The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

"Lockheed Boasts F-35 Will Cost Less Than ‘Any 4th Gen Fighter’"
by Colin Clark on December 17, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Source:
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/lockheed-boasts-f-35-will-cost-less-than-any-4th-gen-fighter/

AIR FORCE PLANT 4, FORT WORTH: No one should believe that the battle between Boeing and Lockheed for the right to build Navy fighters is over.

Boeing keeps pushing the low cost, readiness and availability of the F-18. It’s here, it’s proven, and, they say, a new F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will cost just over $50 million for a fully equipped airplane, should the Navy decide to buy more.

During a briefing here before the rollout ceremony for the one hundredth Joint Strike Fighter, Lockheed Martin’s direct, articulate, and fittingly named general manager for the JSF, Lorraine Martin, made this bold pledge during a briefing for reporters: By 2019, the F-35A (the Air Force version) will cost $75 million a copy in current dollars ($85 million in good ole then-year dollars, i.e. counting future inflation), which will be “less than any fourth generation fighter in the world.” That means no other fighter already flying (one sold in US dollars or Euros) will cost less — not the famously inexpensive Gripen, not the French Rafale, the Russian MiG-35, the Boeing F-15 Eagle, or the European Typhoon.

And Martin, known for helping to right Lockheed Martin’s most important program — which had been very wobbly — went even further: “I think we can do even better.” Skeptics will, of course, note that her prediction can’t be tested for five years. That’s forever in Pentagon budget terms. In legislative years, it’s not quite as far away — only two elections. Is it marketing? Of course it is. But it’s also a clear sign that Lockheed continues to target the Navy above all other clients.

A battle has brewed inside the Navy and between the Navy and the Office of Secretary of Defense over when the service should start buying F-35Cs and how many it should buy. Most recently, the Navy “goofed” and issued and then withdrew a pre-solicitation offer for up to a mix of up to 36 F-18 Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers, the radar-jamming variant.

At a Dec. 9 F-18 event, Boeing’s F-18 program manager, Mike Gibbons, said the F-18 Super Hornet costs about $51 million a copy, counting key components — like the engine — that government buys directly from other companies. So how is $75 million less than $51 million, we asked Martin during her briefing here? She told us she was “not sure” the F-18 price included “everything on it,” while the F-35 price includes all weapon systems. We tried to get a better answer but failed.

Fundamentally, Boeing’s case is fairly weak because cutting the number of F-35s would significantly raise the politically sensitive unit price. And Frank Kendall, head of Pentagon acquisition, and other senior defense officials have made clear for months now that they are trying to do everything they can to keep the JSF price and program costs as low as possible. They also have made clear that their commitment to the F-35 is rock solid as the program has stabilized and cut costs. One factor that will be difficult for Boeing to counter is the allies’ hunger for the F-35′s costs to remain as low as possible.

So, while elements of the Navy really, really want to buy more F-18s (Super Hornets and/or Growlers), the service is split. Combine that with the commitment to the program by the senior Pentagon leadership and a host of allies, and I think Boeing faces an uphill battle — and uphill battles in the Pentagon are rarely won. (Sorry, Rep. Forbes!)
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
sferrin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Mods, please attach these comments to the thread in the bar and shut this one down. One thread is enough. Thank you.
 
Sundog said:
Lockheed F-35 Bad Deal As One Jet For All, Report Finds.

In others news, "Duh!"
Click to expand...

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?
 
bobbymike said:
Also, two things never discussed;

1) 4.5 gen fighters stand what chance if the F-35 doesn't stand any chance.
Click to expand...
Well they can't discuss that as their vaunted Eurcanards come out not looking so hot.

bobbymike said:
2) What is it they want more F-22's? A new fighter (circa 2040 or so)? What?
Click to expand...
More Eurocanards of course. Look how much ink the tiny Brazilian order for Gripens is getting.[/quote]
 
[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
 
gTg said:
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.
Click to expand...


This thread probably isn't for you then.

gTg said:
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
Click to expand...

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]
 
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
 
Sundog said:
Lockheed F-35 Bad Deal As One Jet For All, Report Finds.

In others news, "Duh!"
Click to expand...

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.
 
crabanero said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Triton said:
The JSF program probably would have been cheaper if the Marines were left again with nothing.
Click to expand...

You don't say? And how would that have worked out for the Marines?
 
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.
 
Sundog said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sundog said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sferrin said:
Triton said:
The JSF program probably would have been cheaper if the Marines were left again with nothing.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
sferrin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
"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.
 
sferrin said:
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? ::)
Click to expand...
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...
 
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?
 
LowObservable said:
Next question - Did the cost of supersonic STOVL disappear when it was rolled into JSF?
Click to expand...

No, but the cost of the avionics, design, airframe, etc. got spread out so yes, it is cheaper than a stand-alone design.
 
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... ::)
 
GTX said:
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... ::)
Click to expand...

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.)
 
GTX said:
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... ::)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Triton said:
GTX said:
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... ::)
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

That question was answered a decade ago. Three separate programs would cost more than one joint one. Class dismissed.
 
sferrin said:
That question was answered a decade ago. Three separate programs would cost more than one joint one. Class dismissed.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Triton said:
sferrin said:
That question was answered a decade ago. Three separate programs would cost more than one joint one. Class dismissed.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Explain how three stealth aircraft development programs with ZERO commonality would be cheaper than a joint program.
 
sferrin said:
Triton said:
sferrin said:
That question was answered a decade ago. Three separate programs would cost more than one joint one. Class dismissed.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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 said:
That's the conclusion of the RAND report Do Joint Fighters Save Money?
Click to expand...

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?
 
sferrin said:
Let's say they're right. How is that relevant NOW?
Click to expand...

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.

sferrin said:
Let's cancel the F-35
Click to expand...

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 :p
 
"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.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom