F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Haavarla]

I think russia has to build a decent engine in size and reliability before they could even consider their main plane to be a single engine.

Also I saw at key that you don't seem to realise that the f-35a is a SL 750kn with internal bombs and missiles airplane.
It has a dry cruise of M1.25 and restricted/limited to a max of M1.6 wet (not it's max potential speed), also whilst with internal bombs and missiles. I'll let you get the chart for Kn, alt and Mach numbers.

Nothing wrong with the Singel engine F-35 jet.
Its just that Russia is quite happy with their own twin engine design Su-34 for much of the same role, A2G. No doubt the Su-34 has far longer legs vs the F-35.
My point is, according to Russian Air doctrine, strategic and tactical role, they do not need new singel engine jet.
What is desired within USAF does not mean its desired in VVS and vica verca.

I don't see how people can claim otherwise.

 

[gf0012-aust]

My point is, according to Russian Air doctrine, strategic and tactical role, they do not need new singel engine jet.

Thats the key punchline in any of these discussions.

CONOPS in the ideal world triggers the platform selection.

Its not about a technology solution, its about requirements and how they will be met.

 

[Sea Toby]

Not the best informed but I'll do what I can.

1) Cost estimates are a minefield and without knowing what the budget covers it's hard to respond. Some of the higher cost estimates are related to 'through-life' costs which are naturally much higher than 'flyaway' prices but it's pretty easy to obfuscate this in the soundbite battles.

2) Again, lots of soundbites with complex realities behind them. On the one hand the project has overrun it's original mark by a long way, on the other hand the actual production seems to be on pace with the major delays now being related to short-term cost-cutting in the programme which is a political problem.

3) Unless it has some ludicrous geographical bug like the International Dateline issue the F-22 had it will be much more capable than the current CF-18 in every measurable respect - payload, range etc. The single-engine debate has been done to death but essentially, modern engines are more than reliable enough for this kind of thing (see also, the F-16).

4) No answer to that one except to say that whatever else you bought would probably be US-sourced anyway, probably Super Hornet.

5) If you're anticipating sovereignty issues with Russia in the near future you need an airforce to protect your claims. If you don't expect to have sovereignty issues then maybe you don't need the aircraft.

On the other hand it allows you to act as a full partner in NATO operations with a unified chain of supply rather than your own bespoke system.

Fundamentally, your fifth point is a matter of your national military philosophy and your expectations for the next fifty years of geopolitics and as a UK citizen I'm very poorly placed to comment.

Overall though, if you want to maintain a modern airforce into the 21st century then the F-35 is pretty much the only way to go. It's a major step up in capability from the CF-18 and you won't see an equivalent for at least 20 years.

I agree. The political mess in Canada is a farce. While the price has gone up, anyone with any knowledge knew it would. On the other hand the cynics have suggested a much larger price than what the aircraft is presently. The bigger liar is the cynics.

Since Canada is buying fewer aircraft to replace their present ones, I would go with the better aircraft, the JSF F-35. On the other hand if Canada chose to buy as many aircraft they have presently, for the next 20 years or so the less expensive Super Hornet may be a wise choice. Canada can not go wrong with either aircraft. But if you are looking beyond the next 20 years, there is only one choice, the JSF. By that time the US Navy will be replacing Super Hornets with JSF, and Canada will lose NATO supply links. Something, by the way, the current political debate hasn't focused on yet.

While it is easy to fault the JSF, the cynics haven't compared the costs of other aircraft in the same manner, total costs over 50 years. Logically, over the long run of 50 years, the JSF will be cheaper than the Super Hornet, much less any other aircraft presently, or in the future. The idea something else is cheaper which fits Canada's requirements, is false and foolish.

 

[jack412]

Wouldn't the conops dictate what they want from the plane? Along with the budget given to the builder who puts forward if it has 1,2 or 3 engines, If the PAK budget alowed the development tech to have the needed thrust in a single engine, it would have one, as I see it.

 

[jack412]

I agree. The political mess in Canada is a farce. While the price has gone up, anyone with any knowledge knew it would. On the other hand the cynics have suggested a much larger price than what the aircraft is presently. The bigger liar is the cynics.

Since Canada is buying fewer aircraft to replace their present ones, I would go with the better aircraft, the JSF F-35. On the other hand if Canada chose to buy as many aircraft they have presently, for the next 20 years or so the less expensive Super Hornet may be a wise choice. Canada can not go wrong with either aircraft. But if you are looking beyond the next 20 years, there is only one choice, the JSF. By that time the US Navy will be replacing Super Hornets with JSF, and Canada will lose NATO supply links. Something, by the way, the current political debate hasn't focused on yet.

While it is easy to fault the JSF, the cynics haven't compared the costs of other aircraft in the same manner, total costs over 50 years. Logically, over the long run of 50 years, the JSF will be cheaper than the Super Hornet, much less any other aircraft presently, or in the future. The idea something else is cheaper which fits Canada's requirements, is false and foolish.

The carry-on only shows there is no shortage of idiots in Canada or they would have noticed this little gem

Next Generation Fighter Capability: Independent Review of Life Cycle Cost
3.4.2.2 Acquisition Cost
"The estimation of the Operating costs was undertaken internally by DND using historical actual. The cost methodology for estimating the Operating costs is based on an analogous approach using actual data from existing Canadian CF-18 support units/ bases. This is the most appropriate approach to use at the Options Analysis phase, considering the data that is available and the studies that are yet to be undertaken during the Definition phase which will further inform the Operating costs."

 

[gf0012-aust]

Wouldn't the conops dictate what they want from the plane? Along with the budget given to the builder who puts forward if it has 1,2 or 3 engines, If the PAK budget alowed the development tech to have the needed thrust in a single engine, it would have one, as I see it.

The conops might include vignettes of typical utility and state

must be able to fly A-B in AA combat load config to a range of nn kilometres with 60% of mission set over green/grey/blue water
powerplant must have nn hours ave MTBF
powerplant must be able to run for nn hours before major pulldown
powerplant must be able to maintained to Lev xxx within existing maint contracts

vendors can come back with a response that addresses that but via different solution sets

some might offer more fuel efficient engines to achieve range
some might offer larger tanks to achieve range
some might offer tech where platform dry weight is reduced substantially and power to weight/thrust increases accordingly
some might recess weapons to minimise drag
some might offer spare powerplants on a 24h turnaround and imply reduced downtime
some might offer to set up hi-lev maint in country to reduce downtime and increase support autonomy
some might offer multiple engines as an increase in time on station solution

etc etc

I've done some aircraft evals offshore, and generally speaking. multi-engined platforms have ugly maint and through life costs - even if the powerplant unit price is bought down due to volume benefits, one has to consider that close to 50% of your absolute costs will be eaten by maint

the arguments for multi over singles don't stand up to the stats though - remember that the most reliable single engine fighter in the world is the viper. raw stats eat marketing stats on any day of the week.

that includes availability
accidents - across various measurement vectors
overall hours
across various engine types

manufacturers can't BS on engine data as every airforce maintains their own data - irrespective of the nature of the contract

 

[jack412]

Thanks for expanding it GF.
Given the 2 later f-16 engines (20 and 10 years service) haven't had an engine caused crash yet, they are putting to shame the twin engine ones that have.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thanks for expanding it GF.
Given the 2 later f-16 engines (20 and 10 years service) haven't had an engine caused crash yet, they are putting to shame the twin engine ones that have.

Thats why every accident is a very long investigative process - its important to establish cause of platform failure - and if it translates to other engines - eg would another engine have suffered the same kind of catastrophic failure under identical conditions etc...

at some point the argument about redundancy then has to meet the reality of risk, ie do you want to accept the risk and take the single because that allows other money to be invested in spare/extra frames, diff fitout solutions etc.....

I'd add that I used to be a vocal supporter of twins probably 6 years ago, cold hard stats, and having been involved in some platform evaluations and seen non hysterical data where you are forced to look at the data and not the colour of the brochure or listen to the enthusiasm of the protagonists has a considerable impact on your final assessment (and both sides have their idealogues)

 

[hitops]

I agree. The political mess in Canada is a farce. While the price has gone up, anyone with any knowledge knew it would. On the other hand the cynics have suggested a much larger price than what the aircraft is presently. The bigger liar is the cynics.

Since Canada is buying fewer aircraft to replace their present ones, I would go with the better aircraft, the JSF F-35. On the other hand if Canada chose to buy as many aircraft they have presently, for the next 20 years or so the less expensive Super Hornet may be a wise choice. Canada can not go wrong with either aircraft. But if you are looking beyond the next 20 years, there is only one choice, the JSF. By that time the US Navy will be replacing Super Hornets with JSF, and Canada will lose NATO supply links. Something, by the way, the current political debate hasn't focused on yet.

While it is easy to fault the JSF, the cynics haven't compared the costs of other aircraft in the same manner, total costs over 50 years. Logically, over the long run of 50 years, the JSF will be cheaper than the Super Hornet, much less any other aircraft presently, or in the future. The idea something else is cheaper which fits Canada's requirements, is false and foolish.

With the caveat again that I know little to nothing about military procurement, I don't understand why the price can change. If I'm buying something expensive, I would want to be able to make a contract for a SET PRICE. I don't see how just because the cost goes up for Lockeed, the cost must go up for its customers who already signed contracts. Isn't that lockeeds problem? I mean if I pre-ordered a new car and paid a certain price, and then they told me at the dealership that the price went up since that agreement and I had to pay more, I would be pissed. This seems like really shady business practice that would probably not be tolerated in any other industry.

Why can't Lockheed just properly forecast its costs and sign contracts for a certain price which it then honors like any other honest business?

 

[the road runner]

I don't understand why the price can change.

A number of issues come to mind.Inflation is one,where prices rise through time.
Exchange Rates apply as your countries dollar must be exchanged for US dollars.


Its not like buying a car where you walk into a dealer and buy one in the showroom.
Platforms have long lead times for certain parts.Some countries might have ordered before you placed your order,thus you will have to wait till all other orders are delivered before yours can be delivered.

It could take 3-5 years or longer to get your plane if an order was placed today.

 

[VerySneaky]

With the caveat again that I know little to nothing about military procurement, I don't understand why the price can change. If I'm buying something expensive, I would want to be able to make a contract for a SET PRICE. I don't see how just because the cost goes up for Lockeed, the cost must go up for its customers who already signed contracts. Isn't that lockeeds problem? I mean if I pre-ordered a new car and paid a certain price, and then they told me at the dealership that the price went up since that agreement and I had to pay more, I would be pissed. This seems like really shady business practice that would probably not be tolerated in any other industry.

Why can't Lockheed just properly forecast its costs and sign contracts for a certain price which it then honors like any other honest business?

I'll preface my reply with an acknowledgement that I am in no way a defence expert, and that I am happy to be corrected on any of the points I make, however this is my understanding.

As far as I am aware, Canada has not signed an agreement for the order of any F-35 aircraft. Canada has only invested in the program and the development of the aircraft. As soon as a country places an order for aircraft, the price is fixed and does not change (obviously the terms of the contract restrict any changes to the terms including price). Currently, due to the production status being LRIP (a developmental stage), a lower number of aircraft are being produced which increases the unit cost per aircraft.

There are numerous reasons for cost increases, including unforeseen developmental problems, concurrent development/production methods and changes in the overall number of aircraft to be produced (changes in economy of scale) to name a few.

As the number of aircraft produced per lot increases, economies of scale are leveraged and the unit price for each aircraft drops. The number of aircraft to be produced obviously then has a direct impact on the cost of the aircraft, and so when a partner nation withdraws its support for the program, the cost of the aircraft increases for each of the other partner nations. The fixed cost for an aircraft is determined by the production lot from which it is purchased. Currently, all partner nations have agreed to buy a certain amount of aircraft, however have only placed an order for a fraction of the intended amount. An example is Australia's intent to buy 100 aircraft, however are only contractually obliged to buy the two training aircraft ordered, to be delivered in 2014. Theoretically speaking, there would be no legal issues with declining to buy the remaining 98.

As I see it, the main discrepancy in price changes in Canada was due to the reporting of throughlife costs. It was initially costed for a lifetime of 20 years, and then re costed for a lifetime of 30 years which obviously saw a significantly larger figure. There are also different costing methods using the time-value of money. For instance, due to inflation the cost in 2005 would appear significantly less than the cost in 2012, regardless of any other factors affecting cost increases.

As I said, happy to be corrected on any of these points as I am by no means an expert, but this is my understanding!

Cheers

VS

 

[gf0012-aust]

A number of issues come to mind.Inflation is one,where prices rise through time.
Exchange Rates apply as your countries dollar must be exchanged for US dollars.

which is a good australian example

one of the things that australia has done better than a few other countries wrt to JSF is allocate money against contingency (something which the US State Dept under Ashton Carter has apparently been repeatedly interested in when he's come and had discussions)

what we do is we forecast variations in the exchange rate over a period of time and then factor that into the overall bucket of money we've allocated to a project. if the exchange rate goes south (in their favour) we have a capacity to hedge against the price by drawing on contingency - if it goes the other way then as has happened recently, then we are directed to go in and get better bang for buck on what we are buying - eg we might seek diff sensor systems, diff maint regimes, diff training modules etc....

when you factor in contingency early it means that if things go to custard you are still pulling money from what govt allocated. and you don't need to go back cap in hand for more - which is what pi$$e$ off Dept Finance

 

[the road runner]

what we do is we forecast variations in the exchange rate over a period of time and then factor that into the overall bucket of money we've allocated to a project. if the exchange rate goes south (in their favour) we have a capacity to hedge against the price by drawing on contingency - if it goes the other way then as has happened recently, then we are directed to go in and get better bang for buck on what we are buying - eg we might seek diff sensor systems, diff maint regimes, diff training modules etc....

