Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[skullmilitia]

I'm bored with the F-35, it's so overrated at this point, I'm over it. especially non-VTOL versions.

Yawn.

plus the problems that have yet to be fully fixed.

• The helmet-mounted display system does not work properly.
• The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard.
• The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service.
• The F-35C's arresting hook does not work.
• Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.^[179]
• The wing buffet is worse than previously reported.
• The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan.
• The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas.
• The software development is behind schedule.
• The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, not properly balanced for VTOL operations.
• There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.
• The automated logistics information system is partially developed.
• The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern.

Edited March 13, 2014 by skullmilitia

[electric indigo]

All performance issues aside, I think the F-35 is one of the ugliest planes ever.....and not ugly but awesome like the A-10. Just don't get why so many people love it.

Chris

Well, it could have been even worse...

[the white drew carey]

You see, that's the thing, though: I don't care if a place is ugly as long as it gets the job done. But I see the F-35 being a Jack of All Trades, Master of None.

[Noyhauser]

Sad to see the A-10 go and what sounds like for good this time. Besides F-16's & Blackhawks, we get a lot of Warthogs flying over here too, love that engine sound it never gets boring!!

Whats even sadder is that the Airforce/Government has been trying to do away with this aircraft for a long ass time, The Gulf War proved how valuable it is, then they wanted to scrap it again with the promises of the F-35. Back again with Iraq & Afghanistan, All these years later the A-10 in terms of maintenance & upgrades costs shes one of the cheapest birds flying.

So getting rid of this plane for budget cuts is BS, its just bad politics. For every modern technological advance the F-35 offers, the A-10 can withstand massive AA fire and damage and still land, the same will never be said for the Lightning II. Just my 2 cents.

The reality is that close air support has changed significantly over the past 20 years, and especially in the past 10. The concept of low altitude bombing and strafing runs has largely disappeared from the the USAF's doctrine. Rather the A-10C basically is being used in the same fashion as the F-16, F-15E and other aircraft, which is mid altitude flight profiles dropping precision guided munitions. It shouldn't escape notice that flying low altitude operations during the Persian Gulf War resulted in the aircraft suffering the highest casualty rates of any aircraft during that conflict.

However, better ground to air coordination through the JTACS (forward air controller) new comms systems (like ROVER), improved sensors (like LANTIRN and LITENING), as well as new generation of smart tailored smart weapons (SDB, Viper strike, among others), basically has reduced the requirement for undertaking low level approaches. Undertaking CAS can be done just as effectively at medium altitude: over 80% sorties in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom were undertaken by aircraft other than the A-10. In reality most of the recent updates to the Warthog enabled functions already present on the rest of the fighter fleet.

The A-10C isn't all that much cheaper than other aircraft. Its about $18,000 per flying hour, with the F-16 at 22,000. However the F-16 can undertake more roles, and is far more survivable than the A-10 in a less permissive environment. The A-10's survivability in a theatre that has anything more than the SA-2, 3 or 7 is really in question. That's why its up on the chopping block.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Noyhauser

[Scyla]

The design Boeing proposed is hideous.

I kinda miss being a kit that discovers all the cool fighter designs in the past. Now everything looks alike.

I also prefer the YF-23 of the VF-22 so that's that.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Scyla

[Shadow]

The A-10C isn't all that much cheaper than other aircraft. Its about $18,000 per flying hour, with the F-16 at 22,000. However the F-16 can undertake more roles, and is far more survivable than the A-10 in a less permissive environment. The A-10's survivability in a theatre that has anything more than the SA-2, 3 or 7 is really in question. That's why its up on the chopping block.

Other than having speed to its advantage, how is an F-16 more survivable than an A-10? The air defenses that threaten the A-10 can be just as dangerous if not more so to the F-16. I wouldn't expect any strike aircraft to be sent into an area where radar-guided SAMs like the SA-2,3 and 6 were still a big threat though.

I'd like to see a slow draw down in the A-10 but only as the problems with F-35 are finally sorted out. The other interesting option would be an extended range F-16 for the US like the Block 60.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

This is a bit old, but worth posting. Pierre Sprey, co-designer of both the F-16 and A-10, shares his less than rosy thoughts on the F-35.

*link deleted*

I am no expert but the way this guy disses the F-15 as 'full of unecessary junk' just makes me think he is still living in the Vietnam WVR gun and tail-aspect IR missile era.

And he thinks 'stealth' is totally useless? What would he recommend then? Gripens and J-10s?

[Chronocidal]

Well, there is a kind of technological battle going on in terms of how different countries approach aircraft defense.. The US likes stealth, and hiding in plain sight. In comparison, Russian planes don't seem to be that worried about passive stealth, but tend to throw more money into jamming techniques, and other assorted types of ECM and ECCM.

Stealth only gets you so far, really, and there are always going to be methods to see through it. If stealth and radar jamming techniques get good enough? We're going to be right back to IR missiles, because until someone develops a total cloaking device that covers the entire EM spectrum, no amount of fancy ductwork and cooling camoflage is going to mask the heat of a jet engine.

The "full of unnecessary junk" bit, I think is more a jab at the way they kept piling roles onto the F-15 over time. It started as a pure air-superiority fighter, but then started taking on everything else because it was just better at it in some ways. I suppose in one way that's a comment on the versatility of the F-15... but you could also take it to mean, "You mean no one else could make a purpose built fighter that was better than the F-15 at a role it wasn't designed for?"

Funny enough.. the passive/active stealth argument was part of what was mentioned in Macross Plus, even. The discussion has been going on a long time.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Chronocidal

[David Hingtgen]

The F-16 got just as much stuff piled onto it as the F-15, and earlier in its life. The F-14 came close at the end.

(While the F-16 is darn-near primarily a multi-role attacker nowadays, the original spec was really a daytime dogfighter---not interceptor, not all-weather)

[electric indigo]

Anyone know what's going on with the Tarangus 1/48 Viggen kit?

Chris

Still no release date, but here are first buildup pics to keep you drooling:

http://www.ipmsstockholm.se/home/tarangus-ja37-viggen-in-148-scale-part-1-cp/

[CrazyDude]

Always loved the Viggen and other Saab planes.

[Shadow]

Well, there is a kind of technological battle going on in terms of how different countries approach aircraft defense.. The US likes stealth, and hiding in plain sight. In comparison, Russian planes don't seem to be that worried about passive stealth, but tend to throw more money into jamming techniques, and other assorted types of ECM and ECCM.

Stealth only gets you so far, really, and there are always going to be methods to see through it. If stealth and radar jamming techniques get good enough? We're going to be right back to IR missiles, because until someone develops a total cloaking device that covers the entire EM spectrum, no amount of fancy ductwork and cooling camoflage is going to mask the heat of a jet engine.

The Russians really lacked the sophisticated radar technology of the West so they put more emphasis on IR detection. It's probably why they still emphasis agility in their aircraft. With systems like the SA-21 and future S-500, stealth won't be nearly as effective as it was 15 years ago.

[Noyhauser]

Other than having speed to its advantage, how is an F-16 more survivable than an A-10? The air defenses that threaten the A-10 can be just as dangerous if not more so to the F-16. I wouldn't expect any strike aircraft to be sent into an area where radar-guided SAMs like the SA-2,3 and 6 were still a big threat though.

I'd like to see a slow draw down in the A-10 but only as the problems with F-35 are finally sorted out. The other interesting option would be an extended range F-16 for the US like the Block 60.

Speed is a huge one. A-10s really don't go much above 250KCAS (287mph/463kph), maybe 400 (350mph 600kph)in a pinch. The F-16 cruises around 300~400, and can ingress and egress at much higher speeds 600KCAS (700mph/1,200kph, or about mach .9). Instead of being stuck over a battlefield, F-16s can stay high, and enter only when required. The low speed of the A-10 also creates problems if you're trying to build an effective strike package. Escorts and jammers can't effectively fly as slow as the A-10, therefore you actually need more aircraft to protect it. The F-16/F-15/F-22/F-35 all cruise around in the upper subsonic realm, so its much easier to operate together rather than one aircraft operating at a much slower speed.

Furthermore, the F-16's maneuverability is much better at those speed (it was designed to operate in the transonic realm) which is more valuable in air to air and surface to air scenarios. An A-10 in a air combat scenario is at an extreme disadvantage.

