The F-35 Thread

[topol-m]

I wonder which will arrive in service first, the F-35 or the F/A-XX?

 

:laugh:

[Yellonet]

No wonder it's been a winner all over the place ;)

You know as well as everyone that there are things going on behind closed curtains, and in that competition, SAAB is having a tough time.

If it was a "fair" market I believe that more countries would have chosen the JAS-39.

[GGTharos]

Really? Why? You think that these 'things' would cause a country to buy an aircraft that's 3 times more expensive without delivering anything more?

[sobek]

Really? Why? You think that these 'things' would cause a country to buy an aircraft that's 3 times more expensive without delivering anything more?

 

Ever heard of BAE? *wink wink*

[marcos]

Ever heard of Lockheed?

[EtherealN]

I think what he means is that BAE are involved with Gripen International.

 

One thing to remember is that the Gripen was designed as the "first" of the 4.5 gen fighters. This sounds good in advertising, but unfortunately also means that it was designed before Stealth was a serious concern. It is now competing against aircraft that were built around technology that pretty much didn't exist (aside from a relatively gimicky F-117) when the Gripen entered service...

 

It's an aircraft that is excellent for countries that want a cheap airforce to use for aerospace policing, and back in the 90's it was a pretty nice MiG-21 style deal for defensive warfare as well (which of course always was sweden's model, and why it also might fit for Switzerland). But as soon as you count on having to go into a real shooting war somewhere else - for example through being a NATO member - it will start having some issues.

 

As a swede, I do love that aircraft, it's an awesome piece of kit - but it's awesome in the same way a MiG-21 is awesome. (And it's not by chance why the countries interested in it typically are looking to use it to replace MiG-21's!) The F-35 brings something way above to the table.

 

I had a debate about this with my brother a while back, where he compared some calculations of aerodynamics between them (he's an engineer) and decided that clearly the Gripen was better at some things (think it was climb rate and turning), but the mistake he did was that he compared numbers for equal fuel percentage - that is, for example, a full-load Gripen vs a full-load F-35. He forgot that the F-35 can fly for hours and still have the same range as a fully gassed up Gripen, and when the comparisons happen with adjustments for that... things start changing radically.

 

I'd still love to fly a Gripen more than an F-35, but that's my emotions speaking, not a rational assessment of the aircraft.

[sobek]

I think what he means is that BAE are involved with Gripen International.

 

What i was alluding to is this. I'd like to ask everybody not to discuss it on the ED boards though, it lends itself to digressing into politics.

[marcos]

What i was alluding to is this. I'd like to ask everybody not to discuss it on the ED boards though, it lends itself to digressing into politics.

LOL. You just thought you'd drop it in and ask people not to talk about it. Nobody could ever accuse any US corporation of corruption could they?

[marcos]

I think what he means is that BAE are involved with Gripen International.

 

One thing to remember is that the Gripen was designed as the "first" of the 4.5 gen fighters. This sounds good in advertising, but unfortunately also means that it was designed before Stealth was a serious concern. It is now competing against aircraft that were built around technology that pretty much didn't exist (aside from a relatively gimicky F-117) when the Gripen entered service...

 

It's an aircraft that is excellent for countries that want a cheap airforce to use for aerospace policing, and back in the 90's it was a pretty nice MiG-21 style deal for defensive warfare as well (which of course always was sweden's model, and why it also might fit for Switzerland). But as soon as you count on having to go into a real shooting war somewhere else - for example through being a NATO member - it will start having some issues.

 

As a swede, I do love that aircraft, it's an awesome piece of kit - but it's awesome in the same way a MiG-21 is awesome. (And it's not by chance why the countries interested in it typically are looking to use it to replace MiG-21's!) The F-35 brings something way above to the table.

 

I had a debate about this with my brother a while back, where he compared some calculations of aerodynamics between them (he's an engineer) and decided that clearly the Gripen was better at some things (think it was climb rate and turning), but the mistake he did was that he compared numbers for equal fuel percentage - that is, for example, a full-load Gripen vs a full-load F-35. He forgot that the F-35 can fly for hours and still have the same range as a fully gassed up Gripen, and when the comparisons happen with adjustments for that... things start changing radically.

 

I'd still love to fly a Gripen more than an F-35, but that's my emotions speaking, not a rational assessment of the aircraft.

That's an interesting comparison. Equally, many people looking to the F-35 are looking to replace the awesome Harrier and are opting for currently ready, twin-engined, 4.5th gen fighters with 5th gen performance to replace their front-line fighter aircraft.

[Phantom88]

CNO Needs a 5th generation Strike Fighter.

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130408/NEWS/304080036/CNO-voices-commitment-F-35-despite-tailhook-issues

Edited April 9, 2013 by Phantom88

[Maior]

regarding costs, full F.35 packages are coming along at $180~200M per aircraft. It compares very favourably with SHornets and even F-16s if you go bang for your buck. You need to remember that another bonus of the F-35 is that you don't need expensive external pods for extra weapons and improved SA. Add that to the piviously mentioned ability to work by itself and you get a very affordable plane. Even with all the cost slides. The Gripen (amazing as it is) won't probably come out that much cheaper when you take into account the extra systems you might need to acquire in order to perform the required missions. Singapore is thinking of buying the F-35B and South Korea is almost a done deal for the A model. The F-35 continues to rake up interested parties something that other platforms cannot do. Also, the Gripen has been loosing procurement competitions left right and center (India and Brazil immediately springs to mind). remember that the Rafale procurement by India was ailed by the Indian chief of staff as one of the milestones in the country's procurement history since the IAF feels that it got exactly what it wanted.

[Alfa]

regarding costs, full F.35 packages are coming along at $180~200M per aircraft. It compares very favourably with SHornets and even F-16s if you go bang for your buck.

 

Does it? :)

 

Last I heard the unit price of a SuperHornet was cut to some $50 million and more importantly the total recorded operating cost of a SuperHornet is some $16000 an hour, while even Lockeed-Martin expects it to be around twice that($30-32000 an hour) for the F-35.

[GGTharos]

I doubt the SH be running at $16000/h.

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-11-25a.365.0

 

Aircraft Financial Year 2010-11 Cost Per Hour Tornado GR4 35,000 Typhoon 70,000 Harrier GR7/GR9 37,000 Tornado F3 43,000

 

At $32000/h, the F-35 is looking good.

IIRC the F-16MLU run about $25000/h.

[SkateZilla]

The Super Bug is at high 16 low 17 now.

 

CFTs, GE414-EPE, Low RCS PODs and Cockpit Re-design will take it back up to 21

[Pilotasso]

Love the Superbug, but I think its only useful as an interin type. For most countries that buy planes for a 30 year run (or more) will face the danger of obsolescence for much of this period.

[Maior]

Does it? :)

 

Last I heard the unit price of a SuperHornet was cut to some $50 million and more importantly the total recorded operating cost of a SuperHornet is some $16000 an hour, while even Lockeed-Martin expects it to be around twice that($30-32000 an hour) for the F-35.

 

 

Yes, it does. I'm talking about full packages here not the airframe alone. Airframe cost is about 20% of total cost. The SHornet can have a price tag of $66 million (well, 55 was in late 1990s dollars. You need to add nearly 20 years of inflation to that price!). Then you have to add all the pods, external stores and maintenance which brings the price total to around 96% to that of an F-35. So, yeah, 96% of the price for 60% of the capabilities.

 

regarding cost per hour, hard to say exact values due to differences in how they calculate the prices. Australia's SHornet operating costs are $24K an hour and Jane's estimate for the -35 in Australia is $21K. So, who's right?

[Alfa]

Yes, it does. I'm talking about full packages here not the airframe alone.

 

So am I :) .

 

Airframe cost is about 20% of total cost.

