The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

lantinian said:
Wow, I remember it was to be 35 million in 1994 dollars. How do you explain an increase of 600%?

Inflation ::) 35 million in 94 dollars is 50 million in 09 dollars. So we have a 66-200% increase, depending on the year that you're looking at. And while the cost has certainly gone up, it is either on a par with or less than the costs quoted for PAK-FA, EF Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Gripen NG, etc. while being vastly more capable than all of the aforementioned. Consider, for instance, that the USN is currently paying approximately 80 million for SHornets even with a multi-year procurement contract. The cost was obviously underestimated, but the costs seem to be well within reason.
 
lantinian said:
Wow, I remember it was to be 35 million in 1994 dollars. How do you explain an increase of 600%?

Boy, how are they going to sell that plane internationally? Perhaps LM should subsidize the cost of the plane and introduce a maintenance subscription model.

600%? It's going to cost $210 million a pop in 1994 dollars? ::) Why not just say a $billion?
 
Demon Lord Razgriz said:
I knew it was going to fail, but not that badly! I need a drink... <_<

Here we go again - the usual anti-F-35 drivel!

though I'd love someone to explain the math behind that one as I'm not seeing how it works).

Easy - you buy more, production costs are able to be reduced. For one you can make more efficient input material purchases if you place larger orders. Everyone in the F-35 production system has reducing price targets as well.

Greg
 
*cough* hasn't somebody already clarified a realistic projected cost around $80m? <.<

oh boy, and the congress opted for a more expensive plane under the label cheaper ::)
 
Here's a new one.

sdd_f35testa_092low.jpg



And a higher resolution:

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/sdd_f35testa_092.jpg
 
Alot more at jsf.mil:
http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/sdd/f35_test/a/sdd_f35testa_093.jpg
http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/sdd/f35_test/a/sdd_f35testa_095.jpg
http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/sdd/f35_test/a/sdd_f35testa_096.jpg

Notice the differences between the two aircraft.
 
Great pics. Does anyone know what the big access panel is for on the top left rear of the fuselage? Is that to access the engine's accessory units without removing the engine?
 
Courtesy of Gizmodo

http://gizmodo.com/5541011/f+35-pair-gallery

They're got more at high-res.

Cheers, Woody
 

Attachments

  • 500x_image003.jpg
    500x_image003.jpg
    73.5 KB · Views: 72
  • 500x_image004.jpg
    500x_image004.jpg
    73.3 KB · Views: 74
From Air Force Association

Lightning Strikes Twice at Edwards: AF-1 and AF-2, two F-35A test aircraft, flew nonstop Monday from Lockheed Martin's aircraft plant in Fort Worth, Tex., to Edwards AFB, Calif., completing the historic first multi-ship, long-range flight in the F-35's history, according to the company. The arrival of AF-1 and AF-2 signals the expansion of F-35 flight test operations at Edwards, which is building up a test fleet of at least eight F-35s, the company said in a release. While at Edwards, AF-1 and AF-2 will undergo ground and flight testing involving propulsion, aerial refueling, logistical support, weapons integration, and flight-envelope expansion. The F-35 program has surpassed more than 200 test flights with activities to date in Fort Worth, Edwards, and at NAS Patuxent River, Md., the primary test site for the F-35B and F-35C variants. There are currently three F-35s flying at Pax River. (See also Edwards release)
 
The anti-F35 spam mill is running at full speed these days, but the latest rumors I have read claim that the aircraft is overweight again, its range falls short, it is going to cost $130+ million per aircraft, and key damage control systems have been removed. What is the real story here?
 
;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZUo99e8wCg&feature=player_embedded


Deino
 
Via LM ...
 

Attachments

  • F-35C 1. flight large.jpg
    F-35C 1. flight large.jpg
    332.2 KB · Views: 77
  • F-35C 1. flight large 2.jpg
    F-35C 1. flight large 2.jpg
    329.4 KB · Views: 82
Deino said:
Via LM ...
Just adding a source.
Link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/sets/72157624223179028/

Arrr, F-35C with a hook! ;) ;D
4681506731_9fccd01543.jpg
 
Is it me or does this thing seem to have a wing a lot closer to the F-22's than the X-35C?
 
Some F-35 news from the Air Force Association (3 Stories)

Lightning Bargains: Lockheed Martin will likely quote a price for the fourth production lot of F-35 strike fighters that is “about 20 percent below” the estimate developed by the Pentagon’s cost assessment and program evaluation group, company CEO Bob Stevens told reporters Thursday in Arlington, Va. Stevens said Lockheed Martin has managed to cut the unit cost of the F-35 by 50 percent over the first several production lots, and is so confident that it can meet the target the company "will likely take a fixed-price incentive-type contract for Lot 4.” Accepting a fixed-price incentive fee deal at this point would be two years earlier than the previous plan, he said. The confidence stems from cost “actuals” from building the first production examples, and success in hitting this year’s flight test targets and learning curve, said Dan Crowley, aeronautics division chief operating officer and former F-35 program manager. A “handshake deal” with the government on Lot 4 is only a couple of weeks away, Crowley said. Lot 4 is for 32 aircraft; Lot 5 will be for 42 of the fighters.

Squeezing In Two More Shots: Lockheed Martin’s “Skunkworks” operation has figured out a way to increase the F-35’s air-to-air magazine by 50 percent, company officials told the Daily Report Thursday. With “very modest” changes to the weapon bay and “no changes to the outer mold line,” it will be possible for F-35s to carry up to six AIM-120 AMRAAMs internally instead of the four that it can now bear, one official said. (In this configuration, the F-35 would carry no internal bombs.) With six AMRAAMs inside, the F-35 would match the radar-missile capability of the F-22, but without the Raptor’s two infrared AIM-9 missiles. The company is briefing the Defense Department about the potential weapons bay refinement, which could be done as a product improvement in later lots. Limited internal carriage for air-to-air weapons has been one criticism of the F-35 in some circles.

