one way or another (without the aid of a time machine ;D that is).

 

[sublight]

Well now we are in the realm of total speculation and no-one can say what would have been the truth. I might say it would have been more expensive and you might say less expensive. Regardless of which viewpoint, there is no way of proving it one way or another (without the aid of a time machine ;D that is).

The contractor says high unit price is due to the complexities of the design. The heightened complexity of the design can be directly attributed to the inclusion of the STOVL variant can it not?

 

[sferrin]

Well now we are in the realm of total speculation and no-one can say what would have been the truth. I might say it would have been more expensive and you might say less expensive. Regardless of which viewpoint, there is no way of proving it one way or another (without the aid of a time machine ;D that is).

The contractor says high unit price is due to the complexities of the design. The heightened complexity of the design can be directly attributed to the inclusion of the STOVL variant can it not?

Even if you broke them out into three seperate designs you'd still have to account for a stealthy STOVL.

 

[GTX]

The heightened complexity of the design can be directly attributed to the inclusion of the STOVL variant can it not?

No it cannot. The requirements driven by the inclusion of the STOVL variant are just one aspect of the complexity. Even without it though, this platform (or any equivalent) would be highly complex and thus expensive. That is the nature of the game...especially when your customer keeps changing their mind and wanting a supposed low risk solution!