F-35 Program - General Discussion

Terran

Terran

Well-Known Member
Let’s not forget that they were barred because of the S400 system that Türkiye was buying. A system that they may not be able to get support for due to the Ukraine conflict. I mean Russian sanctions, the decline of Russian MIC, Türkiye’s NATO membership.
Thats got to leave the old Boys in Ankara feeling like they bet on the wrong Horse.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Another article praising the AETP program. I know the F-35B probably couldn't take advantage of GE's new engine but the A versions could be significantly improved with 20% more thrust and 30% increased range. The ECU upgrade for the F135 offers minimal improvement (mainly cooling for the TR3/Block4). More importantly, GE and LM probably could adapt the F-35C to accept this engine. AETP the for USN would go a long away to addressing Carrier vulnerability by increasing the combat radius of the F-35C. Yes, this would be expensive, but it expands the industrial base not to mention losing a carrier at $14 billion plus is more costly than a dual upgrade AETP and ECU would be.

Should The Air Force Bring Back the Adaptive Engine Program for F-35? - Warrior Maven: Center for Military Modernization
 
Last edited:
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The ECU for the F135 engine needs improved cooling for the TR3/Block 4 upgrade. Collins aerospace is proposing a new system whereas the current supplier (Honeywell) is offering an improved version of their system. The latter is using the same approach that P&W used against GE's AETP engine, "our product is less risky and will be more cost effective. As neither company is offering a game changer like GE's AETP, I would say Honeywell has the advantage. Just my two cents.

As the heat rises with F-35 upgrades, inside Collins's bet on a new cooling system - Breaking Defense
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
John Fedup said:
Another article praising the AETP program. I know the F-35B probably couldn't take advantage of GE's new engine but the A versions could be significantly improved with 20% more thrust and 30% increased range. The ECU upgrade for the F135 offers minimal improvement (mainly cooling for the TR3/Block4). More importantly, GE and LM probably could adapt the F-35C to accept this engine. AETP the for USN would go a long away to addressing Carrier vulnerability by increasing the combat radius of the F-35C. Yes, this would be expensive, but it expands the industrial base not to mention losing a carrier at $14 billion plus is more costly than a dual upgrade AETP and ECU would be.

Should The Air Force Bring Back the Adaptive Engine Program for F-35? - Warrior Maven: Center for Military Modernization
Click to expand...
IMO the cancellation of the AETP is one of the biggest mis-steps in US military procurement in decades.

Given that it can apply to both the F-35A, F-35C which makes up the vast majority of fighters in the US and allies air forces. The F-35 B has a different sort of mission, and still shares huge commonality with the F-35 even if it has a different and once common engine. There is really two needs here, the immediate, the ECU, and the future, the AETP.

Range is ultra critical in the Asia Pacific. China isn't Russia. US carriers are never going to be able to get close in a conflict situation and China has specifically built out their air force to have a range advantage in aircraft with things like the J-20, and other modern aircraft. But also their weapons like the pl-15..

Its a huge force multiplier to have more efficient engines, logistics are more effective, aircraft sorties can do more, tactically, aircraft can flight faster and fly more advantageous flight profiles giving more options for vectors and tactics.

Obviously all the lessons from WW2 have been forgotten. Didn't the zeros have something like a 1650+Nm range? Even out ranging allied bombers? Didn't this superior range made it much easier for Japan to push fighters out far out and remote airfields and then able to operate large patrols or sorties from those fields.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
@StingrayOZ ….agree about AETP 100%

The article below is a summary of global military jet engines including recent developments (detonation engines not mentioned). Near the end is a quote that 6th Gen jets will probably have larger engines so the XE100 wouldn’t be a candidate for NGAD jets (USAF NGAD for sure, USN?). However the F-35 will be around for 40 years and AETP would make the A and C versions very viable right up to 2070 along with other upgrades in technology.

www.sandboxx.us

The race to field the most advanced stealth fighter engines in the world

The race to field the next generation of advanced turbofan engines to equip the most capable stealth fighters in the world is underway.
www.sandboxx.us www.sandboxx.us
 
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Anything that increases the range of fighter jets operating off carriers should be given a serious look into ,as the carriers then can operate further away from possible retaliation , possible hostile areas of operations for carriers can include also the Arabian Sea close to Yemen and Iran
 
M

MickB

Well-Known Member
StingrayOZ said:
IMO the cancellation of the AETP is one of the biggest mis-steps in US military procurement in decades.



Obviously all the lessons from WW2 have been forgotten. Didn't the zeros have something like a 1650+Nm range? Even out ranging allied bombers? Didn't this superior range made it much easier for Japan to push fighters out far out and remote airfields and then able to operate large patrols or sorties from those fields.
Click to expand...
Yes range is a critical factor, but the other lesson to be learned from this example is that the compromises made to achive the desired range and manovability cought up with it in the end.
Lightly built and with little armour the Zero suffered greatly when confronted with later western fighters.
 
Sandhi Yudha

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
John Fedup said:
THE TR-3 upgrade faces further delay. The continuing delays combined with the number of outstanding orders prior to Canada's order must be great news for junior. Given the age of our remaining Hornet fleet TR-3 needs to get sorted.

Pentagon delays F-35 retrofits amid upgrade woes - Breaking Defense
Click to expand...
If i'm not wrong the first F-18s entered the Canadian Airforce in 1983, from which i understand the first 4 F-35 were planned to be delivered in 2026, 6 in 2027, another 6 in 2028, and the rest planned for 2032. That means that most F-18s are more than 43 years old by that time. And now more delays will follow, for an unpredictable time.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Sandhi Yudha said:
If i'm not wrong the first F-18s entered the Canadian Airforce in 1983, from which i understand the first 4 F-35 were planned to be delivered in 2026, 6 in 2027, another 6 in 2028, and the rest planned for 2032. That means that most F-18s are more than 43 years old by that time. And now more delays will follow, for an unpredictable time.
Click to expand...
Not sure about the age range of our Hornet fleet. Probably only about a third of the original fleet remains (assuming most are the last jets delivered) along with the used Australian Hornets but yes, 43 years and more will apply to part of this fleet by the end of the decade. Should delays become significant, the RCAF will be diminished unless it is decided to accept reduced capability with old hardware/software and upgrade later (significantly more expensive option). Maybe a dozen F-15EXs or get Boeing to add an extra dozen F-18 (maybe Growlers as well) to the last USN order. I guess the next government will have to consider how much delay is significant, 12, 18, 24, or more than 24 months?
 
Terran

Terran

Well-Known Member
Sandhi Yudha said:
www.defensenews.com

F-35s to cost $2 trillion as Pentagon plans longer use, says watchdog

The military now plans to fly the F-35 through 2088, but inflation is taking an even deeper bite on the advanced jet.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

This is of course a sick amount of money, but that is the problem with developing fighterjets in general, it becomes more expensive and time consuming. It maybe even doubles every decade.
Click to expand...
This number $2 Trillion is an estimate of the entire lifetime spending of the entire F35 program. From the jet’s unit cost, R&D to the weapons to the pay of the employees who manufacture the screws and all related spending on it over 88 years. So it’s a bit misleading. Because it sounds like an expensive but it’s not all being paid today.
It is like stating a person’s worth based on a calculation using every dollar spent and earned over there entire lifetime. From the Dinner date they were conceived on, though the prom date tickets. Every medical bill, every tooth filled. Every dinner even the bill of the Pizza party that Friday at the office, to the funeral bill and lawyer’s tab for the last Will and testament. Every paycheck and penny picked up off the sidewalk in gross not net.
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Terran said:
This number $2 Trillion is an estimate of the entire lifetime spending of the entire F35 program. From the jet’s unit cost, R&D to the weapons to the pay of the employees who manufacture the screws and all related spending on it over 88 years. So it’s a bit misleading. Because it sounds like an expensive but it’s not all being paid today.
It is like stating a person’s worth based on a calculation using every dollar spent and earned over there entire lifetime. From the Dinner date they were conceived on, though the prom date tickets. Every medical bill, every tooth filled. Every dinner even the bill of the Pizza party that Friday at the office, to the funeral bill and lawyer’s tab for the last Will and testament. Every paycheck and penny picked up off the sidewalk in gross not net.
Click to expand...
I would like to see a comparison with the projected costs of the USAF Lightweight Fighter project(F-16) of the 1970s, combined with the USN VFAX(FA-18) project. Of course, the FA-18 was developed from the losing bidder of the LWF. The amount of money eventually spent on those two programs would certainly sound every bit as shocking as $2T sounds today, to someone in 1980.
 
Terran

Terran

Well-Known Member
How about a 1981 report on the F16 that claimed it had already cost 18.7 Billion dollars?
www.gao.gov

The F-16 Program: Progress, Concerns, and Uncertainties

The F-16 was conceived as the low element in a high/low concept of mixing high performance, costly aircraft with greater numbers of simpler, less...
www.gao.gov www.gao.gov
.
A sum in 1981 adjusted to inflation that would be a paltry 64.5 Billion. 1981 when the plane (YF16, F16A,F16B) was only in production for about 7 years.

Thing is I don’t believe that they did this cradle to grave accounting scheme in the 1980s. If someone else can find one please link.

Forbes reported a decade ago about this issue.
www.forbes.com

Massive Cost Estimate For Fighter Program Is Misleading

The F-35 has proven to be a mixed blessing for the companies that build it.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Of Interest they claim the Mitchell Institute tried to use a similar model on the Legacy fleet and came to 4 Trillion dollars.
This LCC or cradle to grave estimate seems like a crazy scheme because of inflation. You can guess inflation but guessing right is almost impossible. How do you predict the average inflation rate for the next 44 years? Computer models? Roulette wheel? Beheaded Chicken? Because well you have a steady rate you also have sharp increases due to black swans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top