With the Pacific Paso being so high compared to the US dollar i was surprised when we only placed an order for 14 JSF. I would have assumed the bean counters would have purchased a few more as exchange rates are in favour of Australia.

Altho i do understand the delay to purchase extra JSF was to ensure that we are now on the same delivery time table as the usa.

I do understand that there may be delays in JSF delivery but an order for 38 (plus)JSF would have given the aussie tax payer a lot more value for money.I just hope that the exchange rate dose not go back to $0.70 Aussie to $1 US.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I do understand that there may be delays in JSF delivery but an order for 38 (plus)JSF would have given the aussie tax payer a lot more value for money.I just hope that the exchange rate dose not go back to $0.70 Aussie to $1 US.

Its driven by Service requirement - VFM is not just about visible widgets. Thats something that the average punter is clueless about - but unfort so are most broadsheet journo's

 

[jack412]

The LRIP's don't have a fixed price, but there is an upper limit when the budget is released for that years build, which when you sign for an LRIP 3 years prior to delivery is only an estimate of what it could be. The actual cost of the LRIP URF build year is divided by the frames built, given that the max price is subject to the upper limit of the build year contract.

You get a fixed price when there is a multi year buy contract, when the plane is in full production

 

[VerySneaky]

The LRIP's don't have a fixed price, but there is an upper limit when the budget is released for that years build, which when you sign for an LRIP 3 years prior to delivery is only an estimate of what it could be. The actual cost of the LRIP URF build year is divided by the frames built, given that the max price is subject to the upper limit of the build year contract.

Are you sure? So you're saying that if a country signs a contract for the purchase of an LRIP aircraft 3 years in advance, the price is still variable?

If that is the case it is very interesting from a legal standpoint, as I imagine it would be very difficult for LM to enforce contract performance should the cost be significantly different from any expectations the country may have been lead to have. Generally speaking, where all terms have not specifically been agreed upon, there will be no consideration and no agreement and thus the contract won't be enforcable. This is also the case if the terms are altered materially (which the alteration of price is specified to be in the CISG).

I'm not disagreeing with you, It's just interesting to note.

 

[jack412]

They have just worked out what LRIP 5 is, Australia has already ordered 2 from LRIP 6, we have an estimate, but will find out the price next year.

 

[Air Force Brat]

They have just worked out what LRIP 5 is, Australia has already ordered 2 from LRIP 6, we have an estimate, but will find out the price next year.

Right, and as GF has suggested as an early and consistant JSF partner, Australia will have the most favorable terms the US/LockMart is able to come up with, it pays the US to have Australia firmly on board with JSF, and is cohesive with the US shift to the Far East of many of our assets as many of our partners and friends there have concerns. The JSF does get cheaper with each batch, and there will likely be fewer issues requiring factory attention after delivery, as the rollback in production schedule has resulted in the delivery of a much more polished product, IMHO. AFB

 

[harryLPF]

I think that the F-35 is over rated to be honest. its weight to thrust ratio is poor, 4th gen jets such as F-18 will have far greater maneuverability than F-35 making its air to air capabilities weak, also its stealth technology could become compromised fairly quickly. in order for these aircraft to be viable for the UK we are going to have to mount weapons on wing mounts, as the internal bays do not carry enough or key weapons that we will need such as sidewinder and storm shadow cruise missiles. once these weapons are mounted on wings you can say bye bye to stealth, they'll show up on radar as much as any other jet.

and we wont have enough of them to not do this.

it may be a 5th gen but if it loses its stealth ability it may as-well be a third gen jet.
(as typhoon, rafeal, gripen, F-18/16/15 all have better manouverability than f-35 and all can be equipped with the same radar/communication/counter-measures and warfare electronics)

this is made even worse by the fact that we have chosen the stvol version which further increases its weight- therefore making its thrust to weight ratio even worse. and it reduces weapon bay capacity- therefore meaning we will have to mount weapons on wings and further diminish its stealth technology.

if it had been upto me i dont think i would have even purchased them as i dont think the technology is advanced enough yet, and if i had i would have converted our carrier to catovar so we could have the better carrier version at least.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Note for new posters.

Before posting any comments in here ensure that you read the entire thread

We're not going to waste time going over the basics of systems warfare and platform warfare

We're not going to go over single issues like speed, range, payload every time someone jumps in and decides to impart their own views and philosophies when its apparent that their opinion has been derived from a very limited comprehension of what the future warfighting constructs and concepts of operation are based around

If you don't make the effort to read and understand beyond the usual "throw away" commentary, you will find that tolerance will be tested

This is for your own benefit and has got zero to do with whether you are a proponent of JSF or a detractor. Either position requires people to be informed and at least demonstrate an awareness beyond the usual hysteria which is readily available elsewhere on the net