Outside of flight performance, The F-16's avionics are much more advanced. You have an radar, and a versatile avionics suite with good RWR and ECM pods that are all tied altogether. While a lot of that might exist in the A-10 in different parts, the pilot really has to manage it all, which is an issue. F-16s (specifically block 50s) are also able to operate with effective SEAD loadouts like the AGM-88/ and HARM Targeting Pod... which can help with self protection.

All in all, its also not just about the the aircraft's survivability in CAS. The A-10 is largely a single mission platform that can be replaced by other aircraft (it really already has been.) The F-16 can do far more missions (CAS, interdiction, SEAD, air superiority), that make it more valuable, even if it costs a bit more. Reducing the overhead of having to support one aircraft type makes a lot of sense. There are a few areas where the capability might suffer (CSAR being one), but given what the AF sees ahead with the F-35, they want to spend as much money there as possible.

The best way to put it is that a relatively small capability reduction in the near term, will help pay for a massive increase in the mid to long term. What the F-35 offers going forward is nothing short of revolutionary for the armed forces, and thats where they want to spend their money.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Noyhauser

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

1.) Is the F-35 really that flawed or do people give it a hard time cos it is not a good looker and replaces many old favourites? Plus it doesn't have nice paper stats on top speed and cant carry 10 AA missiles.

2.) The development issues it is facing, are they unreasonable for a 21st century fighter program? Stuff like the Rafale, EF2000, J-10 (all arguably less ambitious) took decades too but no one gave em a hard time for that. And their problems just got less internet air-time I suppose.

[F-ZeroOne]

The usual story about the F-16 is that it was originally designed as a "pure" dogfight machine; simple radar, WVR missiles, a gun, high agility etc. It was supposed to "make up the numbers" compared to the high-end F-15s and F-14s.

Obviously, however, they wanted foreign sales and started shopping it around Europe, and the trouble in Europe is that it rains about 75% of the year... So the various European customers, who were also looking to replace various aging aircraft, demanded a better all-weather capability, which is sort of how the F-16 wound up being used more as a bomb truck (this is probably a great simplification, but like I say its how the story is usually told).

Regards the F-35, I would also like to know if other countries aircraft programmes have similar problems. The PAK-FA and J-20 can't work perfectly straight out the box, surely, not given that pretty much every new aircraft programme has hiccups somewhere along the way? I do wonder if part of the issue is just that the F-35 is a product of the information age, and is just getting much more attention than any other previous development programme because of it...

[Shadow]

Another interesting question is can a Generation 5 aircraft be non-stealthy? It seems among many that if it isn't stealth, it can't be considered 5th gen but a 4++.

My concern with the F-35 is that in most combat scenarios where it would be called into action, it may likely have to carry external stores.

[miles316]

Another interesting question is can a Generation 5 aircraft be non-stealthy? It seems among many that if it isn't stealth, it can't be considered 5th gen but a 4++.

My concern with the F-35 is that in most combat scenarios where it would be called into action, it may likely have to carry external stores.

From what I under stand the Stealth would be used in the early parts of a shooting war when they need it to avoid search and track radar or the air defense RADAR but after the SAM/AAA where destroyed they would external stores to carry more weapons to support troops.

[Chronocidal]

From what I under stand the Stealth would be used in the early parts of a shooting war when they need it to avoid search and track radar or the air defense RADAR but after the SAM/AAA where destroyed they would external stores to carry more weapons to support troops.

That's pretty much the way it's always been planned, and the way F-22s are designed to operate as well. You don't see it often, but they've got a good amount of external hardpoints as well. The F-35 can carry a decent load under its wings as well, especially the navy variant.

What really intrigues me though, is the concept of stealthy weapons pods. I've seen some concept designs for a centerline pod for the superhornet, carrying something like 4 AMRAAMs in a blocky belly pod. Seriously, Kawamori has been ahead of his time for years.. they look really similar to the missile pods you see the VF-0 carry.

Anyway, the F-35 is going to be a mixed bag any way you slice it. Will it do the job of all those other planes it's replacing? Potentially, yes. Will it do them as well? No. Air combat is just changing, and people are obsessed with multi-role aircraft, even if they aren't quite as exceptional.

The other thing that's dragging the F-35 through the mud really.. it's essentially a technology demonstrator that someone got the bright idea to put into production. Most planes will get incremental upgrades, and test new systems before they get used in new aircraft. Everything on the F-35 is incredibly new, and untested before now. All the systems, all the computers, everything besides the basic airframe itself, are so new that no one really has implemented anything like them in another aircraft individually, let alone all at once. It's just as much a software issue as a hardware one, because not only do you have to get the bugs out of dozens of systems never tried before on any production aircraft, you have to make them talk to each other.

The capabilities some of those systems offer are amazing.. but the F-35 is getting dragged down because many of the fancy whiz-bang gizmos it depends on are still in the experimental phase. Once they all work, they'll offer a ton of benefits to any plane using them.. but that's going to take a while. Honestly, I'm not expecting the F-35 to last as long as many people hope.. but I'm really looking forward to the planes that come after it, ones that build on all the knowledge gleaned from the development process.

[shadow3393]

That's pretty much the way it's always been planned, and the way F-22s are designed to operate as well. You don't see it often, but they've got a good amount of external hardpoints as well. The F-35 can carry a decent load under its wings as well, especially the navy variant.

What really intrigues me though, is the concept of stealthy weapons pods. I've seen some concept designs for a centerline pod for the superhornet, carrying something like 4 AMRAAMs in a blocky belly pod. Seriously, Kawamori has been ahead of his time for years.. they look really similar to the missile pods you see the VF-0 carry.

Anyway, the F-35 is going to be a mixed bag any way you slice it. Will it do the job of all those other planes it's replacing? Potentially, yes. Will it do them as well? No. Air combat is just changing, and people are obsessed with multi-role aircraft, even if they aren't quite as exceptional.

The other thing that's dragging the F-35 through the mud really.. it's essentially a technology demonstrator that someone got the bright idea to put into production. Most planes will get incremental upgrades, and test new systems before they get used in new aircraft. Everything on the F-35 is incredibly new, and untested before now. All the systems, all the computers, everything besides the basic airframe itself, are so new that no one really has implemented anything like them in another aircraft individually, let alone all at once. It's just as much a software issue as a hardware one, because not only do you have to get the bugs out of dozens of systems never tried before on any production aircraft, you have to make them talk to each other.

The capabilities some of those systems offer are amazing.. but the F-35 is getting dragged down because many of the fancy whiz-bang gizmos it depends on are still in the experimental phase. Once they all work, they'll offer a ton of benefits to any plane using them.. but that's going to take a while. Honestly, I'm not expecting the F-35 to last as long as many people hope.. but I'm really looking forward to the planes that come after it, ones that build on all the knowledge gleaned from the development process.

Additional issue with the F-35 is that it is trying to replace most of TACAir and is stupidly expensive. The Pentagon is so invested in the idea of "5th Gen", really just a marketing term, that they are forgoing all other options to make the F-35 work. If it fails to pan out there is no fall back option.

[skullmilitia]

I think I've heard that the Pentagon has said the F-35 was the last piloted fighter Aircraft.

That the designs in use on the 35' will eventually make their way into the future "ghost" pilotless aircraft fighters.

You can build planes, but you can only have so many pilots.

[David Hingtgen]

Well, the latest on the Gripen-E (Super Gripen) has that it basically gets an all-new fuselage---similar yet mostly retooled, to increase fuel capacity and give it better trans-sonic drag characteristics for an improved supercruise. (M1.25 sustained)

AND it's going to cost less to own/operate than anything else out there that's at all comparable, even the baseline Gripen which was already dirt-cheap and simple. The maintenance and fuel consumption is that much better. And it'll have Meteor capability out-of-the-box as the primary air-to-air weapon, with Iris and ASRAAM for short-range.

And then, the US is making the F-35...

[F-ZeroOne]

I think its a little unfair to call out the F-35 for being too stuffed with technology - many cutting edge aircraft throughout aviation history probably seemed "too advanced for their time". The Supermarine Spitfire had an extremely troubled production history, to the point where the whole project was nearly cancelled - before The Battle of Britain. The Me-262s engines were very unreliable. I was going to mention the F-111, but that example actually probably just adds fuel to the fire... Even the F-16 had engine problems and a bit of a rethink needed about the idea of a control stick that didn't move at all...

[Noyhauser]

1.) Is the F-35 really that flawed or do people give it a hard time cos it is not a good looker and replaces many old favourites? Plus it doesn't have nice paper stats on top speed and cant carry 10 AA missiles.

2.) The development issues it is facing, are they unreasonable for a 21st century fighter program? Stuff like the Rafale, EF2000, J-10 (all arguably less ambitious) took decades too but no one gave em a hard time for that. And their problems just got less internet air-time I suppose.

I think its got a lot of negative press, much of it is not really accurate. The F-35 doesn't fit peoples preconceptions about fighters. Critics like to claim that it has pig like maneuverability.... it doesn't. Its got maneuverability similar to the F-16 or F/A-18C. However its real advantages are in its sensor systems and low-observable nature.

Then there are the price issues. The press loves to throw around 1.5 trillion (now around 1.1 trillion), but they fail to say thats everything adding up, including a nearly 40 years life cycle.

The usual story about the F-16 is that it was originally designed as a "pure" dogfight machine; simple radar, WVR missiles, a gun, high agility etc. It was supposed to "make up the numbers" compared to the high-end F-15s and F-14s.

Obviously, however, they wanted foreign sales and started shopping it around Europe, and the trouble in Europe is that it rains about 75% of the year... So the various European customers, who were also looking to replace various aging aircraft, demanded a better all-weather capability, which is sort of how the F-16 wound up being used more as a bomb truck (this is probably a great simplification, but like I say its how the story is usually told).

Ahh, close... but there are some important details to add. The USAF had already decided to add the A2G capability before the June 1975 decision by the European Multinational Steering Group. In reality, it had always wanted the aircraft to posses that capability, but had been denied to do so until late 1974... so the AF got the aircraft it wanted.

Regards the F-35, I would also like to know if other countries aircraft programmes have similar problems. The PAK-FA and J-20 can't work perfectly straight out the box, surely, not given that pretty much every new aircraft programme has hiccups somewhere along the way? I do wonder if part of the issue is just that the F-35 is a product of the information age, and is just getting much more attention than any other previous development programme because of it...

Yes: Rafale and Eurofighter had similarly long gestations. However newer generations of aircraft (whether they be fighters, or civilian airliners) are taking longer to develop and field. For example the 737 was conceived, developed and introduced in just over 3 years (August 1964 to February 1968). The 787 took approximately 8 years and you could argue that it was an incomplete product. Same goes for fighter aircraft... but its much worse for a number of reasons.

My concern with the F-35 is that in most combat scenarios where it would be called into action, it may likely have to carry external stores.

Actually, I think it will be a rare to see F-35s with external ordinance. It can carry 4500 Lbs in its internal bays. In OIF and OEF the most common load carried by fighters was around 2000lbs of ordnance (1000lbs JDAM or LGB X2, or some combination thereof). F-117 often carried 4000 Lbs (2000 lbs GBU-27 X2) during Operation Desert Storm, but that was for the most defended of targets. That sort of payload is seen as being extremely large and not altogether useful. It causes ALOT of collateral damage, which is a problem.

In reality there is a new generation of smaller weapons entering service like JAGM and SDB, which are nearly as effective as their larger brethren but can be carried in greater quantities.

What really intrigues me though, is the concept of stealthy weapons pods. I've seen some concept designs for a centerline pod for the superhornet, carrying something like 4 AMRAAMs in a blocky belly pod. Seriously, Kawamori has been ahead of his time for years.. they look really similar to the missile pods you see the VF-0 carry.

You're talking about the Boeing low observable pod. Problem with it is that they haven't really solved how to load it effectively... its very low to the ground. The Navy has since taken a pass on the entire concept, especially in the current budget climate.

Anyway, the F-35 is going to be a mixed bag any way you slice it. Will it do the job of all those other planes it's replacing? Potentially, yes. Will it do them as well? No. Air combat is just changing, and people are obsessed with multi-role aircraft, even if they aren't quite as exceptional.

Except that everybody, including the Chinese and Russians only produce multi-role now.

The other thing that's dragging the F-35 through the mud really.. it's essentially a technology demonstrator that someone got the bright idea to put into production.

Low Rate Initial Production actually is a pretty common approach in the acquisitions world. Few development programs do not have an LRIP component would be rare. Otherwise you'd be waiting even more years for production to catch up to the technology.

Now, was the amount of concurrency appropriate in this case? probably not... but that's a difficult call to make. For every bad LRIP decision, there are several good ones. Its tough to assess.

Additional issue with the F-35 is that it is trying to replace most of TACAir and is stupidly expensive. The Pentagon is so invested in the idea of "5th Gen", really just a marketing term, that they are forgoing all other options to make the F-35 work. If it fails to pan out there is no fall back option.

Its actually cheaper than most options. by 2020, production volumes will drive the unit price down to approximately $85 million U.S., which is pretty close to what it pays for other, less advanced aircraft like the F/A-18E. And given the age of the Tac-air fleet's (most sitting around 25~30 years of age), they desperately require a replacement. Also consider that our opponents are buying ever more complex and expensive pieces of equipment, so the disparity in combat capability between the US and them isn't getting any worse (it might be getting better.)

Well, the latest on the Gripen-E (Super Gripen) has that it basically gets an all-new fuselage---similar yet mostly retooled, to increase fuel capacity and give it better trans-sonic drag characteristics for an improved supercruise. (M1.25 sustained)

AND it's going to cost less to own/operate than anything else out there that's at all comparable, even the baseline Gripen which was already dirt-cheap and simple. The maintenance and fuel consumption is that much better. And it'll have Meteor capability out-of-the-box as the primary air-to-air weapon, with Iris and ASRAAM for short-range.

And then, the US is making the F-35...

Ugh... the Gripen NG. Probably the most overhyped aircraft ever, for something that delivers so little actual capability. Frankly, Saab has done a great job of making false or misleading claims about the Gripen's capability, and having people believe them. So, for supercruise, the only way that's possible is if the fighter carries no armament or fuel tanks... which is kinda useful if you actually are going into combat.

The aircraft costs the same or more than a F-35 (around the $85 million dollar range), and frankly, the claims of $5000 dollar CPFH is just not credible (Fuel alone should be around $7000+).

Its sensor capability is barely better than currently updated Hornet (legacy, like the CF-18, not even the Superhornet). Its nowhere close to the F-35's AN/APG-81, or the EODS/DAS system. In some areas the F-35 has superior maneuverability (AoA, thrust to weight with an realistic combat load, among others.)

Weapons-wise the F-35 has the AIM-120D, with Meteor and AIM-9X coming online later. Then there is the Universal Armaments Interface that will basically enable the easy integration of any new weapon. Saab basically has to custom integrate any new weapon that comes online.

[anime52k8]

But the Gripen looks better than the F-35, and everyone knows that modern air combat is entirely a beauty contest where the only thing that matters is who has the prettiest plane.

[Noyhauser]

I know! This is the real reason why the US only built two YF-23s... its all they will ever need.

[shadow3393]

Its actually cheaper than most options. by 2020, production volumes will drive the unit price down to approximately $85 million U.S., which is pretty close to what it pays for other, less advanced aircraft like the F/A-18E. And given the age of the Tac-air fleet's (most sitting around 25~30 years of age), they desperately require a replacement. Also consider that our opponents are buying ever more complex and expensive pieces of equipment, so the disparity in combat capability between the US and them isn't getting any worse (it might be getting better.)

Assuming all goes perfectly and there is no new testing issues or budget issues(cutbacks on airframes). LM has not shown a great track record with cost or schedule on this program. 85 mil is the quoted airframe price with none of the GFE parts (e.g engine). It is still about 1.5x the price of the upgraded SH in the best case, both with all the GFE parts. All the fancy gizmos (EODS, Helmet) have yet to demonstrate that they fully work as intended. As for the opponents, the same skepticism can be applied to them too, but if you take their capabilities at face value, the F-35 will be slaughtered also.

Edited March 17, 2014 by shadow3393

[electric indigo]

I know! This is the real reason why the US only built two YF-23s... its all they will ever need.

...and Russia built only one Su-47.

[Noyhauser]

Assuming all goes perfectly and there is not testing issues or budget issues(cutbacks on airframes). LM has not shown a great track record with cost or schedule on this program. 85 mil is the quoted airframe price with none of the GFE parts (e.g engine). It is still about 1.5x the price of the upgraded SH in the best case, both with all the GFE parts.

No, that's incorrect. First off, LM has been over the cost targets by about 5%, going down from a high of 15% in LRIP lot 3 (or something like that.) The aircraft is now on a firm fixed contract, meaning that any cost overruns are their problem alone.

The F-35's cost is also comparable to the F/A-18E, not 1.5X more. Look at the 2012 Selected Acquisition Report on page 39: Take the 2020 line ($3681.2 million) and divide by unit amount (60) and that equals $61.35 million, in 2012 dollars. Reccurring flyaway is the total of engines, avionics and structure (all the GFE you're talking about)

Now the F/A-18E/F's Selected acquisition report (page 20) shows in 2012 a Recurring cost of 49.27 million in 2000 dollars. You need to inflate that into 2012 baseline to make an apples to apples comparison with the F-35. When you do that you get $65.69 million

Why is the F/A-18E a little bit more? Production volume. The F-35 will be produced at approximately 130 units per year; the Super hornet at best reached 42 or so. Also, total F/A-18E production never broached 600, a magical number for learning curves start hitting their most efficient point.

All the fancy gizmos (EODS, Helmet) have yet to demonstrate that they fully work as intended. As for the opponents, the same skepticism can be applied to them too, but if you take their capabilities at face value, the F-35 will be slaughtered also.

Sure, but the program is reaching most of its milestones. The helmet I'm less worried about compared to the ALIS system, which is absolutely essential for making the aircraft worth it in the long run. Most of the US's opponents aren't investing hundreds of billions into fighter development. Russia's aviation industry is smaller than Canada's and suffers from significant graft... that should tell you about how advanced it is. Also remember that most other aircraft (save from the Eurofighter) does not have the rigorous scrutiny of the DoD oversight bodies. Every single issue with the aircraft is documented and reported on, when you barely hear a peep about other aircraft. Other countries will basically distort facts in order to claim a moral victory of sorts. Saab is about the worst in this regards, little better than the Russians.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Noyhauser

[David Hingtgen]

What I was going to say has already been said----the Gripen looks awesome/badass, so it's automatically better and people believe whatever is said about its abilities.

[shadow3393]

No, that's incorrect. First off, LM has been over the cost targets by about 5%, going down from a high of 15% in LRIP lot 3 (or something like that.) The aircraft is now on a firm fixed contract, meaning that any cost overruns are their problem alone.

The F-35's cost is also comparable to the F/A-18E, not 1.5X more. Look at the 2012 Selected Acquisition Report on page 39: Take the 2020 line ($3681.2 million) and divide by unit amount (60) and that equals $61.35 million, in 2012 dollars. Reccurring flyaway is the total of engines, avionics and structure (all the GFE you're talking about)

Now the F/A-18E/F's Selected acquisition report (page 20) shows in 2012 a Recurring cost of 49.27 million in 2000 dollars. You need to inflate that into 2012 baseline to make an apples to apples comparison with the F-35. When you do that you get $65.69 million

Why is the F/A-18E a little bit more? Production volume. The F-35 will be produced at approximately 130 units per year; the Super hornet at best reached 42 or so. Also, total F/A-18E production never broached 600, a magical number for learning curves start hitting their most efficient point.

Sure, but the program is reaching most of its milestones. The helmet I'm less worried about compared to the ALIS system, which is absolutely essential for making the aircraft worth it in the long run. Most of the US's opponents aren't investing hundreds of billions into fighter development. Russia's aviation industry is smaller than Canada's and suffers from significant graft... that should tell you about how advanced it is. Also remember that most other aircraft (save from the Eurofighter) does not have the rigorous scrutiny of the DoD oversight bodies. Every single issue with the aircraft is documented and reported on, when you barely hear a peep about other aircraft. Other countries will basically distort facts in order to claim a moral victory of sorts. Saab is about the worst in this regards, little better than the Russians.

