Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25007
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:03 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 44):
Still no alternatives from the anti-f35 crowd

You have to admit "inevitability" is a pretty weak argument. It didn't work so well for F-22, and F-35 is only one bad budget cycle away from being F-22.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 47):
This Aircraft is completely compromise because of it's need to cover the VSTOL mission.

Actually that was the main point of debate of this thread, and IMHO not proven.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 50):
Sunk costs have nothing to do with it. The cost of the airframes listed are the cost of the airframe, it does not include paying any previous development charges. If that was the case, the Eurofighter and Rafale would be more expensive.

Right, but F-35 would be HUGELY more expensive due to its HUGE sunk cost, and F-16 et al be hugely less expensive since ther sunk costs have been paid off long ago.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 50):
All three aircraft are at the end of their production learning curves

That's debatable.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 50):
And you missed the most important part of the article you quoted,

LRIPs 6 and 7 will be the first contract for which Lockheed Martin assumes all responsibility for exceeding the target cost of the airframes, Rein says.

So all the risk is now on LM. The US and partners pay the negotiated price, anything above that LM has to eat.

Right, but the US and partners still are paying the sunk costs that are NOT being included in the fly-away costs.

There is NO way one can make the F-35 look cheap if one includes the sunk costs, even when compared to competitors, because the sunk costs are HUGE.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Ozair
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:43 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 52):
There is NO way one can make the F-35 look cheap if one includes the sunk costs, even when compared to competitors, because the sunk costs are HUGE.

Sunk costs are just that, sunk.

If you want to play that game though we can look at each aircraft and quote actual facts and figures!

Let's look at Rafale - Figures taken from Rafale Wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale (it should be within 10% of real values)
Total program cost in 2008 was Euro$39.6 billion (we will say approx US$45 billion to give a favourable exchange rate) covering development, production and perhaps some infrastructure upgrades with a 2013 total production of airframes of 115. Unit costs from 2008 are listed as between US$80-90 mil depending upon variant.

So a little math, which uses the favourable figure of US$80 mil and 115 aircraft, arrives at approx US$9.2 billion for the aircraft purchased to date. (using US$90 mil only adds an extra 1 billion so not really relevant). Add another 5 billion for infrastructure and you get a total of approximately US$14 billion. So a best case scenario is that the development of Rafale has cost the French about US$30 billion. That will be for a production run of approximately 140 aircraft by 2019 instead of the 180 originally planned. Even if we add the Indian intent to order an additional 126 we still get a grand total of 266 aircraft.

Total development cost per aircraft (for 266) then is US$132 mil each! That does not include acquisition cost of the aircraft.

Let's look at Typhoon - figures taken from http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/1011755.pdf
Figures are harder to come by but going on UK figures alone for their purchased aircraft. Total development funding from UK in 2011 was 6.7 billion pounds (we will say US$8.5 billion to be favourable). This is the UK's contribution to the program, not the total cost of development which is probably closer to US$25 billion if we consider all partner nations contributions. Production cost figures are 13.5 billion pounds or US$17 billion for 160 aircraft.

So for 160 aircraft the UK paid approximately US$53 million per aircraft in development cost.

I won't bother with F-15 as the acquisition cost is well known and development was so long ago it is irrelevant.

Let's look at F-35 - figures taken from http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655295.pdf
Total US development and acquisition cost is projected at US$391 billion for 2443 aircraft. Development cost is approximately US$55 billion that covers CTOL, VSTOL and CV variants.

So for 2443 aircraft the US will pay approximately US$20 million per aircraft in development costs. Even if we half the procurement of F-35 to 1223 we still arrive at a per aircraft development cost of US$45 million or less than either option above.

There are obvious currency and inflationary issues with the calculations which probably favour the Rafale and Typhoon but even if the figures above are out by 10-15% it still puts to rest the falsehood that the F-35 has huge sunk costs over comparative airframes.


If the above isn’t enough, we can also look at how inflation has affected F-35 development. The 2001 program development cost was projected to be US$34.4 billion. In 2012 dollars that becomes US$45.4 billion. So development costs have increased approximately 21% above initial projections to US$55 billion. Some of this rise can be directly attributed to JSF Program Office requirements changes and to US congressional changes to the production schedule that has reduced production and extended test and evaluation. The rest is the cost of developing advanced military programs over long periods of time and without doubt some LM fat.

[Edited 2013-08-20 23:16:04]
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25007
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Wed Aug 21, 2013 4:07 pm

The chancy part of your analysis is:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 51):
266 aircraft.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 51):
160 aircraft

Versus:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 51):
2443 aircraft

No one can say if that number will be reached, but it is the number that makes the F-35 look more affordable.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:31 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 33):
If the F-35 were far cheaper, it would be a much better proposition, regardless of all the shortcomings.

I wish they made a deal with Saab or something. The central problem for F-35 was its budget was too high. That's a critical problem. A war-losing problem in the end. This was about a bunch of guys who wanted to get rich without delivering an aircraft. And a procurement structure designed to support them.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3566
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:03 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 38):
I find it hard to read an opposing opinion without making the same analogies.. doesn't mean they're wrong or illiterate.. just means I have a problem setting my preconceived opinion aside to hear something from another perspective. And the "righter" I insist my views are, the less accurate they are in reality. These F-35 threads have demonstrated that frequently.

The problem is that, time and time again, one needs to pay attention to who is being quoted, in what context, and what particular bias does the subject have.

I've noticed the article in question quoted people like Winslow Wheeler, and Pierre Sprey as their major sources. My feelings on those two are well known to anyone here. Basically, when you only quote people like Winslow Wheeler, and Pierre Sprey, you've effectively screwed any credibility you might have had. Wheeler is a budget guy. He knows about as much concerning fighter aircraft and design as does Axe. And if you remember correctly, Wheeler said that we'd not see reductions in the price of the F-35 in future orders. He was wrong. If he can't even get it right in the area of his supposed expertise, why in the world would one even bother listening to him when he spouts off about things he knows little to nothing about?

The author then compounds the crediblity problem by introducing Pierre Sprey which he obviously wants you to believe is credible as well:

Quote:
“The Harrier was based on a complete lie,” said Pierre Sprey, an experienced fighter engineer whose design credits include the nimble F-16 and the tank-killing A-10. “The Marines simply concocted it because they wanted their own unique airplane and wanted to convert amphibious ships into their own private carriers.”

Pierre Sprey has never "designed" any fighter aircraft. Ever. He was a PA&E (Office of Program Analysis & Evaluation) guy. He has zero credibility whatsoever to those who actually know his background. By Pierre Sprey's own account, Sprey was a dilettante with an engineering degree but no military experience. After graduation from Yale, Sprey became a research analyst at the Grumman Aircraft Corporation for space and commercial transportation projects. He came to OSD/SA in 1966, where he declared himself an expert on military fighter aircraft, despite his lack of experience. Sprey admitted being a gadfly, a nuisance, and an automatic opponent of any program he was not a part of.

Or, essentially, ignore whatever the man says. He has no experience or experience to back his statements. And, as in the case of the M1 tank, of which he was also a critic, his criticisms were essentially unfounded:

Quote:
None of this establishes that the M1 is a good, bad, or mediocre tank. It does establish, however, that one should be very careful in accepting what the Reformers say.

Their "misstatements" could easily be avoided. For example, they could have learned that the tank will fire without electronics. They simply hadn't tried very hard to find out. For example, the firing of the gun is explained in the crew's manual, as, for that matter, is the dark and mysterious problem of adjusting the seat. There are detailed drawings. The manual is in the public domain. Before leaving Washington, I had asked Rasor's office for their copy. They didn't have one and had never read it.

Before long, one notices a pattern in the pronuncia-mentos of the evangelical Reformers. They mix a robust disregard for truth with a well-developed taste for parody. Observe that the Reformers do not accuse the military merely of bureaucratic ineptitude, poor judgment, and inattention in the expenditure of other people's money—the normal foibles of federal agencies. Instead, soldiers are accused of absurdity, of serious unfamiliarity with their profession, of behavior explainable only by clinically substandard intelligence, and of something bordering on lunacy. This is not analysis but a sort of literary cartooning.
Quote:
Powerful Hostility Toward Technology

A strand running throughout Reformist thinking is their powerful hostility toward advanced technology. At first, they couch their distaste in terms of reason, pointing to real failures of excessively ambitious projects, the real tendency of industry to promote new technology because they make money at it, the real problems of reliability that have plagued many advanced weapons. Then one notices that they rigorously ignore the benefits of technology, that what they advocate often appears to be the military of World War II: unelectronic, radarless, computerless stamped steel. (If generals prepare for the last war, Reformers prepare for the war before last. To say this is unfair, but not very unfair.) One ends by noticing in them a backward-looking romanticism, a longing for the days when men wore iron and their horses didn't come with 500-page manuals. The media often seems to accept this stuff without question (or used to accept it; the Reformers seem to be losing credibility), perhaps because reporters believe the Reformers to be engaged in public-service work.

They aren't, exactly. Rasor, for example, is a paid advocate—i.e., a flack—as much as any PR man at McDonnell Douglas. Cousins's book royalties depend on sales, and measured discussions of the design of armor don't sell books—splashy allegations do. Gary Hart's Reformist fulminations (in America Can Win: The Case for Military Reform, a book by Hart with William S. Lind, published in 1986 by Adler & Adler) were going to be used, one supposes, to position him as a defense-minded Presidential candidate before he self-destructed. Further, the attractions of attention are not without weight in Washington, and many Reformers would never again go
on television if they ceased to deal in sensational charges. The evangelicals are not without agendas of their own.

Another characteristic of Reformist writing is heavy reliance on the fact that much of their nonsense is obvious only to specialists. For example (I could provide pages of this), Cousins speaks of the Hellcat missile (it doesn't exist), worries that electronic jamming might make a descending ICBM fly back to destroy its country of origin (this would require the repeal of the laws of physics), talks of the superiority of aiming a tank gun with the naked eye (flatly impossible), and admires the virtues of the Belgian Leopold tank (apparently he had heard of King Leopold and figured a Belgian tank must be a Leopold, as indeed it might be, if the Belgians built a tank. Really, it was a Belgian-owned German tank known as Leopard).
Quoting cargotanker (Reply 42):
But stealth and sensor technology are the game changers with this aircraft and what make it better than any other multi-role fighter out there, regardless of how fat or expensive it is.

I think the biggest issue that is people compare F-35 to other 4th gen fighters, and see it as a pure replacement for F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8B. It is that, but also much more-its advanced sensors, when networked together, will eventually substitute for the Navy and Air Force fleets of very expensive (and very in-demand) surveillance and reconnaissance and command and control aircraft. When used in combination with munitions-carrying drones, small formations of F-35s will be able to conduct large-scale strikes that remain the purview of large, manned bombers. In effect, F-35, with its reconnaissance and strike capabilities and ability to act as a “node” in a larger “network” of joint systems make it much more than a stealthy tactical aircraft.

Quoting kanban (Reply 38):
The question I keep wondering about is with all this data being displayed to the pilot is there a danger of information overload. Similar to but not on the same scale as texting while driving. Could there be a point where regardless of the sophistication of the systems, it needs to be dumbed down for humans?

The problem is, with previous aircraft, you had to look at each different system to gather information and then put it together in your head as to what's going on. In that type of scenario, yes, one can be overwhelmed with information because the information is not being presented in a unified manner. It is for example, not immediately obvious that say, a radar detected by your ESM and ECM system is the same target as the aircraft you spotted on your radar. It may be the same target, it may be two different targets. You don't know.

With F-35, the onboard avionics put together the information for you to create one common picture. All of the information from datalinks, radar, ESM, EO/IR, etc are all pulled together and is used to generate one picture of the surrounding battlefield. So, not only do you have more information, it's information that is easily acted upon.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4026
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:54 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 54):
The problem is,

This part of your post is informative and brief.. thanks

The rest is mere justification why no other opinions should be allowed.. that's not why there are discussion forums.. We are not a group think society. If you disagree with a writer, so what .. it's only his view and it subtracts nothing from your view. However, was it Shakespeare who noted in a play "Me thinks the lady dost protest too much".. i.e. a symptom of insecurity in one's position. Sometimes being "right" with voluminous posts actually turns off the people you're trying to reach.

You have proved to be extremely thin skinned, and there are those that get kicks out of pricking it.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:18 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 52):
The chancy part of your analysis is:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 51):
266 aircraft.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 51):
160 aircraft

Versus:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 51):
2443 aircraft

No one can say if that number will be reached, but it is the number that makes the F-35 look more affordable.

I agree, the number is high but so is the market potential. The US has aircraft that must be replaced, as do about 10-15 other Air Forces. Given the price and capability of the F-35 compared to its competitors, why would you replace your air fleet with anything else?

Have a read of the following link, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/980323-cr.htm which is senate testimony arguing against Super Hornet development.

People made the same argument about the Super Hornet replacing the classic Hornets as with the F-35, thinking existing airframes could be upgraded and remain competitive. The Super Hornet is now an established and mature airframe that is considered value for money, is significantly more capable than the classic Hornet fleet and ironically the favored aircraft by most F-35 detractors to replace to F-35.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3566
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:29 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 55):
The rest is mere justification why no other opinions should be allowed.. that's not why there are discussion forums.. We are not a group think society. If you disagree with a writer, so what .. it's only his view and it subtracts nothing from your view. However, was it Shakespeare who noted in a play "Me thinks the lady dost protest too much".. i.e. a symptom of insecurity in one's position. Sometimes being "right" with voluminous posts actually turns off the people you're trying to reach.

My point is that you do need to be careful about who you listen to. Pierre Sprey and Winslow Wheeler are not credible because they have zero expertise, knowledge and experience in the topics they talk about. As such, anything they talk about should be taken with a very large grain of salt, and some serious fact checking.

Frank Kendall, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics has the expertise, knowledge and experience (he holds a Master's degree in aeronautical engineering from California Institute of Technology, and is the Pentagon's top buyer) to make a qualified judgement on the state of the F-35. Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, Defense Department’s program manager for the F-35 is also very well qualified to make a judgement on F-35. Both are very upbeat about the program.

On a related note, F-35 lifetime expected costs have DECREASED by 22% per the Pentagon's latest numbers:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...22-pentagon-manager-estimates.html

Quote:
A fleet of Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 fighters will cost $857 billion over 55 years to operate and support, 22 percent less than previously estimated, according to the head of the Pentagon office developing the plane.

The new estimate reflects the aircraft’s performance in 5,000 test flights over 7,000 hours, Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, the Defense Department’s program manager for the F-35, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in written answers last month that haven’t been made public until now.

“The previous cost estimate did not factor in this new knowledge,” Bogdan said.

Operating costs include expenses from spare parts to repairs and fuel. Officially, the Pentagon’s estimate remains $1.1 trillion, a two-year-old projection developed by the Pentagon’s independent cost-assessment office.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4026
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:00 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 57):
My point is that you do need to be careful about who you listen to.

give it a rest... you've lost the argument by talking it to death.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:15 pm

Per Reply 57, I agree: you do need to be careful to whom you listen to. Which is why many on this thread disagree with your claims.

Quoting kanban (Reply 55):
The rest is mere justification why no other opinions should be allowed.. that's not why there are discussion forums.. We are not a group think society. If you disagree with a writer, so what .. it's only his view and it subtracts nothing from your view. However, was it Shakespeare who noted in a play "Me thinks the lady dost protest too much".. i.e. a symptom of insecurity in one's position. Sometimes being "right" with voluminous posts actually turns off the people you're trying to reach.

You have proved to be extremely thin skinned, and there are those that get kicks out of pricking it.

I agree with Kanban. In fact, I might suggest (and suggest only), that someone making large post after large post might indicate a desire to drown other points of view in verbiage. Everyone on this thread (or this site, for that matter) is entitled to their point of view. But making continual large posts does not perforce make the poster any wiser. In fact, perhaps it might indicate otherwise.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:53 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 55):
If you disagree with a writer, so what .. it's only his view and it subtracts nothing from your view.

So all people should get equal credibility when commenting on an issue? I don't agree and I will show you why.

