The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[TaiidanTomcat]

TT - Lost you on the $47 million difference between the number you pulled out of your right ear and the one you pulled out of your left, since you never did come up with anything to suggest that the $107 mil from a news aggregator covered the same things as an APUC, a flyaway or anything else.

No Abraham G. laid all that out. You refused to accept it. You have been sputtering with semantics ever since. He put all his numbers out there and you mumbled something about things being different in Europe. Maybe 3.1 billion isn't a lot for 22 jets or something? Maybe the Swiss version of a Billion is different?

if it was up to me I would just buy some 22 F-16s and pay the extra 2K CPFH. especially since as PaulMM says the price of gas will go up, along with inflation. So the swiss are essentially paying an exorbitant price up front, and then will have to continue to pay increased costs over the decades. They may never get their "savings" back. Which I believe is also a reason SAAB got spanked in the Norway competition

 

[chuck4]

Let all who shout and yet are not willing to bet a thousand dollars on their respective position about the F-35, payable in 2030 using 2012 US dollars, shoot themselves in the ass with an elephant tranquilizer dart gun.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Let all who shout and yet are not willing to bet a thousand dollars on their respective position about the F-35, payable in 2030 using 2012 US dollars, shoot themselves in the ass with an elephant tranquilizer dart gun.

I would gladly put 1K on the F-35

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

TT - Lost you on the $47 million difference between the number you pulled out of your right ear and the one you pulled out of your left, since you never did come up with anything to suggest that the $107 mil from a news aggregator covered the same things as an APUC, a flyaway or anything else.

Found on F16.net:

Budget Gripen E: Swiss
22 Gripens: CHF 3,126 billion ($3386 million)
Fixed price, covering the government of Sweden any cost over-run

Total cost per Gripen E: $153.9 million
Swiss Gripen E: as far as known yet > some $108 million per Gripen E (Swedish Gripens 15-30% more expensive)

Total:
Lease: 11 Gripen C/D’s (8 Gripen C / 3 Gripen D)
CHF 44 million per year > $ 47.6 million per year
Till 2021, at least 5 years > CHF 220 million = € 182.16 million = $ 240.62 million

22 Gripen E: CHF 3,126 billion > $3386 million
Lease: CH 220 million > $ 238.34
Total: CHF 3,346 million > $3,624.9 million

Total cost, including lease 11 Gripen C/D’s (5 years): $166.35 million per Gripen E


Extra costs
A. Dual seat Gripen:
No Gripen F will be developed. Too expensive and there is no money to develop.
The Swiss will have to order Gripen D’s or will have to lease these jets from Sweden.
Another option, they will use Swedish Gripen D’s (cooperation).

B. 4 Reconnaissance pods
Like for instance Rafael RecceLite reconnaissance pod as mentioned by general Markus Gyrax)
(RAFAEL of Haifa, Israel and the Dutch Ministry of Defense have signed a $40-million contract – 6 pods)

C. Pods like Litening AT pods: ?
The Swiss want to introduce this capability again


Flying cost Gripen E (Swiss)
Source: Lt Gen. Markus Gygax, commander Swiss Airforce
Article: Getting the Gripen, Airforces Montly, jan. 2012

22 Gripen E: operating cost per year, next 30 years

Per year: CHF 100 million = $108.34 million
Per Gripen E: CHF 4.54 million = $ 4.92 million per year
(180 hours: $27.333.33 per flying hour)


Switzerland will have rebuilt second-hand Gripen
Beni Gafner. Updated 09/26/2012

Quote: Estimated in the draft are the operating costs: 102 million francs per year (6 million Swiss francs for the operation of real estate included). The operating cost per hour in the template are not explicitly mentioned.
This amount, taking into account the specified annual costs for personnel (24 million), maintenance (51 million) and fuel (21 million), more so than in previous presentations Saab journalists presented.
The calculation of operating costs per hour sets the Switzerland based on a flight operating time of 180 hours per year.
At 22 Gripen, this gives cost of 24'242 francs per flight hour.
Saab announced during a presentation in Sweden at a price of less than 10,000 francs. (Basler Zeitung) Here is still a need for clarification. (Basler Zeitung)
http://translate.google.nl/translate?sl ... 2F18471087


o Gripen E’s for Switzerland, as well as for Sweden will not be brand new.
For every Gripen E a Gripen C (D) airframe will be needed to build a Gripen E

o No dual seat Gripen F will be developed (there is no money to develop a dual seat Gripen F)
Gripen D’s will be needed for training (different engine than a Gripen E?)

o Gripen E’s will not be build in Switzerland, only some personnel will work in Sweden.

o The Swedish government guarantees to pay cost overruns for Switzerland, in case the Gripen E will become more expensive.

* The Swiss will not have to pay development costs, what is quite extraordinary.


The Gripen E does not exist yet, the jet still will have to be developed
When a decision will not be made in time, Saab will loose crucial personnel for developing and production of the Gripen E.

When the first Gripen E’s will be delivered, the Gripen E will have to be tested like any other jet, with all problems like other jets did had as well (Tyhoon etc)
It will take at least some years, after delivery, before any Gripen E will be operational
The last ten years the Gripen became a very expensive jet as well, it’s hardly impossible to expect there will be no cost overruns during development of the Gripen E.

When the Swiss will not decide to order the Gripen E (referendum), Sweden as well will not order the Gripen E (2014).
A new production line will be needed. Production is only possible when at least 60 Gripen E's will be build in cooperation with another country.
Possible order Sweden: 40-60 Gripens. It's not possible to develop and build the Gripen E by Sweden itself.
In case the Swiss will not order the Gripen E, only Brazil or Canada could save the Gripen E (although it doesn't seem Brazil will order the Gripen E)

(Used rates currencies: Jan.11, 2013)

http://translate.google.nl/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bernerzeitung.ch%2Fschweiz%2Fstandard%2FDie-Schweiz-erhaelt-umgebaute-OccasionsGripen%2Fstory%2F18471087

 

[LowObservable]

C-4 - Even better, let all those uttering personal criticisms give their names and working addresses...

TT - "Found on f-16.net"

So all that follows can be disregarded safely.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

C-4 - Even better, let all those uttering personal criticisms give their names and working addresses...

TT - "Found on f-16.net"

So all that follows can be disregarded safely.

Thats ironic Maus92, as you are pretty respectful and well behaved on F-16.net when you are there.

It all looks pretty spot on to me, Mr Sweetman. (There is also a link )

 

[LowObservable]

Maus who?

