F-35 price tag holding steady..........

Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 12,109

Nice drawing but the lift fan doors don't look right???:rolleyes:

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/4109/2768678km0.jpg
http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/8175/60951772hw8.jpg

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/5517/repro00155ek9.jpg

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/4109/2768678km0.jpg
http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/8175/60951772hw8.jpg

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/5517/repro00155ek9.jpg

I stand corrected..........:o

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 5,388

The lift fan doors were changed from bi-folding butterfly doors to a single aft hinged door to reduce lift fan inlet distortion as the jet flies into transition in preparation for vertical landing. The aft hinged door does create some distortion/lift loss in pure jetborne lift (vertical ops), but reduces a significant nose down pitching moment as the jet slows to a hover.

Profile picture for user Schorsch

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 3,718

How often does the US Navy operate aircraft carriers in the Port of New York? :rolleyes:
Or did Hillary promise the NYPA its own carrier in case she wins elections? :diablo:

-----
NYPA: New York Port Authority, some kind of a police of its own.
EDIT: I am just reading that it abbreviates itself as PANYNJ, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 5,388

How often does the US Navy operate aircraft carriers in the Port of New York? :rolleyes:
Or did Hillary promise the NYPA its own carrier in case she wins elections? :diablo:

-----
NYPA: New York Port Authority, some kind of a police of its own.
EDIT: I am just reading that it abbreviates itself as PANYNJ, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Queen Hillary has promised big defense cuts, so I doubt the USN will be able to afford to leave port.
Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 12,109

Queen Hillary has promised big defense cuts, so I doubt the USN will be able to afford to leave port.

Or maybe hillary stopped all ship building and we needed to re commision the USS intrepid :eek:

Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 12,109

How often does the US Navy operate aircraft carriers in the Port of New York? :rolleyes:
Or did Hillary promise the NYPA its own carrier in case she wins elections? :diablo:

-----
NYPA: New York Port Authority, some kind of a police of its own.
EDIT: I am just reading that it abbreviates itself as PANYNJ, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

About as much as several supersonic jets buzz pass the kronborg castle ;)

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/8184/repro00138zt4.jpg

I particularly like this aussie drawing , it appears that artists from these countries have sent these drawings , they can be found at the team Joint strike fighter website

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/1779/repro00190fb3.jpg

About as much as several supersonic jets buzz pass the kronborg castle ;)

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/8184/repro00138zt4.jpg

I particularly like this aussie drawing , it appears that artists from these countries have sent these drawings , they can be found at the team Joint strike fighter website

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/1779/repro00190fb3.jpg

Oh, man ........... what happened to the F-35C's?:(

Or maybe hillary stopped all ship building and we needed to re commision the USS intrepid :eek:

I doubt Hillary would be a pro-Military? Unless, it is to her benefit???:rolleyes:

How often does the US Navy operate aircraft carriers in the Port of New York? :rolleyes:
Or did Hillary promise the NYPA its own carrier in case she wins elections? :diablo:

-----
NYPA: New York Port Authority, some kind of a police of its own.
EDIT: I am just reading that it abbreviates itself as PANYNJ, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Well, if the Republican win in November than Mayport has good odds of getting a Carrier. If, the Democrats win the USN will be lucky to have Aircraft Carriers at all..........:eek:

Profile picture for user ELP

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 2,209

Based on Hillary's demonstrated bravery in the ex-Yugo, we won't need a military if she gets in charge. :dev2:

Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 12,109

Based on Hillary's demonstrated bravery in the ex-Yugo, we won't need a military if she gets in charge. :dev2:

It would cost much less if she could pull of a Rambo -

Profile picture for user Schorsch

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 3,718

Based on Hillary's demonstrated bravery in the ex-Yugo, we won't need a military if she gets in charge. :dev2:

Or she copies the early Truman: "A few bombs is all we need."
And the USN carrier force was never in charge in delivering the bomb ... or not really (yeah I know, the A-2 Savage, but that aircraft sucks!).
Profile picture for user Jon James

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 776

Or she copies the early Truman: "A few bombs is all we need."
And the USN carrier force was never in charge in delivering the bomb ... or not really (yeah I know, the A-2 Savage, but that aircraft sucks!).

Not really a bad thing at all in todays casualty adverse America, even if the next war is a 'just war' (sniggers) the American people still arn't going to like casualties one little bit and the media will no doubt play the death toll game repeatedly banging it into the publics heads everytime a soldier so much as stubs a toe whilst crying out quagmire - even if its no where near a quagmire. So yeah in short as long as the bombs are atomic sounds like a great plan, of course there would be no holding and taking ground without an army in theatre but who needs that when your target country is just a pile of smoldering radioactive ashes eh. :)

Profile picture for user Ozzy Blizzard

Member for

11 years 8 months

Posts: 55

Not really a bad thing at all in todays casualty adverse America, even if the next war is a 'just war' (sniggers) the American people still arn't going to like casualties one little bit and the media will no doubt play the death toll game repeatedly banging it into the publics heads everytime a soldier so much as stubs a toe whilst crying out quagmire - even if its no where near a quagmire. So yeah in short as long as the bombs are atomic sounds like a great plan, of course there would be no holding and taking ground without an army in theatre but who needs that when your target country is just a pile of smoldering radioactive ashes eh. :)

I'm not sure if the US is as casualty adverse as we all think. The iraq death toll is 4000+ and still rising. Allthough the public is quite clearly iraq war adverse they're putting up with it for the minet. Your not seeing vietnam esk demonstrations and civil unrest and i guess the death toll would have to rise a tad more before that started to happen. (hopefully you guys can bring your people home soon, but it may be a tad longer than we all would like:( ).

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 13,433

I just compared the December 2007 SAR, i.e. the one with the famous $1bn cost reduction for F-35, with the September 2007 SAR. Interesting. At constant 2002 prices, the predicted cost actually went up $600 mn - and the number planned went down by two aircraft. Predicted unit cost at constant prices therefore increased by about 0.4%, instead of decreasing.

The apparent decrease in cost seems to be due to 1) changed assumptions about future inflation, & 2) cutting two airframes.

$mn
September 2007 SAR - 2458 aircraft
Then-year 299,824.1
2002 209,401.6
Unit - then$ 122.0
Unit - 2002$ 85.2

December 2007 SAR - 2456 aircraft
Then-year 298,842.8
2002 210,014.5
Unit - then$ 121.7
Unit - 2002$ 85.5

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2...071119sars.pdf
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2...080408sars.pdf

Profile picture for user Rogerout

Member for

12 years 8 months

Posts: 457


The apparent decrease in cost seems to be due to 1) changed assumptions about future inflation, & 2) cutting two airframes.

Thanks Swerve, I sensed there was something fishy with the supposed cost reduction but I didn't think they had already started cutting numbers.

The viability of the JSF program has always been to have a big number to divide the cost ove a long production run. If they have started to cut costs by reducing airframes it could be the start of a downhill movement. Now two less isn't much, but it could be the start and it's not like it hasn't happened before.

Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 12,109

JSF Program Improving, Still In Crosshairs

While the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program’s recent Selected Acquisition Report points to some cost stability within the program, the program still faces some serious challenges ahead, a recent Teal Group report says.

Industrial “greed” abroad and program commitment at home continue to put the F-35 in the crosshairs, according to the report.

“The industrial situation has degenerated into a beg-a-thon,” the report says. “For a program that was supposed to break the cycle of offset demands, F-35 has actually engendered nothing but industrial greed, fueled by implied promises and aggressive salesmanship.”

Foreign interest

The report continues: “There appears to be no way to reconcile “best value” contracts and “strategic sourcing” contracts. As third-tier contracts continue to trickle down, there should be enough work to keep international partners happy, but if there isn’t – and if the competition provides some aggressive offers – there could be one or two defectors.”

Still, foreign interest remains high.

“So far, the international dimension looks great. By the end of 2002, there were more European countries committed to F-35 than there were to Eurofighter,” the report says. “Notably, two key Eurofighter partner countries (representing more than half of the partnership’s total defense spending) have joined F-35. But Eurofighter has been revitalized by the Saudi buy. And Saab is promoting the heavier Gripen E/F, which might find appeal in Scandinavia.”

U.S. commitment

The only “concrete sign” of international partnership concern, Teal says, is Australia’s 24 F/A-18F order, which marks the first export success for the Super Hornet, and to a JSF partner.

Of greater worry is the question of commitment at home. Reiterating earlier comments, Teal Group says the Navy embraces the JSF as much as it would “a proposal to go drink bleach. They aren’t sold on stealth, and they seem unwilling to pay a premium for it – in price or payload.”

The Navy also is no fan of a single-engine plane, especially one that could actually threaten the linchpin of the service’s survival: the aircraft carrier. “There’s also the unpleasant prospect that the STOVL F- 35 version (U.S. Marine Corps version) could be nearly as effective as the CTOL naval variant, making large nuclear carriers relatively less appealing.”

The Navy’s biggest problem with the F-35, the report says, seems to be that it is a joint plane. Joint planes threaten the Navy’s hope of ever getting a purely Navy combat aircraft again.

But the real JSF test is the U.S. Air Force, which would rather have F-22 Raptors but faces opposition to more Raptor buys.

Given a funding choice of the two, Teal Group says, the JSF doesn’t have much of a chance. But there may be little choice, which could be the JSF’s saving grace.

Still, prime contractor Lockheed Martin has to keep the unit price down. The basic A model’s unit recurring flyaway cost needs to stay in the $50 million-$60 million range, Teal says. “If costs rise higher than $70 million, the qualities that make the F-35 unique will diminish.”

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/F35041508.xml&headline=JSF%20Program%20Improving,%20Still%20In%20Crosshairs&channel=defense

Profile picture for user zero

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 265

BAE Systems starts manufacture of the first F-35 Lightning II production aircraft

BAE Systems has cut metal on its first component for the F-35 Lightning II production aircraft. This opening cut, on a component part of the aft fuselage, signifies a major milestone for the F-35 Lightning II programme.

The metal cut is for the first production F-35 Lightning II aircraft which will enter into service with the US Air Force (USAF) in 2010 and follows the production contract announcement made in December last year. The contract - a Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contract - is worth £25m to BAE Systems and will see the production of two conventional take off and landing variants.

F136 high-altitude tests completed

The GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team has successfully completed a high-altitude afterburner testing program at the US Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tennessee, including common exhaust hardware for the F-35 Lightning II aircraft.

Profile picture for user Z1pp0

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 204

unit LIFE TIME cost

...
December 2007 SAR - 2456 aircraft
Then-year 298,842.8
2002 210,014.5
Unit - then$ 121.7
Unit - 2002$ 85.5
...

Not necisarily directed to swerve's comment but why does evryone talk almost exclusivly about the initial unit (flyaway) costs. Isn't the real objective of the commonality unit LIFE TIME cost? It's hard if not impossibel to predict the future but does someone have the numbers for the projected F-35 unit lifetime costs? Numbers for things like yearly maintenace costs, MTBF, personel education, infrastructure investsments or anything that is required for F-35 operations. And if possibel the same numbers for another aircraft like the F-16 for comparison.

\\Dan