The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[bobbymike]

I love how the blogger weave snips of truth to weave a picture that is opposite of reality. I'll bet they love him over at Ares. ;D

edit: Sure enough, there it is at Ares. LOL So predictable.

Amazing how that a particular anti-F-35 site gets soooooooooo many links at Ares :

But on a serious note this really is the worst type of journalism just pure tendentiousness to fit your already concluded sentiment.

Also, two things never discussed;

1) 4.5 gen fighters stand what chance if the F-35 doesn't stand any chance.
2) What is it they want more F-22's? A new fighter (circa 2040 or so)? What?

 

[Sundog]

Mods, please attach these comments to the thread in the bar and shut this one down. One thread is enough. Thank you.

 

[Sundog]

Lockheed F-35 Bad Deal As One Jet For All, Report Finds.

In others news, "Duh!"

 

[bobbymike]

Lockheed F-35 Bad Deal As One Jet For All, Report Finds.

In others news, "Duh!"

Interesting contradiction in the article.

1) Article says there is no longer much commonality anymore with the three airframes BUT three different airframes would cost less

2) Didn't they just say, in effect, there are now three different airframes which is not going to be cheaper anymore because of the lack of commonality but building three different airframes would be cheaper?

 

[sferrin]

Lockheed F-35 Bad Deal As One Jet For All, Report Finds.

In others news, "Duh!"

Must be why everybody wants them.

 

[sferrin]

Also, two things never discussed;

1) 4.5 gen fighters stand what chance if the F-35 doesn't stand any chance.

Well they can't discuss that as their vaunted Eurcanards come out not looking so hot.

2) What is it they want more F-22's? A new fighter (circa 2040 or so)? What?

More Eurocanards of course. Look how much ink the tiny Brazilian order for Gripens is getting.[/quote]

 

[gTg]

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I'm watching this thread for a while, and feel compelled to add my 2 cents.[/font]

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]All this polarized talk pro / against F35 / Eurocanards is quite annoying. They are different products and fit different needs. Up to the customer to decide what they prefer. I'm not anti F35 but still skeptic if it can deliver on LM promises. Curious how small F35 only airforces will work out in the future for some European countries. From this point of view [/font]I'm glad my country (Belgium) didn't buy into the F35 program. We do not need stealth day to day. Currently nobody has a [font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]clue how to pay for F16 replacements, no matter what it will be. I wouldn't mind some Gripen E for Belgium, as this will keep costs down and chances are higher that we can keep an air force. [/font]
[/size]
[/size]And if not bringing a F35 to the party excludes us from participating in expeditionary NATO missions, that i would consider as a good thing.


Best
BJ

 

[sferrin]

I'm watching this thread for a while, and feel compelled to add my 2 cents.

All this polarized talk pro / against F35 / Eurocanards is quite annoying.

This thread probably isn't for you then.

And if not bringing a F35 to the party excludes us from participating in expeditionary NATO missions, that i would consider as a good thing.
Best
BJ

Doesn't mean you won't be coming to the party. It just means your pilots will be the ones doing the dying. But hey, that's a good thing right? : [/quote]

 

[ikke666]

A harrier could do something called viffing. Can a F-35B do this too?

 

[GTX]

I'm glad my country (Belgium) didn't buy into the F35 program.

Well stand by to be disappointed because Belgium is still an F-35 target in the future...

 

[SpudmanWP]

No.

 

[bobbymike]

F-35 No Holds Bar link for all non-news F-35 stuff

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,537.0.html

 

[Triton]

Lockheed F-35 Bad Deal As One Jet For All, Report Finds.

In others news, "Duh!"

Is there anyone out there who still believes that the Congress would have funded MRF for the Air Force, AF/X for the Navy, and ASTOVL/SSF for the Marines? The RAND report also admits that the F-35B is the first attempt to develop an operational supersonic STOVL fighter that has progressed beyond the initial development stages into production. Plus adding the complexity of LO and a never before used shaft-driven lift fan. The JSF program probably would have been cheaper if the Marines were left again with nothing.