Link goes to a Google-translate of a Swiss newspaper story, trying to make a headline out of an (undated) draft. Between the mangled syntax and the fact that the BZ is sexing up the story to imply that the Swiss are getting rebuilt C/Ds (or something of the sort) it may be possible to wrangle facts out of it, but it is most unlikely that any of the f16.net fankiddies can do so.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Maus who?

Thats adorable.

 

[GTX]

C-4 - Even better, let all those uttering personal criticisms give their names and working addresses...

Pot calling kettle...

 

[2IDSGT]

And the F-35 offered to Koreans is not a VLO jet.

: Ah, I see what your deal is. Nevermind then... deleting all my responses to you now.

 

[sferrin]

Let all who shout and yet are not willing to bet a thousand dollars on their respective position about the F-35, payable in 2030 using 2012 US dollars, shoot themselves in the ass with an elephant tranquilizer dart gun.

Same with the Eurocanard fanbois.

 

[sferrin]

C-4 - Even better, let all those uttering personal criticisms give their names and working addresses...

Starting with you? You're the one hiding behind an alias.

 

[bobbymike]

C-4 - Even better, let all those uttering personal criticisms give their names and working addresses...

My name is George St. John Smythe I work for MI-6 clearance Ultra-Zeta currently stationed in Antarctica where we are excavating a Nazi UFO.

Sorry couldn't resist on a Friday (I gues that tells you I'm not in the far east anyway) ;D

But I would put up $1,000 on the F-35 or $500 and split it with TT.

 

[sferrin]

And the F-35 offered to Koreans is not a VLO jet.

: Ah, I see what your deal is. Nevermind then... deleting all my responses to you now.

You thought the "Slow" part was suppose to be ironic didn't you?

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Maus who?

Link goes to a Google-translate of a Swiss newspaper story, trying to make a headline out of an (undated) draft. Between the mangled syntax and the fact that the BZ is sexing up the story to imply that the Swiss are getting rebuilt C/Ds (or something of the sort) it may be possible to wrangle facts out of it, but it is most unlikely that any of the f16.net fankiddies can do so.

f16.net fankiddies....says the guy who posts at the Key Publishing Forum! Never seen such a collection of dummies as you can find over there. Laughter is good for your health though...so thanks.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Let all who shout and yet are not willing to bet a thousand dollars on their respective position about the F-35, payable in 2030 using 2012 US dollars, shoot themselves in the ass with an elephant tranquilizer dart gun.

Same with the Eurocanard fanbois.

That article I posted earlier by Bill Sweetman said that the Eurocanard is an endangered species, expected to be yesterdays tech by 2020 as he said. Maybe the JSF being delayed a few years has postponed the inevitable, but the end is nigh.

Also whether we agree that the JAS-39E is 90 million or 137 million, I think its telling that the fleet will be 88 aircraft at best, and all of that hinges on the Swiss following through on a deal so sweetened they don't have to pay development cost. Not winning Norway, hurt that program bad and now, Whether we ever get to see a Gripen NG exist is up to the Swiss. I don't have to get into all the gritty details to see that its not an ideal situation. Canada won't come to the rescue, and neither will Brazil. Very different story than when LO was posting about the carrier variant soon to be developed, just 6 months ago. You would think this stuff would be worth reporting on. :

If this 1,000 dollar bet is the F-35 vs the Gripen NG I would gladly make my bet 2K. Hell there already won't be a JAS-39F. The whole program may be on borrowed time. SAAB may be history by 2030.

JAS-39E (re-manufactured legacy models)
JAS-39F
Sea Gripen

Fast running out of variants to cancel

 

[Evil Flower]

The sad thing is the government was taking it for granted that Norway would buy Gripen NG because it was a nordic fighter. So they didn't learn, as they did the exact same thing during the original Gripen development except then it was Finland who of course ended up buying F-18.


The only thing Gripen has going for it is that it is much easier and cheaper to maintain than any other fighter. But that's not the main requirement of a fighter.

 

[LowObservable]

It's not the operational requirement. However, the operational cost does determine whether a minimum force of aircraft can be operated at all, which is where a lot of nations find themselves today. And with a 30-year service life it is more significant than acquisition cost.


The qualification to the Eurocanards (and the Super H) being endangered was, three years ago, whether the JSF business plan would proceed as planned. Since then we have seen program delays, US budget problems and the apparently rapid progress of Chinese military modernization.


So there is a heck of a lot of chaos in the mix these days, and anyone making large bets on the state of the fighter world in 2030 probably needshis head examined.

 

[2IDSGT]

Let all who shout and yet are not willing to bet a thousand dollars on their respective position about the F-35, payable in 2030 using 2012 US dollars, shoot themselves in the ass with an elephant tranquilizer dart gun.

Well, it's not in the ass, but still fun to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pFfiB21nRY

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

It's not the operational requirement. However, the operational cost does determine whether a minimum force of aircraft can be operated at all, which is where a lot of nations find themselves today. And with a 30-year service life it is more significant than acquisition cost.

I agree, which why its worth developing an international program that creates over 3,000 aircraft even if they have a high initial development and sticker price right? Because you have to think "Big Picture"

and the apparently rapid progress of Chinese military modernization.

Well I may be missing something here, but unless China is going to undercut and steal JSF/Eurocanard sales in the west, And the fact that all the original JSF countries (Save Canada of course) are still going JSF, I don't see how Chinese prototypes really change your original hypothesis Bill, If anything they help it driving up sales of more advanced aircraft. A eurocanard won in India, but as you say, that really hasn't changed the equation, in the meantime Japan has picked up the F-35. Indonesia has expressed interest and there are countries that need their Harriers replaced like Spain which I'm guessing will come around.

So there is a heck of a lot of chaos in the mix these days, and anyone making large bets on the state of the fighter world in 2030 probably needshis head examined.

I don't even think there is a lot of chaos in the mix. Thinks are actually more stable as the F-35 is getting more LRIP aircraft out, and in a few years the super bug line shuts down, no one opts for the Silent Eagle/Silent Hornet, and the predicted Russian and Chinese aircraft make their continued appearance. If anything they will continue to drive sales towards the F-35. Things are a lot more stable now than they were just 2-4 years ago. Australia, and Canada, and Norway have all done their own assessments etc. The Bee is off probation, the UK readopted it, the F-35C is supposed to do its first trap this year, etc. Other than Canada things are going well and the F-35 is "firming up"

I honestly don't think its going to change what you said. just postpone it a couple years. Even if the F-35 was canceled tomorrow A lot of countries still would buy Super Hornets over Eurocanards (though not all of them) I think the Gripen would need around 400 units sold to be competitive on the international market. To really drive the cost down to the point where it wins over EADs and Dassault. as it is, only 88 will be bought by two neutral countries. And that Bill is what would have to happen to see a very different fighter market by 2030-- the JSF has to be canceled. As long as the JSF is around the story always ends the same way.