 

Yes - hence my "more importantly.." in reference to the total cost per flying hour.

 

The SHornet can have a price tag of $66 million (well, 55 was in late 1990s dollars. You need to add nearly 20 years of inflation to that price!).

 

No you do not - the current unit price for a SuperHornet is some $55 million.

 

The unit price for SuperHornets has steadily fallen over the years, so you cannot just take the initial 1999 unit cost and adjust it for inflation. With the F-35 the trend has very much gone in the opposite direction, where delays and cost overruns has seen the estimated unit cost spiral.

 

BTW I believe that the official(US DoD) estimated unit price for the F-35 remains at some $110 M, but given the above I wouldn't be surprised if it would end up closer to the figures you mentioned in your last post.

 

Then you have to add all the pods, external stores and maintenance which brings the price total to around 96% to that of an F-35. So, yeah, 96% of the price for 60% of the capabilities.

 

Pulling things out of the thin blue air now?.

 

regarding cost per hour, hard to say exact values due to differences in how they calculate the prices.

 

Agreed, but the figures I quoted are the US navy's published cost per flying hour for the SH, while the other is the USAF's estimate for the F-35A which is in line with LM's own.

 

Australia's SHornet operating costs are $24K an hour and Jane's estimate for the -35 in Australia is $21K. So, who's right?

 

Well I for one would take the F-35 estimates of the USAF and Lockeed-Martin over those of Janes' any day of the week :) . As for Australia's operational costs for the SH I cannot say - maybe the higher figure(as compared with that of the USN) is due to some fixed costs being factored in - i.e. divided over fewer airframes operated.

[tflash]

When comparijng how novel the F-35 is against the 4.5 competition one has to take into account that the programme faces a 7-year delay (and counting). If the F-35 had been on time, then the SH would surely be obsolete by now. But it wasn't, and the SH/Growler now sport high-speed fibre-optic network, APG-79 AESA radar etc. While LM has to put enormous resources in trying to make an unproven plastic airframe carrier-capable, Boeing can focus on avionics, human interface, optical systems etc, that can be supplied by the same companies that deliver to F-35.

So thanks to F-35 misplanning, there is still a serious lease of life in SH. I would guess for at least 20 years, probably 30.

[marcos]

Who knows, the F-35 may even be cancelled yet.

[Kaktus29]

@marcos.. i've read some military sources were talking about reducing the 2500+ F-35 to a less number like 1250 fighters.. because of the price..

 

the project surely is complicated to heaven and back..

 

biggest problem is as @tflash noticed is playing catch up.. SuperBug can be installed new tech very easily compared to cramped and already ridden with problems F-35.. so the longer F-35 is delayed and the more F-18 gets advanced the bigger problem for launching F-35 with some super big advantage compared to SuperBug.. the only thing F-35 will be having is "stealth" for what its worth.. plus higher maintenance over its lifetime..

[Isegrim]

[GGTharos]

The Suberbug is facing significant reliability problems with the APG-79, to the point that it's considered to not be 'tactically viable' in certain situations.

 

biggest problem is as @tflash noticed is playing catch up.. SuperBug can be installed new tech very easily compared to cramped and already ridden with problems F-35.. so the longer F-35 is delayed and the more F-18 gets advanced the bigger problem for launching F-35 with some super big advantage compared to SuperBug.. the only thing F-35 will be having is "stealth" for what its worth.. plus higher maintenance over its lifetime..

[Exorcet]

UQB4W8C0rZI

If that's the video I think it is, it's hard to take seriously.

[tflash]

The Suberbug is facing significant reliability problems with the APG-79, to the point that it's considered to not be 'tactically viable' in certain situations.

 

If ever this unsourced (again?) statement were true, these problems will have been sorted out long before the first F-35 even remotely becomes tactically viable in any situation.

[GGTharos]

Google not working for you?

 

If ever this unsourced (again?) statement were true, these problems will have been sorted out long before the first F-35 even remotely becomes tactically viable in any situation.