Lockheed Claims Gen 5 at Gen 4 Price: The F-35 will ultimately match the prices of F/A-18 Super Hornets or the most advanced version of the F-16, Lockheed Martin CEO Bob Stevens said Thursday. “If we are able to secure the production volume that is necessary to drive down the learning curves, . . . our expectation is that the acquisition cost of the F-35 will be approximately comparable to a similarly-equipped F-18 or F-16 Block 60 airplane,” Stevens said in a briefing in Arlington, Va. This would be around $60 million 2010 dollars, he added. Steve O’Bryan, company vice president, said the cost quote by Stevens is contingent on no further delays in production and orders of around 4,500 aircraft—roughly the same number as F-16s that have been produced. Lockheed officials are confident in those numbers because the F-35 will replace not only F-16s, but also A-10s, F-18s, AV-8Bs, and other aircraft. Moreover, the F-35 price includes all the mission gear usually “sold separately” on fourth generation fighters, such as AESA radars, infrared search and track systems, electronic warfare equipment, and weapons pylons, said O’Bryan. (See Lightning Bargains above.)
 
That's alot of information to absorb, but if they're true, it would be like walking back from Hell. Hope it's true that price tag can be reduced to 60 million! Paying a near-raptor price tag is pretty rediculous.
 
There has obviously been lots of controversy with opponents and proponents yelling at each other but I really hope these AFA stories are true. The US and her allies need this aircraft to be a world beater as there is soon to be no alternative to replace aging fighters and attack planes.
 
ah the benefits of international market competition! :D

prolly still a decade though(the competition that is) :(
 
donnage99 said:
That's alot of information to absorb, but if they're true, it would be like walking back from Hell. Hope it's true that price tag can be reduced to 60 million! Paying a near-raptor price tag is pretty rediculous.

For the ignorant (aka uninformed) and excitable type the gates of hell look a lot like a big cloud of hot air. That's what the F-35 has been surrounded with: hot air. People who breathe in all that hot air end up with red faces…
 
I wouldn't call it hot air. There was never an aircraft program being built like the f-35 before, so any cost estimation would have to be based on past experience. Hot air or not, thanks to that we see more pressure being put on Lockheed to deliver their promises.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
People who breathe in all that hot air end up with red faces…

+1 Very good expression. I can imagine someone standing too close to the exhaust while it is idling.
 
Avimimus said:
Abraham Gubler said:
People who breathe in all that hot air end up with red faces…

+1 Very good expression. I can imagine someone standing too close to the exhaust while it is idling.

A once-in-a-lifetime experience, no doubt.... ;)
 
bobbymike said:
Steve O’Bryan, company vice president, said the cost quote by Stevens is contingent on no further delays in production and orders of around 4,500 aircraft

In bold a very relevant detail... a big "if".
 
I know this has been discussed earlier in the program's history, but do any recent reports mention Lockheed taking another look at adding thrust vectoring for future blocks and upgrades? Not for the maneuverability advantages, but due to potential improvements in fuel efficiency and thus range.

The F-35 and EF-2000 are naturally different aircraft with different engines, but supposedly the TVC being tested for the Typhoon can "reduce fuel burn on a typical mission by up to 5 percent while increasing available thrust in supersonic cruise mode by up to 7 percent". Also the modificiations are said to only add some 80 pounds of weight per engine. If similar results could be achieved with the F-35, I think it should certainly be on the upgrade path.
 
haven't heard of any plans to redesign the currently planned nozzles yet. AFAIK, they tweaked the iris structure to decrease thrust loss so it must have produced those reported increments.
 
;D
 

Attachments

  • F-35B 3x lineup.jpg
    F-35B 3x lineup.jpg
    185.8 KB · Views: 110
AF-03 first flight:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2010/100707ae_f35a_a-3_nextgentest.html

LAAAARGE (to large to be posted):
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/aeronautics/press_photos/2010/AF-3_firstflight_AF-3.jpg

Deino
 
i see what they've done here :)
 

Attachments

  • f35-01.jpg
    f35-01.jpg
    64.5 KB · Views: 102
  • f35-02.jpg
    f35-02.jpg
    42.4 KB · Views: 101
If that is not the Carrier variant, why does it say "arresting hook" on the bottom?
 
sublight said:
If that is not the Carrier variant, why does it say "arresting hook" on the bottom?
For emergency breaks and stuff like that. Look at the underbelly of the f-22, there's an arresting hook located right between the 2 nozzles as well.
 
Look at the belly of all USAF fighters, they all have tail hooks. So at the next airshow you go to, look at the F-15 and F-16, they have tail hooks as well. It turns out, brakes do fail and you want something to keep from off roading at the end of the runway. Although, if the brakes do fail, you usually go around and then catch the cable at the near end of the runway when you come back around. It isn't like the naval system, in the sense that it's a much lower deceleration rate as they have a whole runway to work with, as opposed to a few hundred feet on a carrier.
 
What is this for?
 

Attachments

  • AF-3 detail.jpg
    AF-3 detail.jpg
    69.4 KB · Views: 83
Looks like an Electro-Optical Targeting System window minus the gold plating. Here's a very cursory paper I found on it http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/1232.pdf
 
Thanks. This was the first time I had noticed that lump being clear with framing.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom