F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

12 years 10 months

Posts: 2,661

Whether you will move the cost from airframe to maintenance or training or a billion dollar facility which you must have, it's still gonna be 8 billion acquisition cost alone. That is what matters...

The DSCA release from the South Korean sale is quite comprehensive as far as acquisition goes.

Aircraft will be configured with the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines, and (9) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines are included as spares. Other aircraft equipment includes: Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communication, Computer and Intelligence/Communication, Navigational and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics. Also included: software development/integration, aircraft ferry and tanker support, support equipment, tools and test equipment, communication equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

Cost: $180 mil each. Which translates to $5.75 bn for 32 fighters. Maybe somewhat more on account of the smaller volumes.

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 572

It has not been debunked.

They sort of clearly state that it can't do it with the F35A in the state it was during 2015.

Having flight tests with other software blocks years before doesnt not change anything.

... and calling it debunking. I am not spreading myths, i am quoting the "Director, Operational Test & Evaluation Office". There is nothing to be debunked as that would mean you have proven that the F35A could fly with the bay doors open in 2015.

Below 25k.... details details

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 2,626

It mentions US government services. What US government services is SK paying for?

Member for

12 years 10 months

Posts: 2,661

It mentions US government services. What US government services is SK paying for?

Working as a middle man. All FMS purchases incur an administrative fee of 3.5%.

The Arms Export Control Act requires that FMS activities be conducted at no cost to the U.S. Government and requires an FMS Administrative Surcharge assessment on FMS cases to recover all U.S. Government costs incurred to execute, manage, and oversee these programs. The FMS Administrative Surcharge rate is assessed as a percentage (Reference (a) established the 3.8% rate in 2006) of the value of articles and services on each FMS case. The revenues generated from this surcharge are deposited to the FMS Trust Fund Administrative Account and are used to pay for U.S. Government expenses related to the administration of FMS programs.

Chapter 3, Paragraph 030308.G of reference (b) requires that activity in the FMS Administrative Surcharge Account be reviewed annually and the results of the review serve as a basis for any recommendation on rate changes. Over the past year, my staff has completed an extensive study of the FMS Administrative Surcharge account and we have determined to modestly reduce the FMS Administrative Surcharge rate from 3.8% to 3.5% effective November 1, 2012.

http://www.samm.dsca.mil/policy-memoranda/dsca-12-47

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

Bad examples, Britain had choices, they evaluated those choices and stuck with 138 F-35B.

What other choices did they have for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers?

Japan goes by the beat of their own drummer, the ATD-X is not likely to lead to anything for a long time, the F-35's are replacing F-4. It has nothing to do with perceived weakness of the F-35 in A-A. Did it make sense for Japan to develop a 110 million dollar F-16 variant with inferior performance? Japan wants to protect it's aerospace industry, period.
That's not certain.. ATD-X was only launched after the the deliveries of the F-22s were rejected. How would the situation have developed had Congress allowed Raptors in Japanese service is a pure speculation. It's quite possible that the F-35s would not be purchased, at all.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

The DSCA release from the South Korean sale is quite comprehensive as far as acquisition goes.

Cost: $180 mil each. Which translates to $5.75 bn for 32 fighters. Maybe somewhat more on account of the smaller volumes.

Note that the contract does not include any stores, weapons or missiles which the other expensive deals usually do. These shall come under a separate deal and will add approx. a billion to the overall price..

Member for

12 years 10 months

Posts: 2,661

Note that the contract does not include any stores, weapons or missiles which the other expensive deals usually do. These shall come under a separate deal and will add approx. a billion to the overall price..

US-origin aircraft usually get a leg up once the weapons contract is factored in.

The Government of the Republic of Korea (ROK) has requested a possible sale of F-35 aircraft weapons. These aircraft weapons include the following:
274 AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM)
6 AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM Guidance Sections
530 Joint Directed Attack Munition (JDAM) Tail Kits, BLU-109/KMU-557C/B (GBU-31) w/SAASM/AJ
4 JDAM BLU-109 Load Build Trainers
6 MK-82 Filled Inert Bombs
4 BLU-109 Inert Bombs
1312 FMU-152A/B Fuzes (FZU-63 Initiator)
542 GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs
530 BLU-109 2000LB Penetrators
780 GBU-12 Bomb
4 GBU-12 Dummy Trainers
154 AIM-9X-2 (Blk II) Tactical Missiles w/DSU-41
33 AIM-9X-2 (Blk II) Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM)
7 AIM-9X-2 (Blk II) CATM Guidance Units
14 AIM-9X-2 (Blk II) Tactical Guidance Units
Also included are containers, missile support and test equipment, provisioning, spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and technical support, and other related elements of program support. The estimated cost will be $793 million.

____________________________

This is for a fleet of 60 aircraft. For 32 jets, the figure should be about $400 mil. Call it $500 mil with some extras. Bringing the total acquisition cost of 32 F-35As to about $6.25 bn including weapons. Which is a pretty decent price all things considered. Roughly about $200 mil a unit.

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

Sounds about right.. Aussies are getting 58 F-35As in a US$11.5 bil deal which is practically the same cost.
I personally find the prices quite abnormal but guess we have seen those exorbitant quotes often enough to slowly get used to them..

Member for

8 years 11 months

Posts: 572

What other choices did they have for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers?

That's not certain.. ATD-X was only launched after the the deliveries of the F-22s were rejected. How would the situation have developed had Congress allowed Raptors in Japanese service is a pure speculation. It's quite possible that the F-35s would not be purchased, at all.

They could have used upgraded Harriers, Rafales, Super hornets, or naval Griphens.
There are a host of planes that could have been adopted. Besides weren't you advocating not long ago that Naval Typhoon or griffen would be cheaper?

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

brits wanted jump jets, period, so that AF could reinforce navy.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 5,396

It was a combination of factors. Not only was the propellent in the ammo dirty but the troops didn't clean their weapons. They had been trained that the M16 was so good it never needed cleaning so they just gunged up and jammed. Switching propellent and rigorous cleaning was the fix.

It was exclusively the problem of powder with too slow of a burning rate, which caused the infamous "M-16 jam".

The M-16, being gas impingement operated, requires the port pressure to drop before the extraction cycle begins. A slow burning powder keeps port pressure high and the brass cartridge case stays obturated to the chamber wall making extraction impossible. The extractor rips the rim off the obturated case but the case stays firmly in the chamber. The cycling bolt strips the next round from the magazine and tries to feed it into the already occupied chamber. With the missing rim, there is no way to clear the jam unless you stick a rod down the barrel and poke the empty case out.

The .gov bureaucrats pointed fingers at troops in the field, claiming they were too stupid to clean their rifles. In fact the troops were cleaning their rifles and many troops taped their cleaning rod to the rifle handguard so they would have a way to clear the jam on their clean rifle. USA had the manufacturers add unnecessary forward assist and chrome lining to the chamber and bore, but the jams continued until the powder was changed.

When I'm not in the airplane factory, I enjoy shooting my semi-automatic rifle built with original M-16 barrel and bolt assembly (yes, its the type notorious for jamming in Vietnam). But after firing thousands of rounds with fast burning powder, I have never experience a Vietnam jam. 100F heat, 20kt winds, dust storms, rain, snow and freezing temps and never a Vietnam jam. The culprit was the .gov manufactured ammo with slow burning powder.

Finger pointing by .gov bureaucrats hasn't changed in 50 years, whether it was about the faulty ammo they produced in the mid-1960s or the unnecessary test-analyze-and-fix loop they recently added to airplane development programs in order to justify their jobs.

Member for

10 years 10 months

Posts: 147

Below 25k.... details details

Interestingly, the F-16 can only achieve M1.3 max speed at 25,000ft with a DI of 100 (2 EFTs, 2 Aim-120, 2 Aim-9) and can only just reach M1 at DI 190 (2 x EFT, bombs on station 3 and 7, 2 x Aim-120, 2 x Aim-9). So door opening speed limitations for weapons release are a bit of a moot point here.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]243812[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]243811[/ATTACH]

The F-15 is maximum speed limited to M1.4 when carrying MK82s (stores limitations) and can only drop them at M1.15 when also fitted with one or more EFTs (Typical combat config).

No need even mentioning the F-18.

"Modern" aircraft are similarly impacted when real life strikes and they need to actually fly somewhere at moderate speed...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]243813[/ATTACH]

....vs photo opportunity mode

[ATTACH=CONFIG]243814[/ATTACH]

So for 95% of actual use cases (bombing stuff with a standard combat load attached) , even with the under 25kft, M1.2 limitation in place, the F-35 outperforms the aircraft it's replacing. For air to air weapons release the F-35 is almost always going to be above 35k if launching weapons at high speed (ie has gotten the drop on the enemy and had time to accelerate and climb first).

If it's below 25k when firing, it is most likely already merged and flying subsonic (putting the enemy on the defensive at the outset with its unique, autonomous, over the shoulder shooting capability while other assets within the network engage the occupied enemy from further out/higher and deny the target of support).

Attachments

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 218

They could have used upgraded Harriers, Rafales, Super hornets, or naval Griphens.
There are a host of planes that could have been adopted. Besides weren't you advocating not long ago that Naval Typhoon or griffen would be cheaper?

Griphen, griffen? Now I get why you're a F-XX fan... :rolleyes:

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

Interestingly, the F-16 can only achieve M1.3 max speed at 25,000ft with a DI of 100 (2 EFTs, 2 Aim-120, 2 Aim-9) and can only just reach M1 at DI 190 (2 x EFT, bombs on station 3 and 7, 2 x Aim-120, 2 x Aim-9). So door opening speed limitations for weapons release are a bit of a moot point here.

The F-15 is maximum speed limited to M1.4 when carrying MK82s (stores limitations) and can only drop them at M1.15 when also fitted with one or more EFTs (Typical combat config).
"Modern" aircraft are similarly impacted when real life strikes and they need to actually fly somewhere at moderate speed...

So for 95% of actual use cases (bombing stuff with a standard combat load attached) , even with the under 25kft, M1.2 limitation in place, the F-35 outperforms the aircraft it's replacing. For air to air weapons release the F-35 is almost always going to be above 35k if launching weapons at high speed (ie has gotten the drop on the enemy and had time to accelerate and climb first).

If it's below 25k when firing, it is most likely already merged and flying subsonic (putting the enemy on the defensive at the outset with its unique, autonomous, over the shoulder shooting capability while other assets within the network engage the occupied enemy from further out/higher and deny the target of support).

What legacy fighters are capable of is somewhat irrelevant here. The F-35A block 3f calls for full weapons capability. That includes being able to release weapons at the designed for: Mach 1.6/ 700 knot speed. Whether the current block 2B can achieve that is not relevant, the USAF IOC is with block 3I, and block 3F will follow within the 2018-19 timeframe. If there are still limitations on the weapons bay of the F-35A with 3F, then it will become an issue.

What we have is a somewhat surprising development considering most other issues in the DOT&E report were known. Why the report mentions the inability of the F-35A to deploy weapons or countermeasures in a configuration that will never be combat coded in is a bit of a mystery.

Member for

12 years 10 months

Posts: 2,661

Sounds about right.. Aussies are getting 58 F-35As in a US$11.5 bil deal which is practically the same cost.
I personally find the prices quite abnormal but guess we have seen those exorbitant quotes often enough to slowly get used to them..

You'll find the price of most alternatives is also similarly exorbitant. The Rafale & Eurofighter are the more obvious examples, but its also true for the Super Hornet. Take a look at Australia's recent request for 12 SHs and 12 Growlers (DSCA). Estimated cost - $3.7 billion.

Which equates to $155 mil each (though to be fair, the Growler cost slightly more). Just 14% less than the $180 mil F-35A. This despite the fact that RAAF already operates 24 units of the type and there was no offset component (unlike the Korean deal).

And this BTW is also why, after all the kicking and grumbling, Canada will eventually return to the F-35A when the time comes.

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

Exclusive: Pentagon's budget plan funds 404 Lockheed F-35 jets - sources

The U.S. Defense Department plans to buy 404 Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jets over the next five years, a net decrease of 5 to 7 percent from last year's plan, sources familiar with the plans said on Friday.

...

The change in the Pentagon's plan for the $391 billion weapons program defers orders for 45 Air Force jets, compared with last year's plan, while accelerating orders for the Navy and Marine Corps models of the aircraft, the sources said.

The Pentagon still plans to buy a total of 2,457 jets for all three military services in coming years, they added.

The Pentagon's plan does not include an estimated 260 international F-35 orders over the five-year period, said the sources. Those orders could rise further over the period given potential orders from countries including Finland, Denmark, Belgium and Singapore, the sources said.

The new plan calls for the Air Force to buy 243 F-35 jets through fiscal 2021, 45 fewer than planned, as the service juggles funds to pay for a new long-range bomber to be built by Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N), and KC-46A refueling planes to be built by Boeing Co (BA.N).

It calls for the Navy and Marine Corps to buy 64 F-35C jets, which can take off and land on aircraft carriers, over the next five years, and 97 F-35B jets, which can land like a helicopter, the sources said.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter this week announced plans to buy 13 more F-35 fighter jets for the Navy and Marine Corps than planned last year, but he did not disclose the total number of jets to be purchased across the department.

Two sources said the plans could actually represent an increase of 21 F-35 jets for the Navy and Marine Corps over the five-year period. No comment was immediately available on the discrepancy from Carter's office.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-budget-lockheed-fighter-idUSKCN0VF01F

Another big vote of confidence for the F-35 program. 600-700 (404 US, ~260 international) expected to be produced over the next 5 years.

The 5-7 percent reduction from last year is noteworthy, but given Congress's recent propensity to add extra jets to the orders I suspect that won't actually come to pass.

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

An Italian Air Force pilot flying the first Italian-made F-35A Lightning II has made history today after completing the maiden transatlantic crossing of the stealthy, single-engine Lockheed Martin type.

What’s more, aircraft AL-1 was refuelled en route by Italy’s own Boeing KC-767 tanker, which received F-35 tanking certification at Edwards AFB between July and September last year.

The aircraft took off today from Lajes Field on Portugal’s Azores island group at 7.30am local time before turning south over Canada to touch down at Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River in Maryland at about 2.24pm on 5 February – approximately 7h and more than 2,000nm later.

...

Gianmarco says AL-1 is a more mature model than the aircraft he flew at Luke AFB, and he had complete confidence in the machine prior to making the crossing despite it being the first production model of a completely new assembly line.

“We had the chance to fly for 15h with the KC-767 before crossing the pond. In 6h for the first flight and 7h for the second one – we had no issues, and I mean zero,” Gianmarco says. “This is the first aircraft assembled outside of the US. We have 11,000 young workers at the FACO working as a team for this result, together with the operational wings and the air force to reach this successful achievement."

AL-1 will remain at NAS Patuxent River for two to three months of electromagnetic environmental effects (E3) testing before continuing on to Luke AFB to join the multinational training team that includes American, Australian and Dutch aircraft and pilots, plus teams from foreign military sales customers Japan and Israel.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/italy-claims-first-f-35-transatlantic-crossing-421670/

Europe's first 5th generation fighter off to a good start.

Member for

8 years 10 months

Posts: 234

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-budget-lockheed-fighter-idUSKCN0VF01F

Another big vote of confidence for the F-35 program. 600-700 (404 US, ~260 international) expected to be produced over the next 5 years.

The 5-7 percent reduction from last year is noteworthy, but given Congress's recent propensity to add extra jets to the orders I suspect that won't actually come to pass.

I can feel the death spiral coming really soon.

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

I can feel the death spiral coming really soon.

That is what they get for designing a plane nobody wants!

:eek:

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 8,850

Another big vote of confidence for the F-35 program. 600-700 (404 US, ~260 international) expected to be produced over the next 5 years.

The 5-7 percent reduction from last year is noteworthy, but given Congress's recent propensity to add extra jets to the orders I suspect that won't actually come to pass.

The biggest vote of confidence for the F-35 program is the fact that they killed all prospects of continuing the production of the F-22. The political backing of the F-35 is so strong that it would reach series even if it was a dressed-up motorcycle.