I am not up to snuff on finance and accounting lingo, can someone explain the difference between BY and TY. Using TY, I get 81.7 mil(60 Jets) for 2020 (pg 35 Total Flyaway) for the AF and 91.9(40 jets) for the navy(pg 41 Total Flyaway). when you add those total costs together and divide by 100 you get the 85 mil number. In comparison I took 2012 TY F-18 cost(pg 18 Total Flyaway) and divided by 28 and got 68.8 which I believe does not include the G models cost or numbers. While not the 1.5 number (1.33 compared to the Navy buy and 1.18 to AF and 1.23 for total), its still hard to say they are the same price. This is also assuming they actually go to FRP by then.

I personally don't believe the hype of the opposition but have heard it as used as a justification to keep funding the F-35.

Edited March 18, 2014 by shadow3393

[Noyhauser]

I am not up to snuff on finance and accounting lingo, can someone explain the difference between BY and TY. Using TY, I get 81.7 mil(60 Jets) for 2020 (pg 35 Total Flyaway) for the AF and 91.9(40 jets) for the navy(pg 41 Total Flyaway). when you add those total costs together and divide by 100 you get the 85 mil number. In comparison I took 2012 TY F-18 cost(pg 18 Total Flyaway) and divided by 28 and got 68.8 which I believe does not include the G models cost or numbers. While not the 1.5 number (1.33 compared to the Navy buy and 1.18 to AF and 1.23 for total), its still hard to say they are the same price. This is also assuming they actually go to FRP by then.

I personally don't believe the hype of the opposition but have heard it as used as a justification to keep funding the F-35.

BY= Base year (for the F/A-18E/F that's 2000, F-35 is 2012)

TY = Then Year (that line is the cost in that particular year's dollars),

That is entirely the discrepancy you're citing. Base years are used in order to keep cost estimates all in line on a constant dollar amount, so you don't need to figure out the inflation for every line (as you do with TY). There are specific DoD indices for their goods, but using the Department of Labour's CPI calculator will do fine in this particular situation.

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Guess what the difference is between 2000 and 2012? 1.33,

Its also best not to use total flyaway, as there are specific costs that don't scale well (ground equipment for a squadron for example.) Recurring flyaway is the best measure, more because you can do a lot of interesting calculations based on that data.

[F-ZeroOne]

Noyhauser, thanks for the additional detail on the F-16 air-to-ground development.

Edited March 18, 2014 by F-ZeroOne

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

One Su-47 don't count. Lotsa ugly one-off pigs out there.

But TWO! Hmmm, XB-70 anyone? If looks decided combat, a pair of XB-70s and YF-23s should suffice to take out everyone else air and ground.

Yeah, I bet if the F-35 looked like the YF-23 or some of that Ace Combat stuff, people on the net would be supporting it and clamouring for more funds to stick extra particle cannons on it.

[shadow3393]

BY= Base year (for the F/A-18E/F that's 2000, F-35 is 2012)

TY = Then Year (that line is the cost in that particular year's dollars),

That is entirely the discrepancy you're citing. Base years are used in order to keep cost estimates all in line on a constant dollar amount, so you don't need to figure out the inflation for every line (as you do with TY). There are specific DoD indices for their goods, but using the Department of Labour's CPI calculator will do fine in this particular situation.

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Guess what the difference is between 2000 and 2012? 1.33,

Its also best not to use total flyaway, as there are specific costs that don't scale well (ground equipment for a squadron for example.) Recurring flyaway is the best measure, more because you can do a lot of interesting calculations based on that data.

So based on inflation, one would have to convert the F-35 price to an estimated 2020 levels, using http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/sites/default/files/faculty-research/sahr/inflation-conversion/pdf/cv2010.pdf, normalized to 2010. which yields 72.65 for the AF buy, 80.45 for the Navy Buy, 75.77 for all. Using the same methods the 2012 F-18 (a reduced lot due to the Gs) would be 65.67, that's still quite a price difference(1.10 for the AF buy,1.22 for the Navy, and 1.15 for all)

Edited March 18, 2014 by shadow3393

[David Hingtgen]