The F-35 Thread

[Weta43]

I know this is a bit against the grain of the thread, and those are 2 very informative posts - and sorry if this is obvious from previous posts - it's not a thread I've been following, and it's too damn long to go back through now, but when you say ...

The F-35A is less expensive when fuel tanks, targeting pods and countermeasures pods are accounted for the Super Hornet.

How does that work from the graphs you posted ?

If I look at 2015 'F-35A cost per plane BY' it sits at $125 M, while the Super Hornet sits at (projecting) $65 M. The F-35A doesn't become 'cheaper' till 2020, which means it 'might' be cheaper in the future, if current assumptions on development costs remain valid, if current assumptions around production numbers remain valid, etc. etc. - but leaving asides that these same numbers have slipped at every milestone in the past, and leaving aside any possible existing 'disagreements' between L.M. & the DoD, when was the last time that happened for any aircraft, anywhere ?

Saying the 'F-35A is 'currently projected' to be the cheapest option by 2020' seems a reasonable, if optimistic, statement. Saying it IS the cheapest option seems to be based on something other than the figures you presented...

Or have I just mis-read the graphs ?

[Winfield_Gold]

Even more impressive is that already 154 F-35's have been delivered today, that have flown >40.000 hours with amazingly few mishaps. Together with the F-22 this makes the US flying more 5th generation fighters today than most airforces have fighters whatsoever.

 

http://yhoo.it/1m95k3H

 

https://www.f35.com/about/life-cycle/testing

 

 

With out actually looking at the links....I can already say honestly that the ones Australia have purchased have not ever touched down on australian soil as of today in this year......so how many of the 154 by what ever countries who have purchased these aircraft have actually been delivered to the country of purchase??

 

Australia plans to buy upwards of 75 of these aircraft....meanwhile we are sending pilots to the USA to fly aircraft we own, yet are not allowed to bring them back to this country.

[Exorcet]

Here, an article where USAF personel explain that the F-35s burned 5,000 lbs of fuel each flying 900 miles from Eglin AFB to Oshkosh Wisconsin. Thus, we can calculate the max range (in this configuration). 18,500 / 5,000 = 3.7 (max fuel / fuel burned). 3.7 x 900 = 3,330. 3,330 miles = 5,360 km.

 

It's not that simple. The first 1/3 of your fuel tank lasts a lot less than the last 1/3 because the wings need to work harder to lift the extra weight.

 

The range multiplier would be between 3 and 4.4 depending on how much total fuel was carried to make that 900 mile flight.

[fltsimbuff]

With out actually looking at the links....I can already say honestly that the ones Australia have purchased have not ever touched down on australian soil as of today in this year......so how many of the 154 by what ever countries who have purchased these aircraft have actually been delivered to the country of purchase??

 

Australia plans to buy upwards of 75 of these aircraft....meanwhile we are sending pilots to the USA to fly aircraft we own, yet are not allowed to bring them back to this country.

 

The development isn't totally done yet, and pilots are still training (not to mention the changes being made by Lockheed Martin that require updated training).

 

The US also doesn't have any actually deployed yet. They are all still being used for training.

 

When an aircraft is still being developed, it helps to be nearby the developers. The Australian pilots just started training in January 2015, and the simulators are in the US. The planes have officially been handed over to the RAAF, and the RAAF chooses to let the pilots learn to fly them before sending them home.

Edited December 26, 2015 by fltsimbuff

[Bullfrog_]

The planes have officially been handed over to the RAAF, and the RAAF chooses to let the pilots learn to fly them before sending them home.

 

This, the tools are in the US and the RAAF understands that. The pilots are still learning to fly the thing and IIRC at the moment there are only 2 of them.

[Fredy5]

It's not that simple. The first 1/3 of your fuel tank lasts a lot less than the last 1/3 because the wings need to work harder to lift the extra weight.

 

The range multiplier would be between 3 and 4.4 depending on how much total fuel was carried to make that 900 mile flight.