 

[Racer]

Well... it was discussed here some pages back. Why you bring up this deal again?

Found on F16.net:

Budget Gripen E: Swiss
22 Gripens: CHF 3,126 billion ($3386 million)
Fixed price, covering the government of Sweden any cost over-run

-->Also covering much more than fly away prices (as normally given in US Budget).

Total cost per Gripen E: $153.9 million (how so?)
Swiss Gripen E: as far as known yet > some $108 million (how so?) per Gripen E (Swedish Gripens 15-30% more expensive)

Total:
Lease: 11 Gripen C/D’s (8 Gripen C / 3 Gripen D)
CHF 44 million per year > $ 47.6 million per year
Till 2021, at least 5 years > CHF 220 million = € 182.16 million = $ 240.62 million

22 Gripen E: CHF 3,126 billion > $3386 million
Lease: CH 220 million > $ 238.34
Total: CHF 3,346 million > $3,624.9 million

Total cost, including lease 11 Gripen C/D’s (5 years): $166.35 million per Gripen E

-->So what? You can also do a comparison with a (unrealistic) F-35 deal for Switzerland:
Because of IOC somewhere 2023 (for Swiss) they would lease 11 x F-16 for 7 years, 50mio$ a year -->350mio$. How does something like that matter?


Extra costs
A. Dual seat Gripen:
No Gripen F will be developed. Too expensive and there is no money to develop.
The Swiss will have to order Gripen D’s or will have to lease these jets from Sweden.
Another option, they will use Swedish Gripen D’s (cooperation).

-->Yeah, exactly like all the F35 jockeys. Why would there no doubleseater be needed, but for a future Gripen E? Not needed.

B. 4 Reconnaissance pods
Like for instance Rafael RecceLite reconnaissance pod as mentioned by general Markus Gyrax)
(RAFAEL of Haifa, Israel and the Dutch Ministry of Defense have signed a $40-million contract – 6 pods)

-->Are included in above deal of 3'386m$ :

C. Pods like Litening AT pods: ?
The Swiss want to introduce this capability again

-->Not on Gripen. Again? What is your question here?

Flying cost Gripen E (Swiss)
Source: Lt Gen. Markus Gygax, commander Swiss Airforce
Article: Getting the Gripen, Airforces Montly, jan. 2012

22 Gripen E: operating cost per year, next 30 years

Per year: CHF 100 million = $108.34 million
Per Gripen E: CHF 4.54 million = $ 4.92 million per year
(180 hours: $27.333.33 per flying hour)

-->Including costs for pilots and personal and..., and..., and... You have the details? Its common knowledge that it is not that easy to compare flying hour costs from different countries.


Switzerland will have rebuilt second-hand Gripen
Beni Gafner. Updated 09/26/2012

-->Wrong. It was clearly said by Ueli Maurer (later than your qoute from Ganfer) that all Swiss Gripens will be new built.

Quote: Estimated in the draft are the operating costs: 102 million francs per year (6 million Swiss francs for the operation of real estate included). The operating cost per hour in the template are not explicitly mentioned.
This amount, taking into account the specified annual costs for personnel (24 million), maintenance (51 million) and fuel (21 million), more so than in previous presentations Saab journalists presented.
The calculation of operating costs per hour sets the Switzerland based on a flight operating time of 180 hours per year.
At 22 Gripen, this gives cost of 24'242 francs per flight hour.
Saab announced during a presentation in Sweden at a price of less than 10,000 francs. (Basler Zeitung) Here is still a need for clarification. (Basler Zeitung)
http://translate.google.nl/translate?sl ... 2F18471087

-->See above and Janes


o Gripen E’s for Switzerland, as well as for Sweden will not be brand new.
For every Gripen E a Gripen C (D) airframe will be needed to build a Gripen E

-->Wrong, see above. Also stated by Sweden and Saab.

o No dual seat Gripen F will be developed (there is no money to develop a dual seat Gripen F)
Gripen D’s will be needed for training (different engine than a Gripen E?)

-->Not needed, see above.

o Gripen E’s will not be build in Switzerland, only some personnel will work in Sweden.

-->Ruag will do some final assembly. This was a statement by Ruag.

o The Swedish government guarantees to pay cost overruns for Switzerland, in case the Gripen E will become more expensive.

-->Only for Sweden

* The Swiss will not have to pay development costs, what is quite extraordinary.

-->Wrong. Some developement work will be done by Ruag. Amount around 150m$. Included in the sum of 3'386m$, as said some pages back.


The Gripen E does not exist yet, the jet still will have to be developed

-->As with F35 (for the "...will have to be developed..." -part). Swiss have a state guarantee, so what?

When a decision will not be made in time, Saab will loose crucial personnel for developing and production of the Gripen E.

-->This is why they acclerated the negotiations in Sweeden. And?

When the first Gripen E’s will be delivered, the Gripen E will have to be tested like any other jet, with all problems like other jets did had as well (Tyhoon etc)
It will take at least some years, after delivery, before any Gripen E will be operational

-->Well this is also the case for other jets overworked. How does that matter? Especially from a F35 perspective?

The last ten years the Gripen became a very expensive jet as well, it’s hardly impossible to expect there will be no cost overruns during development of the Gripen E.

-->Like every other jet to? It is still cheaper than the others. Please refer to several competitions. Swiss for example. Or Korean. Again: Swiss: Typhoon=1.5xGripen. Japan: F35 > Typhoon. Korea: F35=1.4xTyphoon. And you still say that a F35 will be cheaper than a Gripen?

When the Swiss will not decide to order the Gripen E (referendum), Sweden as well will not order the Gripen E (2014).

-->Then they will get out of fighter business. They know that. So what?