 

[Triton]

The Air Force says it will have no choice but to send the sluggish stealth fighter into aerial battle.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/95462ccd6745

But now the Air Force has no choice but to put the F-35 on the aerial front lines. “You have to have the F-35 to augment the F-22 to do the air superiority fight at the beginning of a high-end conflict to survive against the fifth-generation threats we believe will be in the world at that point in time,” Welsh says.

Both China and Russia are developing these so-called fifth-generation fighters, which feature high speed, maneuverability and radar-evading stealth. The Chinese have their Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31 prototypes. Russia is working on the Sukhoi T-50. Both the Russian and Chinese aircraft might have the potential to match certain aspects of the Raptor’s performance.

Oh dear, Dave Majumdar is looking into the crystal ball again and speculating on what future wars the United States will fight in the next 20 years. So, is it likely that the United States will declare war on the Russian Federation, India, or the People's Republic of China and have to perform aerial battle with the T-50, J-20, or J-31? How many export customers will have these fifth-generation aircraft and how long will it take them to assemble a fifth-generation air superiority force? Plus, what's the point of Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) and the United States Navy A/F-XX program beginning in 2025?

 

[sferrin]

The JSF program probably would have been cheaper if the Marines were left again with nothing.

You don't say? And how would that have worked out for the Marines?

 

[Sundog]

Though I'm not a fan of the F-35 my point was the article was stating the obvious. Of course having one aircraft perform all of the missions wasn't going to be as good as individual aircraft and of course it wasn't going to be cheap either way. But I blame the Pentagon for taking the easy way out and trying of sell it as a "panacea" aircraft that could do it all as well as individual aircraft could, which anyone who knows anything about aircraft design knows is complete B.S.

 

[Triton]

Though I'm not a fan of the F-35 my point was the article was stating the obvious. Of course having one aircraft perform all of the missions wasn't going to be as good as individual aircraft and of course it wasn't going to be cheap either way. But I blame the Pentagon for taking the easy way out and trying of sell it as a "panacea" aircraft that could do it all as well as individual aircraft could, which anyone who knows anything about aircraft design knows is complete B.S.

I'm not sure why you are blaming the Pentagon. Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) and then Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) were politically-motivated programs to address the "death spiral" criticism of military programs. The Department of Defense set the expectation that all three variants of the JSF, for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines, would share 80% parts commonality and cost savings would be realized through economies of scale. All three services were committed to JSF including the United Kingdom. The Congress bought this complete BS and approved the program, even though anyone who knows anything about fighter development knows that the DoD was over-promising and increasing program complexity and risk. When costs rose and Lockheed Martin was under-delivering, the joint nature of the program made it impossible to cancel. JSF in fact being three fighter programs instead of being one.

 

[sferrin]

Though I'm not a fan of the F-35 my point was the article was stating the obvious. Of course having one aircraft perform all of the missions wasn't going to be as good as individual aircraft and of course it wasn't going to be cheap either way. But I blame the Pentagon for taking the easy way out and trying of sell it as a "panacea" aircraft that could do it all as well as individual aircraft could, which anyone who knows anything about aircraft design knows is complete B.S.

The other thing "everybody knows" is that 3 completely unique designs would have been so expensive it wouldn't even have gotten off the ground.

 

[Triton]

The JSF program probably would have been cheaper if the Marines were left again with nothing.

You don't say? And how would that have worked out for the Marines?

My point being that if the Marines had gone it alone with the ASTOVL/SSF program, instead of JSF, the program would probably have already been cancelled due to technical risk and increasing cost. The Marines would probably have been stuck with a SLEP for their AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft. It's been said before that the high cost of developing supersonic STOVL for the Marines, Royal Air Force, and the Royal Navy have been shared in this joint program.

 

[Triton]

The other thing "everybody knows" is that 3 completely unique designs would have been so expensive it wouldn't even have gotten off the ground.

In the political climate of the 1990s, Congress just wasn't going to finance development of three separate aircraft programs--MRF, A/F-X, and ASTOVL/SSF. Better to get everyone committed to the program so that it is impossible to cancel when the true costs of the program are known.

 

[sferrin]

"Yep" to both of your points. Supersonic STOVL would not be affordable in the low numbers the USMC would purchase if they went it alone. IMO the perfect aircraft for them would have been something like a modern Convair 200 but even that would have cost too much.

 

[gTg]

Doesn't mean you won't be coming to the party. It just means your pilots will be the ones doing the dying. But hey, that's a good thing right? :

In what way did i imply that our pilots dying is a good thing? : Just because i think F35 is a waste of resource and simply overkill for Belgium needs.
What party are you talking about? Playing for nothing in the sand hunting supposed "terrorists" and using up lifetime of expensive assets for nothing? They are so dangerous you can only bomb them with F35, all other planes will be shot down instantly or what ? No intention to fight against China...

 

[LowObservable]

As for the Marines not getting a new supersonic STOVL aircraft as a separate program, because of the cost...


That would have been a very likely outcome, since US-UK ASTOVL had shown that most of the simple ideas would not work, and the actual operational requirement for RN and USMC LH-class ops is rather small.


It would also be a logical outcome because strategy = matching resources to goals.


Next question - Did the cost of supersonic STOVL disappear when it was rolled into JSF?

 

[sferrin]

Next question - Did the cost of supersonic STOVL disappear when it was rolled into JSF?

No, but the cost of the avionics, design, airframe, etc. got spread out so yes, it is cheaper than a stand-alone design.

 

[GTX]

Yet again we see the USMC being apparently singled out as the sole user of the F-35B..what about the UK, Italy, Probably Spain and others in the future. For instance, already Singapore is openly discussing acquiring F-35Bs. Odds on, there will be more F-35Bs sold than F-35Cs. Therefore, why not shift focus to the Carrier variant being the un-needed, and dare I say, undesirable design influence, on the F-35... :

 

[sferrin]

Yet again we see the USMC being apparently singled out as the sole user of the F-35B..what about the UK, Italy, Probably Spain and others in the future. For instance, already Singapore is openly discussing acquiring F-35Bs. Odds on, there will be more F-35Bs sold than F-35Cs. Therefore, why not shift focus to the Carrier variant being the un-needed, and dare I say, undesirable design influence, on the F-35... :

Yep. The F-35B makes it VERY easy for a non-carrier nation to get in the business. I predict both Japan and South Korea will be flying F-35Bs off carriers. (Even the Australian Canberra class of LHDs has a ski-jump. Only one reason they could have put that there.)

 

[Triton]

Yet again we see the USMC being apparently singled out as the sole user of the F-35B..what about the UK, Italy, Probably Spain and others in the future. For instance, already Singapore is openly discussing acquiring F-35Bs. Odds on, there will be more F-35Bs sold than F-35Cs. Therefore, why not shift focus to the Carrier variant being the un-needed, and dare I say, undesirable design influence, on the F-35... :

We're discussing development costs as related to the decision of going with the combined JSF program, not unit sales or cost amortization over the life of the JSF program. The F-35B is still the most expensive variant of the JSF to develop.

 

[GTX]

Its a moot point now.

 

[sferrin]

Yet again we see the USMC being apparently singled out as the sole user of the F-35B..what about the UK, Italy, Probably Spain and others in the future. For instance, already Singapore is openly discussing acquiring F-35Bs. Odds on, there will be more F-35Bs sold than F-35Cs. Therefore, why not shift focus to the Carrier variant being the un-needed, and dare I say, undesirable design influence, on the F-35... :

We're discussing development costs as related to the decision of going with the combined JSF program, not unit sales or cost amortization over the life of the JSF program. The F-35B is still the most expensive variant of the JSF to develop.

That question was answered a decade ago. Three separate programs would cost more than one joint one. Class dismissed.

 

[Triton]

That question was answered a decade ago. Three separate programs would cost more than one joint one. Class dismissed.

No, that it isn't true. The JSF program did not meet its initial goal of 80% parts commonality among the three service variants as originally planned. Parts commonality among the three variants declined over time increasing research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) and procurement costs and the common airframe also increased program complexity and technical risk. JSF over-promised and under-delivered in regards to development costs. I agree that JSF was the right decision to make politically at the time, but the evidence does not support the claim that three separate programs would cost more than one joint one.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The parts that are not common are the parts that have the smallest impact on the lifetime cost of the airframe.

The largest impact on the F-35's lifetime cost (in regards to parts) are the expendables, LRUs, maintenance procedures, and future development.

In the F-35, these are nearly 100% across all three versions.

 

[sferrin]

That question was answered a decade ago. Three separate programs would cost more than one joint one. Class dismissed.

No, that it isn't true. The JSF program did not meet its initial goal of 80% parts commonality among the three service variants as originally planned. Parts commonality among the three variants declined over time increasing research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) and procurement costs and the common airframe also increased program complexity and technical risk. JSF over-promised and under-delivered in regards to development costs. I agree that JSF was the right decision to make politically at the time, but the evidence does not support the claim that three separate programs would cost more than one joint one.

Explain how three stealth aircraft development programs with ZERO commonality would be cheaper than a joint program.

 

[bobbymike]

That question was answered a decade ago. Three separate programs would cost more than one joint one. Class dismissed.

No, that it isn't true. The JSF program did not meet its initial goal of 80% parts commonality among the three service variants as originally planned. Parts commonality among the three variants declined over time increasing research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) and procurement costs and the common airframe also increased program complexity and technical risk. JSF over-promised and under-delivered in regards to development costs. I agree that JSF was the right decision to make politically at the time, but the evidence does not support the claim that three separate programs would cost more than one joint one.

Explain how three stealth aircraft development programs with ZERO commonality would be cheaper than a joint program.

I can buy the 'trade-offs needed to be made' argument but not that 3 totally different stealth airplanes including a supersonic STOVL would be cheaper.

 

[Triton]

That's the conclusion of the RAND report Do Joint Fighters Save Money?

 

[sferrin]

That's the conclusion of the RAND report Do Joint Fighters Save Money?

Let's say they're right. How is that relevant NOW? Wait, wait, wait, I know. Let's cancel the F-35 and build three NEW individual designs. Surely that will result in three aircraft for less money, sooner, and cheaper. Not trying to be a smartass but when haven't Monday-morning quarterbacks been able to come up with a "shoulda, woulda, coulda" scenario?

 

[SOC]

Let's say they're right. How is that relevant NOW?

Studying such information just might be relevant if you want the USAF and USN to be thinking about 6th generation fighters. Although in that case I'd bet it'd work out a bit better as you're eliminating one of the JSF's complications by default. So, yeah, it doesn't rescue us from this mess but it might help keep us out of the next one.

Let's cancel the F-35

Unfortunately, too many people are hung up on "we've already spent $XXX so there's no stopping now," but you do have a good idea there

 

[LowObservable]

"Monday morning quarterbacking" is a term widely used by those who resist learning from their own, or others' mistakes.


Like most sports metaphors, it is of limited usefulness, because life is not about bats and balls.

 

[kcran567]

Couldn't' there have been three distrinct different aircraft with a similar avionics, and maybe similar engine, other common parts, yet have perhaps three different wing designs, fuselage etc to make each aircraft better as either an air to air, strike, or STOL platform. Trying to shoehorn the f-35 into all these roles only makes itsforthcoming competitors better able to exploit its weaknesses. Its a flawed concept we are stuck with unfortunately. It seems like the f-35 isn't going to be adaptable enough for the next 50 years. Lockheed saying it will be is pure insanity and fraud.

 

[LowObservable]

kcran - That certainly seemed like a potentially good idea in the late 1990s and I advocated it on occasion, using the Airbus range as a model.


The problem? The official predictions of the JSF cost and timescale were so awesomely good that nothing else could compete with them.

Hence the importance of RAND's findings....

Also, there are no aircraft with zero commonality (the Blackbirds were probably as close as it gets). For instance, by the late 1980s the F-14, F-15 and F-16 shared an engine family, all used the same gun, and the F-14 and F-15 radars were closely related. Aircraft are made of parts, that range from catalog items to things that are often made (for different aircraft) by the same supplier in the same factory, using the same techniques and machinery.
[/size]
That's why there's only so much to be saved in production from a common airframe shape - another factor quantified by RAND.

 

[sferrin]

Unfortunately, too many people are hung up on "we've already spent $XXX so there's no stopping now," but you do have a good idea there

So perhaps you could explain how cancelling the F-35 will get us three better fighters sooner and for less money?