 

I already covered that in my follow-up post ;)

[Fredy5]

I know this is a bit against the grain of the thread, and those are 2 very informative posts - and sorry if this is obvious from previous posts - it's not a thread I've been following, and it's too damn long to go back through now, but when you say ...

 

How does that work from the graphs you posted ?

If I look at 2015 'F-35A cost per plane BY' it sits at $125 M, while the Super Hornet sits at (projecting) $65 M. The F-35A doesn't become 'cheaper' till 2020, which means it 'might' be cheaper in the future, if current assumptions on development costs remain valid, if current assumptions around production numbers remain valid, etc. etc. - but leaving asides that these same numbers have slipped at every milestone in the past, and leaving aside any possible existing 'disagreements' between L.M. & the DoD, when was the last time that happened for any aircraft, anywhere ?

Saying the 'F-35A is 'currently projected' to be the cheapest option by 2020' seems a reasonable, if optimistic, statement. Saying it IS the cheapest option seems to be based on something other than the figures you presented...

Or have I just mis-read the graphs ?

 

 

I think it's fairly clear by context that the F-35's costs are from the estimates. However, the estimates used from the 2011 baseline have actually been more expensive. Not a single estimate since 2011 has been low, and it's four years later. We have no reason to distrust these numbers, and I feel compelled to use information we have now. If you could present better cost estimates; then by all means please do. I'd be happy to make graphs out of them.

 

Anyways, the point comes out very clear. The amount of capability for the cost is much greater on the F-35 than the aircraft that came before it.

[HiJack]

Australia plans to buy upwards of 75 of these aircraft....meanwhile we are sending pilots to the USA to fly aircraft we own, yet are not allowed to bring them back to this country.

The pilots are in training and the crew is training on servicing the airframe. It takes time, Norway have two aircrafts they own, fly and service at the moment and will take one home 2016. It's all working to the plan :thumbup:

[phant]

yJ3HJbjN1TQ

 

 

Bye

Phant

[will487]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/01/08/f-35-ejection-seat-fix-delayed-2018-pilot-restrictions-continue/78519892/

 

Interesting.. current F-35 ejection seats could cause severe neck injuries to lightweight pilots if used at low-speeds.

[Hummingbird]

yJ3HJbjN1TQ

 

 

Bye

Phant

 

 

You can say much about the F-35, but the precision and control it demonstrates during VTOLs is impressive.

[RoflSeal]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/01/08/f-35-ejection-seat-fix-delayed-2018-pilot-restrictions-continue/78519892/

 

Interesting.. current F-35 ejection seats could cause severe neck injuries to lightweight pilots if used at low-speeds.

 

What the article convieniently doesn't state is the chance of neck injury to push its biased view. Its a 1 in 50,000 chance of any type of neck injury if a pilot is under 136lb, and that risk reduces to 1 in 200,000 between 136lb and 165lb.

 

 

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/f-35-director-heavy-helmet-causing-ejection-dangers-1.374381

[SimFreak]

[ame]

[/ame]

 

Very neat.

[Falcon_S]

Interesting.

 

Those are the known show-stoppers; the F-35 has many other mere deficiencies. Embarrased by having 180 aircraft that can't actually fight, the head of the F-35 program, General Bogden, has decided to make December 2016 the make-or-break date for the program.The Department of Defense has started backing away from it and is contemplating buying more F-15s and F-16s to fill the USAF's capability gap.This may be the year that the F-35 nightmare ends.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/5_reasons_why_our_f35s_are_too_dangerous_to_fly.html

[Enduro14]

Thank god you think by know the process be more streamlined.

[GGTharos]

It is more streamlined. The article is BS, all of those issues have been addressed in one way or another.

 

And as far as engines go, the F-135 isn't the first new engine that needed reliability correction. A really good historical example is the F100 ... again the culprit was P&W; they actually refused to fix up the engine, so the USAF showed their displeasure by contracting with GE ... and that's exactly the threat P&W is under now, I'll bet.