A new production line will be needed. Production is only possible when at least 60 Gripen E's will be build in cooperation with another country.
Possible order Sweden: 40-60 Gripens. It's not possible to develop and build the Gripen E by Sweden itself.
In case the Swiss will not order the Gripen E, only Brazil or Canada could save the Gripen E (although it doesn't seem Brazil will order the Gripen E)

(Used rates currencies: Jan.11, 2013)

http://translate.google.nl/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bernerzeitung.ch%2Fschweiz%2Fstandard%2FDie-Schweiz-erhaelt-umgebaute-OccasionsGripen%2Fstory%2F18471087

Edit: some linguistic corrections.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Well... it was discussed here some pages back. Why you bring up this deal again?

This gives more details, for LO to ignore.

 

[Racer]

To be fair: HE is not the one who ignores these things

 

[sferrin]

So there is a heck of a lot of chaos in the mix these days, and anyone making large bets on the state of the fighter world in 2030 probably needshis head examined.

Now if you and the rest of the "we don't need the F-35 because the F-16 has worked for 30 years" crowd would take that to heart. Personally I thought it was idiotic that they cut F-22 production *because* we don't know what's coming down the road. I'm still holding out hope that the reason they cut the F-22 is so they could begin work on it's replacement sooner.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

-->Also covering much more than fly away prices (as normally given in US Budget).

Total cost per Gripen E: $153.9 million (how so?)

I think Abraham G covered it.


-->So what? You can also do a comparison with a (unrealistic) F-35 deal for Switzerland:
Because of IOC somewhere 2023 (for Swiss) they would lease 11 x F-16 for 7 years, 50mio$ a year -->350mio$. How does something like that matter?

I am not advocating the F-35 as an alternative for the Swiss. I am using the Swiss Number as an example of why the Gripen NG will fail to win customers (like Canada) over the F-35. (or even other aircraft like the Super Hornet) and that the aircraft was not as cheap as we were lead o believe

-->Yeah, exactly like all the F35 jockeys. Why would there no doubleseater be needed, but for a future Gripen E? Not needed.

I would wonder why a two seater was ever discussed in development at all then. No two seater has ever been discussed with the F-35. The F-35 has sensors and systems that manage a lot of the workload that would have taken two people (and still do in Boeing Marketing term 4.5 fighters)

-->Are included in above deal of 3'386m$ :

ok.

-->Including costs for pilots and personal and..., and..., and... You have the details? Its common knowledge that it is not that easy to compare flying hour costs from different countries.

-->Wrong. It was clearly said by Ueli Maurer (later than your qoute from Ganfer) that all Swiss Gripens will be new built.

I am hearing otherwise, so I am not sure.

-->Ruag will do some final assembly. This was a statement by Ruag.

Good news

-->Only for Sweden

I know right? suckers. which is another reason I feel the Gripen NG is a "fraudulent cheap" In order for the Swiss to buy it they had to drastically eat some of the costs themselves. If SAAB is able to sell to another country, they will be paying more than the Swiss. who have a special deal. I don't blame the Swiss, if the Swedes are willing to impale themselves to sell their aircraft, the Swiss are smart to let them and reap the reward.


-->As with F35 (for the "...will have to be developed..." -part). Swiss have a state guarantee, so what?

Exactly but the F-35 will be able to do many many things the Gripen NG will never be able to, which is why LO says they are in a different class. Why pay so much for something that was supposed to be simple and light?


-->This is why they acclerated the negotiations in Sweeden. And?

And nothing, but it means there will no be affordable Gripens anymore


-->Well this is also the case for other jets overworked. How does that matter? Especially from a F35 perspective?

Any delays, or problems will drive up the cost. The F-35 has obviously had delays and price increases itself, however that is considered a price worth paying for the kind of capability it brings. The Gripen NG is supposed to avoid a lot of that and save money by not have to start from scratch, but the price is already a lot and there isn't going to be much margin for error.



-->Like every other jet to? It is still cheaper than the others. Please refer to several competitions. Swiss for example. Or Korean. Again: Swiss: Typhoon=1.5xGripen. Japan: F35 > Typhoon. Korea: F35=1.4xTyphoon. And you still say that a F35 will be cheaper than a Gripen?

Than a Gripen NG? YES. according to the KPMG report the FRP F-35 is $88 million. If you take Abraham Gubler's number the final cost difference between the RAAF F-35s, and the Swiss GRipen NGs (which as has been mentioned, is an exceptional rate) there is only a .75% difference. I don't know what you read that makes you think the typhoon is cheaper than the F-35 unless you are referring to LRIP aircraft. F-35s also have their targeting pods built into the aircraft. Its not an extra you have to spend money on.

-->Then they will get out of fighter business. They know that. So what?

So you then have an aircraft that doesn't have the logistics and support of its parent company. Greatly adding to cost and logistics. SAAB users will be force to find other sources of support for parts and upgrades. Norway figured this out, and essentially, If SAAB goes out of business the savings go with them and SAAB can't stay in business if it only sells 88 airplanes.

In summary, I feel that certain people (I don't want to get banned again so that is all I will say, mods) favor the SAAB Gripen NG based on the Legacy Gripens fine price, but that does not exist in the Gripen NG. It does not stop them from advocating the NG as a cheaper/simpler alternative however. As it is looking to be not so cheap now, the idea of cheap operating cost is coming forth despite the very high initial price that is. I am saying that

A. The Initial price may be so steep that the operational savings may be compromised from the start and
B. The savings may be lost if the company that is supporting the aircraft goes under.

I am also saying
A. The F-35 is often guilty until proven innocent, and the Gripen NG innocent until proven guilty
B. Individual variants are often picked on with the F-35, however the JAS-39F and the Sea Gripen are both kapoot but it goes unnoticed
C. It all point to some interesting double standards. When the JSF and Gripen NG have run into similar problems it seems that some people advocate cancellation of the JSF, and simply hand waive or excuse the SAAB aircraft.
D. The well crafted meme that the Gripen NG was the answer to expensive aircraft problems seems to be overstated (to put it tactfully) A lot of people are still using the Legacy Gripen as the measure of cost for the Gripen NG and that is deceptive as these costs show.

At the very least I would have to say things are not nearly as clear cut as they once seemed.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

According to my friends in Australia that deal is not official. It is a rumor but Abraham can probably tell us more

The defence minister’s office is pushing for an additional squadron of Super Hornets for reasons no one else* seems to be able to understand (mmm political grandstanding in an election year?). The RAAF is strongly against this as they don’t need them and are comfortable with the airworthiness and capability mix of the current force up until the delayed IOC of the F-35.

The defence minister has been more than willing to play havoc with the defence budget’s spending plans but in an election year with revenue falling I doubt he will be able to pull the cash together for more Super Hornets. If he does it will be at huge cost to other current planned but unapproved projects which for the RAAF this is new trainers and the Navy new patrol boats and light amphibious ships. But if he can delay these projects by years as well as steal more F-35 money to secure $3 odd billion for another 24 fighters I'm sure that money would be pinched from him by the policy revue committee for some pork barrelling that will actually buy votes.

* By using the term “understand” I rule out those groups that seem to think the F-35 is negative capability. Not much understanding in that group.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=nl&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.nl&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/flygplan/article3544072.ece

Translated from the original language.

 

[quellish]

Now if you and the rest of the "we don't need the F-35 because the F-16 has worked for 30 years" crowd would take that to heart. Personally I thought it was idiotic that they cut F-22 production *because* we don't know what's coming down the road. I'm still holding out hope that the reason they cut the F-22 is so they could begin work on it's replacement sooner.

From: "HEARING TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF GENERAL JAMES E. CARTWRIGHT, USMC, FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE OF GENERAL AND REAPPOINTMENT AS THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF" (7/9/09)

General CARTWRIGHT. Senator, I was probably one of the more vocal and ardent supporters for the termination of the F–22 pro- duction. The reason is twofold.
First, there is a study in the Joint Staff that we just completed and partnered with the Air Force on that, number one, said that proliferating within the United States military fifth generation fighters to all three Services was going to be more significant than having them based solidly in just one service because of the way we deploy and because of the diversity of our deployment. So that is point number one.
Point number two is in the production of the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter, the first aircraft variant will support the Air Force re- placement of their F–16s and F–15s. It is a very capable aircraft. It is 10 years newer in advancement in avionics and capabilities in comparison to the F–22. It is a better, more rounded capable fight- er. That is kind of point number one.
Point number two is the second variant is the variant that goes to the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps made a conscious decision to forgo buying the F–18 E/F in order to wait for the F–35. So the F–35 variant that has the V/STOL capability, which goes to the Marine Corps is number two coming off the line.
And the third variant coming off of the line is the Navy variant, the carrier-suitable variant.
Another thing that weighed heavily certainly in my calculus was the input of the combatant commanders, and one of the highest issues of concern from the combatant commanders is our ability to conduct electronic warfare. That electronic warfare is carried on- board the F–18. And so, looking at the lines that we would have in hot production, number one priority was to get fifth generation fighters to all of the Services. Number two priority was to ensure that we had a hot production line in case there was a problem, and number three was to have that hot production line producing F– 18 Gulfs, which support the electronic warfare fight.
So those issues stacked up to a solid position, at least on my part, that it was time to terminate the F–22. It is a good airplane. It is a fifth generation fighter. But we needed to proliferate those fifth generation fighters to all of the Services, and we needed to en- sure that we were capable of continuing to produce aircraft for the electronic warfare capability, and that was in the F–18. In the F– 18, we can also produce front-line fighters that are more than capa- ble of addressing any threat that we will face for the next 5 to 10 years.

And from Speech to the Economic Club of Chicago, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates (7/16/09):

We also took into consideration the capabilities of the newest manned combat aircraft program, the stealth F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-22, carries a much larger suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of areas – most importantly, air-to-ground missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses. It is a versatile aircraft, less than half the total cost of the F-22, and can be produced in quantity with all the advantages produced by economies of scale – some 500 will be bought over the next five years, more than 2,400 over the life of the program. And we already have eight foreign development partners. It has had development problems to be sure, as has every advanced military aircraft ever fielded. But if properly supported, the F-35 will be the backbone of America’s tactical aviation fleet for decades to come if – and it is a big if – money is not drained away to spend on other aircraft that our military leadership considers of lower priority or excess to our needs.
Having said that, the F-22 is clearly a capability we do need – a niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios – specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet. The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict.

If you consider the F-35 as the replacement for the F-22, then yes the F-22 was cut to work on it's replacement sooner.

Cartwright seemed to feel that any "fifth generation fighter" is somewhat equivalent, while Gates was apparently arguing that the air superiority mission was no longer valid or relevant. Either way, same outcome.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

while Gates was apparently arguing that the air superiority mission was no longer valid or relevant.

He specifically said:

“specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet”

Which is quite a bit different to air superiority being no long valid. If the FLANKER was half as good as Air Power Australia make out and if the PAK-FA and J-20 were actually en par with fifth generation capability and in production then that would be “highly advanced enemy fighter fleet” you would want the full 600 odd F-22 fleet to go out and defeat. But since this isn’t quite a realistic assessment of the fighter threat the smaller F-22 fleet and F-35 will more than sufficient.

But apart from that Quellish’s post is an absolutely excellent summary of the reasons why the F-22 was withdrawn from production. F-35 and EA-18G were both more important than it and there was only room for two out of three fighter programs to progress.

 

[Evil Flower]

I don't blame the Swiss, if the Swedes are willing to impale themselves to sell their aircraft, the Swiss are smart to let them and reap the reward.

I can assure you that if it were up to those of us fronting the bill, Gripen NG would never have been a serious proposal. The whole thing is nothing but thinly veiled corporate welfare aimed at keeping SAAB in business.

 

[SlowMan]

Than a Gripen NG? YES. according to the KPMG report the FRP F-35 is $88 million.

KPMG was using an old obsolete data from 2011; the F-35 price has jumped since. The F-35 bids always costed more than the Typhoon in open bids contests; the F-35 costed $3 billion more(while having a fraction of the Typhoon's offset benefits in return), $4 billion more in Korea.

Therefore it is factually established that the F-35 costs more than the Typhoon, and the Typhoon costs more than Boeing products.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Than a Gripen NG? YES. according to the KPMG report the FRP F-35 is $88 million.

KPMG was using an old obsolete data from 2011; the F-35 price has jumped since. The F-35 bids always costed more than the Typhoon in open bids contests; the F-35 costed $3 billion more(while having a fraction of the Typhoon's offset benefits in return), $4 billion more in Korea.

How could the Typhoon offsets be compared in Canada when the F-35 was so famously sole sourced?

Speaking of sources, KPMG Like all accounting firms is not allowed to disclose confidential client information as per AICPA Code No. 301. If you are privy to this information and sharing it online you are in violation of the professional code of conduct. In other words, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about nor the documents KPMG made use of.

(Thanks for playing "fool" the CPA)

I would also ask how FRP cost jumped between 2011 and 2012, (if so, by how much?) and if you could produce a source for this.

Would you like to comment on the Australian report as well? Or how Norway also found the F-35 to be the cheapest option after doing its own audits? India also selected Rafale over Eurofighter, who couldn't match dassaults offsets, nor price.

Therefore it is factually established that the F-35 costs more than the Typhoon,

No. Please stick to the Korean rumors in the future, slowman.

 

[Broncazonk]

http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/f-35-jsf-dote-fy12-annual-report.pdf

The acceleration shortfall in both the A and B versions is substantial. The sustained G-turn shortfall is terrible. The G-turn performance in the C version is acceptable, but the aircraft is a complete DOG, a total NAG, when it comes to acceleration. The C will never meet Navy acceleration expectations--ever. Read it and weep--or laugh. Remember when all the F-35 fanboys were spewing, "The F-35 will be more quick and nimble than the F-16"? "It will out perform the F-15." "The F-35 is on par with the F-22." What a joke. They had to reduce both the turn performance and acceleration specifications, because without reducing the specifications, all three (3) versions of the F-35 are miserable performing program failures.

The A:

"The program announced an intention to change
performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn
performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s and extending
the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by
8 seconds. These changes were due to the results of air
vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations."

The B:

The program announced an intention to change performance
specifications for the F-35B, reducing turn performance from
5.0 to 4.5 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration
from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by 16 seconds. These changes
were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying
qualities evaluations.

The C:

The program announced an intention to change performance
specifications for the F-35C, reducing turn performance
from 5.1 to 5.0 sustained g’s and increasing the time
for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by at least
43 seconds. These changes were due to the results of air
vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations.

Plus, the tailhook still isn't fixed, transonic roll-off is still a major problem, buffet at certain speeds is horrible, the flight software is (1) late, (2) missing, (3) garbage, new cracks, the helmet still doesn't work, it goes on and on and on...

Bronc

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Bronc, did you read the report and how they arrived at these numbers?

They had to reduce both the turn performance and acceleration specifications, because without reducing the specifications, all three (3) versions of the F-35 are miserable performing program failures.

And you do realize that none of them are permanent right? This is essentially a Progress Report Its not a rewrite of the specifications.

By the end of November, the progress against planned
baseline test points for 2012 lagged by over 30 percent
(accomplishing 1,338 baseline F-35A flight sciences test
points of 1,923 planned through November 2012, for a
completion rate of 70 percent). The test team could not
execute this portion (30 percent) of planned 2012 baseline
test points for the following reasons:
- Aircraft operating limitations, which prevented the
extended use of afterburner needed to complete
high-altitude/high-airspeed test points.
- Higher than expected loads on the weapon bay doors,
which required additional testing and thus limited the
amount of testing with weapons loaded on the aircraft.
- Deficiencies in the air-refueling system, which reduced
testing opportunities

70 percent for one year with these problems in mind with an aircraft still in development? I bet they are ignoring them... No wait here is the documentation of the steps they are taking to fix them:

• Discoveries included:
- Delayed disconnects during air refueling required the
program to implement restrictions on the F-35A fleet
and conduct additional testing of the air refueling
capability. The program added instrumentation to
isolate root causes.
- Horizontal tail surfaces are experiencing higher
than expected temperatures during sustained
high-speed/high-altitude flight, resulting in
delamination and scorching of the surface coatings
and structure. All variants were restricted from
operations outside of a reduced envelope until the
test team added instrumentation to the tailbooms to
monitor temperatures on the tail surfaces. The program
scheduled modification of one flight sciences aircraft of
each variant with new skin coatings on the horizontal
tail to permit flight testing in the currently restricted part
of the high-speed/high-altitude flight envelope. The
test team is adding more flight test instrumentation to
help quantify the impacts of the tail heating to support
necessary design changes. The program scheduled
modifications on one aircraft (AF-2) to be completed in
early 2013 to allow flight testing of the new skin design
on the horizontal tails to proceed.

That Section in fact is right under the part about the F-35A you posted... So allow me to summarize: They found a problem, are working to fix it, and in the mean time, have put flight restrictions that could make the problems worse until it can be tested and fixed... Its the apocalypse alright.

As of the end of November, the sortie rate for the F-35B
flight sciences test aircraft was 6.8 sorties per aircraft
per month, compared to the goal of 4.4. The program
accomplished 153 percent of the planned F-35B flight
sciences sorties, completing 374 vice 244 planned.

As one Marine told me "we never get new toys, we are flying them until they order us to stop"

How about the C:

For F-35C flight sciences, the test
team had accomplished 116 percent of the planned number of
cumulative test points scheduled for completion by the end of
November (4,330 cumulative points accomplished against a
goal of 3,748 points).

F-35C
• A redesign of the arresting hook system for the F-35C
to correct the inability to consistently catch cables and
compensate for greater than predicted loads took place in
2012. The redesign includes modified hook point shape to
catch the wire, one-inch longer shank to improve point of
entry, addition of damper for end-of-stroke loads, increased
size of upswing damper and impact plate, addition of
end-of-stroke snubber. In 2012, the following occurred:
- Initial loads and sizing study completed showed higher
than predicted loads, impacting the upper portion of the
arresting hook system (referred to as the “Y frame,” where
loads are translated from the hook point to the aircraft) and
hold down damper (January 2012)
- Risk reduction activities, including cable rollover
dynamics testing at Patuxent River (March 2012), deck
obstruction loads tests at Lakehurst (April 2012)
- Flight tests with CF-3 using new hook point and new hold
down damper design at Lakehurst (August 2012)
- 72 of 72 successful roll-in tests with MK-7 and E-28 gear
- 5 of 8 successful fly-in tests; 3 of 8 bolters (missed wire)

Tailhook not fixed? Landing on a ship this year.

Meeting or exceeding this years test points? Exceeding sorties? identifying problems? and working to fix them? putting in temporary restrictions in order to not damage the aircraft or endanger lives? and that equates to "miserable performing program failures." to you? How quickly will what you listed go away when the afterburner is off restriction I wonder...

Read it

I agree, but read. the. whole. thing. No need to spaz out, or panic, or say things that boldly make you appear foolish. Everything quoted above is from the same report you posted, in some cases right under the things you posted. There is far more good news in that report than bad. Still issues, no doubt. Still things that need work, but I would encourage everyone to read that report, and at least put the bad news in context, and take a look at what they are planning to do to fix them, along with actually getting some good and even great news.