Edited January 18, 2016 by GGTharos

[codefox]

It is more streamlined. The article is BS, all of those issues have been addressed in one way or another.

 

The F-35 is easily the most hated military US plane for no apparent reason.. So many BS articles, just like that F-16 comparison a few months ago.

[GGTharos]

Yep ... and it wasn't even a good comparison.

[HiJack]

Interesting.

 

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/5_reasons_why_our_f35s_are_too_dangerous_to_fly.html

Spam

[Rangi]

I vaugley remember similar hatred for most of the 4th gen fighters when they were in development. Although there wasn't an internet back then so not so many loud, uninformed voices. Sure the F-35 is ridiculously expensive and has had plenty of teething problems, but I am sure most will be fixed or worked around once we give LM enough cash.

[Falcon_S]

Spam

 

What is Spam? My post or that source (article)?

[Basher54321]

Hilarious - the article is certainly a work of fiction.

 

Is he a aviation fiction writer? or anything remotely related to aviation? - no it seems the clue to this guys agenda is probably given away in his book title.

[carlos.gh]

I am not saying the article is right, but it would help a lot if you could include other sources denying what this guy says.

[Basher54321]

I am not saying the article is right, but it would help a lot if you could include other sources denying what this guy says.

 

Okay - lets take the last bit:

 

 

the F-35 has many other mere deficiencies. Embarrased by having 180 aircraft that can't actually fight, the head of the F-35 program, General Bogden, has decided to make December 2016 the make-or-break date for the program

 

 

 

Out of all Production F-35s flying only the US Marine Corps has declared an IOC (Initial Operational Capability) which was done last year.

 

I am not aware of Bogdan making Dec 2016 a make or break for the program (Perhaps he could give us a source for that) - however the USAF F-35A goes IOC between Aug 2016 & Dec 2016 as a threshold - been that way since 2013 at least.

 

 

[ame]https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/downloads/12994/f-35_ioc_joint_report_final.pdf[/ame]

 

 

 

 

You will see the F-35C is set for 2019 - Nothing to see here :)

 

 

The Department of Defense has started backing away from it

 

Has it now - lets look at the source he provides to back that up (The aviation Investment challenge):

 

Correct me if wrong because I'm just scanning it but all I can find is a proposal to reduce annual quantities brought from 60 to 48 - so not reduce overall numbers just annual numbers?.

 

So how is this backing away?? it states PROPOSAL and he gives this as one of only 2 sources - hmmmm .

 

 

 

and is contemplating buying more F-15s and F-16s to fill the USAF's capability gap.This may be the year that the F-35 nightmare ends.[/i]

 

As for his other source - perhaps not:

 

The US Air Force has denied any plans to purchase another tranche of Lockheed Martin F-16 or Boeing F-15 combat jets following reports it could seek bids for up to 72 new aircraft.

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-denies-seeking-more-f-16-or-f-15-combat-jets-419473/

 

 

 

By 2008, simulations had shown that the F-35 was not fit to be a fighter aircraft. This was in a RAND study by Dr. John Stillion, which concluded that the F-35 "can't turn, can't climb, can't run."

 

Although Stillion did a legit RAND report in 2008, IIRC he had nothing to do with the F-35 can't turn, can't run, etc report (Or I cant believe he would put his name on that?). That appeared to be written by people who didn't have a basic understanding of Aero and used some pretty basic and irrelevant wingloading / T/W charts.

 

I cant find that pdf anymore (its not listed with Stillions RAND papers)

 

anyway RAND had to issue this official statement:

 

“Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.”

 

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25.html

 

 

As for the rest its probably on this thread already - get reading.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Basher54321

[Pilotasso]

There must be a reminder that the F-35 is NOT the F-16's direct lineage descendant. It does things very differently without turning hard or climbing like a rocket. It makes me a sad panda that it does not, but things have changed since the cold war.