Semper Fi!

Also Bill Sweetman identified the heat issues a while ago, so hat tip to him I read that on his blog first and it looks like they are working on it, Not even news to him.

 

[Arjen]

70 percent for one year with these problems in mind with an aircraft still in development? I bet they are ignoring them... No wait here is the documentation of the steps they are taking to fix them:

• Discoveries included:
- Delayed disconnects during air refueling required the
program to implement restrictions on the F-35A fleet
and conduct additional testing of the air refueling
capability. The program added instrumentation to
isolate root causes.
- Horizontal tail surfaces are experiencing higher
than expected temperatures during sustained
high-speed/high-altitude flight, resulting in
delamination and scorching of the surface coatings
and structure. All variants were restricted from
operations outside of a reduced envelope until the
test team added instrumentation to the tailbooms to
monitor temperatures on the tail surfaces. The program
scheduled modification of one flight sciences aircraft of
each variant with new skin coatings on the horizontal
tail to permit flight testing in the currently restricted part
of the high-speed/high-altitude flight envelope. The
test team is adding more flight test instrumentation to
help quantify the impacts of the tail heating to support
necessary design changes. The program scheduled
modifications on one aircraft (AF-2) to be completed in
early 2013 to allow flight testing of the new skin design
on the horizontal tails to proceed.

That Section in fact is right under the part about the F-35A you posted... So allow me to summarize: They found a problem, are working to fix it, and in the mean time, have put flight restrictions that could make the problems worse until it can be tested and fixed... Its the apocalypse alright.

What I am reading: problems have been identified, their causes are yet to be determined. Instrumentation is being fitted to (one?/some?) aircraft to aid in identifying what causes these problems. Put another way: problems identified, causes unknown. You need to know what's causing a problem *before* you can fix it. Sometimes the problem cannot be fixed, and avoiding the conditions where a problem manifests itself is the only way around it. Until you've identified a problem's cause, there is no way you can tell if a problem is in the can-only-dealed-with-by-avoiding-that-aspect-of-use category. Next up: if it can be fixed, how much is your fix going to cost? Again, you need to know what's causing the problem.

As of the end of November, the sortie rate for the F-35B
flight sciences test aircraft was 6.8 sorties per aircraft
per month, compared to the goal of 4.4. The program
accomplished 153 percent of the planned F-35B flight
sciences sorties, completing 374 vice 244 planned.

As one Marine told me "we never get new toys, we are flying them until they order us to stop"

For F-35C flight sciences, the test
team had accomplished 116 percent of the planned number of
cumulative test points scheduled for completion by the end of
November (4,330 cumulative points accomplished against a
goal of 3,748 points).

The number of test points passed for the B model undershot the number planned for 2012 by 45 %: 1075 passed against a number planned of 1939. A-model undershot by 30 %: 1338 passed against a number planned of 1923. C-model undershot by 20 %: 1060 passed against a number planned of 1327. The point of testing is meeting functional requirements, logging test hours is the means by which that target is to be met.

Meeting or exceeding this years test points? [No: see above] Exceeding sorties? [Again: if your testing effort is not followed by meeting functional requirements, the project as a whole is not delivering - kudos for the testers, though] identifying problems? [But not always their causes] and working to fix them? putting in temporary restrictions in order to not damage the aircraft or endanger lives? and that equates to "miserable performing program failures." to you?

The JSF-project has not delivered in 2012 what was planned for 2012. Call that what you like.
Total testpoints to be met for the entire project: 59,585 (100 %)
Cumulative testpoints currently met: 20,006 (34 %)
Total testpoints passed in 2012: 4,711 (13 %)
At 2012's rate, all testpoints will be met in 8.4 years: somewhere in 2021. I would call that a further project slowdown.

More from the report: Block 3 software needs the upgraded processor planned for LRIP 6 aircraft; to eventually upgrade earlier aircraft to Block 3 software means upgrading their processors as well.

66 % of Block 1 required functionality tested and approved.
10 % of Block 2B ready.
Block 3 not expected to be delivered before 2018.

I have not read in this report that the proposed relaxation of requirements for sustained G and transonic acceleration are temporary. I may have missed that bit.

 

[LowObservable]

There is no sign that the relaxed requirements for g and acceleration (both are directly related to specific excess power in the combat regime) are permanent.

Transonic acceleration time has a large effect on the utility of the supersonic regime because fuel burn per mile tends to be greatest through the transonic drag hump. The longer you're there, the less time you have. IIRC the original threshold for 0.8-1.2 was 55-65 sec according to version, so +43 sec is a lot.

 

[Broncazonk]

Listen folks, given $500 billion and 15-years, a high school shop class could make a garbage truck perform the way the F-35 is performing. Throw enough time and money at the problem and a road-grader can be turned into a JSF--and that's EXACTY what's happening. Lockheed-Martin designed a road-grader and now that hunk of junk is billions over-budget and years behind schedule being re-engineered.

I've been banned from the F-35 forum on F-16.net 3 or 4 times because them silly, touchy fanboys don't understand that just because a brick can be re-engineered into a smart-phone, doesn't mean a brick will ever make a good smart-phone. And just because the F-35 can be "fixed" doesn't mean it will ever be anything other than a brick.

The F-35 is a dead aircraft walking. It's dead because Lockheed designed a road-grader instead of a JSF. Let's kill this steaming pile of garbage now and move on.

Bronc

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Listen folks, given $500 billion and 15-years, a high school shop class could make a garbage truck perform the way the F-35 is performing. Throw enough time and money at the problem and a road-grader can be turned into a JSF--and that's EXACTY what's happening. Lockheed-Martin designed a road-grader and now that hunk of junk is billions over-budget and years behind schedule being re-engineered.

I wonder why they don't take you seriously over there?

I've been banned from the F-35 forum on F-16.net 3 or 4 times because them silly, touchy fanboys don't understand that just because a brick can be re-engineered into a smart-phone, doesn't mean a brick will ever make a good smart-phone. And just because the F-35 can be "fixed" doesn't mean it will ever be anything other than a brick.

again if you read the report instead of the negative highlights, you might have a better understanding of how you are wrong. :-\

The F-35 is a dead aircraft walking. It's dead because Lockheed designed a road-grader instead of a JSF. Let's kill this steaming pile of garbage now and move on.

Guess how I know you still have read the report you posted? And you have compared the JSF to other aircraft? like say the F-22, that was in development for 14 years? Or how about the Gripen NG? Which is an aircraft actually based off a proven design but will be in development for over 10 years before it gets into service? How about the Eurofighter? You seem to lack even basic perspective in aviation development problems of which I am sure LO could write about ad nausem due to his decades of reporting them with various aircraft programs.

Also its anything but dead. no matter how much you declare so. I would also ask you this: how does one cancel an international program that is still in the margins of what is considered successful?

 

[GTX]

The F-35 is a dead aircraft walking. It's dead because Lockheed designed a road-grader instead of a JSF. Let's kill this steaming pile of garbage now and move on.

Hmmm...cancel the F-35 and move on? Let's look at the options then - sorry for regurgitating this:

To begin with let’s focus upon the US Armed Forces requirement since they are by far the greatest user of the F-35 (and have the greatest need for a replacement with aircraft average ages getting well up there).

What would the US be left to do then:USAF:

• Buy more F-22s? - Well that will go down nicely for the budget! Anyway, the F-22 is actually a less capable platform than the F-35 when it comes to the full spectrum of roles as well as un-refuelled range.
• Keep existing or even buy more F-15s/F-16s? - sure that will go down well. Whilst everyone else is getting 4+ and 5th gen platforms, they have 30+ yr old aircraft design!
• Super Hornets? - yeah, like hell the USAF will ever by another pure Navy jet unless they are forced to. Anyone who thinks that has never experienced USAF/USN rivalry!
• Buy Typhoons or Rafales? - again, like hell that will happen outside the realm of whiffing!
• Start a new 5th or even 6th Gen Fighter program (maybe even with UCAS)? - What, reset the JSF clock to Day 1? Well that makes sense...NOT!!! What makes anyone think the same supposed delays that have impacted the F-35 won't raise themselves again? What's more, you just pushed back the in-service date another 10 - 15yrs at least. Smart!!!

​

USN:

• Keep with the Super Hornet? Whilst a possible, the USN would fight this due to it almost making them a second rate player (the USN has publicly stated they were looking at the F-35 to actually replace the Super Hornet), and would start to therefore put their precious carriers at risk from budget cuts etc.
• Start a new 5th Gen Fighter program? - Again, not a sensible move!

USMC:

• Keep the Harriers and Classic Hornets going? - Same issue as the USAF with F15s/F-16s. In fact, possibly even worse given the platforms' capabilities and the fact that neither is in production anymore.
• Accept Super Hornets - possible, but an extreme compromise that is totally at odds with years of tactics/concepts of operation and extremely limiting. I would also hasten to add that this would risk seeing the USMC Air Wings simply being re-absorbed into the USN.
• Start a new 5th Gen, VTOL Fighter program? - Again, not a sensible move and one unlikely to ever get support.

Now let’s also look at the non-US partners (and existing/future FMS operators – Israel, Japan, Spain, Singapore, South Korea etc.). Well to begin with, for the US Govt to try to cancel the F-35 (and it would take nothing less then the US Govt) means pissing off a lot of their allies (not to mention their own domestic industries - hundreds of which, employing tens of thousands of staff, would be impacted – great thing to do to your high-tech industry in the middle of the GFC!). These would then mostly go to the Non-US competitors: Typhoon, Rafale etc. Boeing might pick up a couple with Super Hornet, but most would be too pissed off with the USA to give them anything. Hmmm, smart move![/list]​

 

[sferrin]

The F-35 is a dead aircraft walking. It's dead because Lockheed designed a road-grader instead of a JSF. Let's kill this steaming pile of garbage now and move on.

Hmmm...cancel the F-35 and move on? Let's look at the options then - sorry for regurgitating this:

To begin with let’s focus upon the US Armed Forces requirement since they are by far the greatest user of the F-35 (and have the greatest need for a replacement with aircraft average ages getting well up there).

What would the US be left to do then:USAF:

• Buy more F-22s? - Well that will go down nicely for the budget! Anyway, the F-22 is actually a less capable platform than the F-35 when it comes to the full spectrum of roles as well as un-refuelled range.
• Keep existing or even buy more F-15s/F-16s? - sure that will go down well. Whilst everyone else is getting 4+ and 5th gen platforms, they have 30+ yr old aircraft design!
• Super Hornets? - yeah, like hell the USAF will ever by another pure Navy jet unless they are forced to. Anyone who thinks that has never experienced USAF/USN rivalry!
• Buy Typhoons or Rafales? - again, like hell that will happen outside the realm of whiffing!
• Start a new 5th or even 6th Gen Fighter program (maybe even with UCAS)? - What, reset the JSF clock to Day 1? Well that makes sense...NOT!!! What makes anyone think the same supposed delays that have impacted the F-35 won't raise themselves again? What's more, you just pushed back the in-service date another 10 - 15yrs at least. Smart!!!

USN:

• Keep with the Super Hornet? Whilst a possible, the USN would fight this due to it almost making them a second rate player (the USN has publicly stated they were looking at the F-35 to actually replace the Super Hornet), and would start to therefore put their precious carriers at risk from budget cuts etc.
• Start a new 5th Gen Fighter program? - Again, not a sensible move!

USMC:​

• Keep the Harriers and Classic Hornets going? - Same issue as the USAF with F15s/F-16s. In fact, possibly even worse given the platforms' capabilities and the fact that neither is in production anymore.
• Accept Super Hornets - possible, but an extreme compromise that is totally at odds with years of tactics/concepts of operation and extremely limiting. I would also hasten to add that this would risk seeing the USMC Air Wings simply being re-absorbed into the USN.
• Start a new 5th Gen, VTOL Fighter program? - Again, not a sensible move and one unlikely to ever get support.

Now let’s also look at the non-US partners (and existing/future FMS operators – Israel, Japan, Spain, Singapore, South Korea etc.). Well to begin with, for the US Govt to try to cancel the F-35 (and it would take nothing less then the US Govt) means pissing off a lot of their allies (not to mention their own domestic industries - hundreds of which, employing tens of thousands of staff, would be impacted – great thing to do to your high-tech industry in the middle of the GFC!). These would then mostly go to the Non-US competitors: Typhoon, Rafale etc. Boeing might pick up a couple with Super Hornet, but most would be too pissed off with the USA to give them anything. Hmmm, smart move![/q]

Yeah, these idiots never think things through. They somehow all believe that if we cancelled the F-35 the USAF, USMC, and USN would all end up with better, cheaper aircraft sooner. [/quote]