Would you like to make a claim as to who will win the upcoming Australian election, with a breakdown of specific seats to be won by each major party?

I am sure after a bit of internet research you can make an assessment but it would be based on limited facts, knowledge and experience of the Australian political system. Should I give your assessment equal weight to mine, given I am Australian and have lived, voted and been educated on the Australian political system, or the political commentator who has followed politics for 30 years, knows the Canberra political scene intimately and has predicted within a percentage point the previous three election results?

Quoting kanban (Reply 55):
The rest is mere justification why no other opinions should be allowed.. that's not why there are discussion forums..

No one is saying don't listen to Winslow Wheeler or Carlo Kopp etc but common sense dictates that you give each of the individuals commenting on the issue a level of credibility associated with their experience. What I find amazing is that on this and other forums, individuals like Wheeler and Kopp are given equal credibility with military operators, who have far more experience and familiarity with the planning and conduct of military operations as well as the capabilities of the respective platforms, both friend and foe.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4026
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:34 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 60):
So all people should get equal credibility when commenting on an issue?

No, all people are entitled to their perspective, even if wrong in the readers frame of reference. Guessing who's going to win an election is an opinion based on whatever from statistics, to historic parallels, to how one's bunions ache or was an albino camel seen in Alice Springs. Only the final result is fact. With the F-35, we have expectations and fears, but are years away from full analysis and quantitative data.

note the originator only comments he found it interesting and wanted comments on the article not trashing the writer's creditability. The writer brings up points made before and responded to with 'when all systems are installed and working... it will beat Luke Skywalker's fighter..

Military assessments are always suspect.. they are usually from people who have a vested interest in following the chain of command's perspective, and few if any have equal experience with competing planes to have any more than second hand knowledge.. Would any general keep his stars if he stated it was a disaster publicly?

us civilians are under no constraints to tow the line..
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:14 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 46):
developed versions of the F16 /F18.

Replace already flying F35s with hypothetical aircraft. Great plan, but decades too late.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 46):
manufacture enough F22's to cover the mission.

Line is shut down and there are enough F22s tooling around for the mission it has. The US isn't exactly under threat of invasion from droves of Chinese fighters, and won't be any time soon.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 49):
1. Rafale is planned to stay in production to at least 2030....

Rafale is yesterdays news, no one is buying it.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 49):
3. T-50 will start production around the same time as F-35

We are talking about western fighters here. Only an idiot nation in the western world would buy a modern Russian fighter. Besides, its more politics than it is capability. Even if the T-50 was better then the Raptor, countries like Canada would still not buy it.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 49):
3. Gripen NG

Paper fighter, hasn't even flown yet. Your arguments are weak.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 49):
No alternatives? Plenty actually.

Depends on your knowledge and agenda. I'm sure most anti-f35 fanboys would love to see droves of F16 for all the US branches for the next 4-5 decades. Thankfully, it doesn't work that way.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:35 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 60):
So all people should get equal credibility when commenting on an issue?

Per Kanban's comments, everyone is entitled to comment on any issue on this site. You can agree or not. If not, but you believe the commentator has some creds, you can engage. If you believe the commentator has no creds, ignore him/her. From my experience, most of us can spot those with some knowledge as opposed to the poseurs. If what has been posted is factually wrong, and you have solid evidence to back up your assertion, fine, proceed. But to deride and denigrate posters simply because they disagree with you is, at best, puerile. Actually it's a form of bullying.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:56 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 61):
note the originator only comments he found it interesting and wanted comments on the article

And no one is criticizing comorin in any way. He actually credited the forum with having people who could intelligently comment on the issue.

Quoting comorin (Thread starter):
Given the high level of expertise on this site, I wonder what fellow a.nutters think:
Quoting kanban (Reply 61):
With the F-35, we have expectations and fears

You don’t think that 12 years of development history are a bit more than expectations and fears?

Quoting kanban (Reply 61):
but are years away from full analysis and quantitative data.

So in place of full analysis we can therefore be subjected to articles written by bloggers and uninformed individuals.

To prove my point let's look at the first four references in the article.

1. http://defensetech.org/2013/04/18/gao-f-35-program-has-stabilized/ It is a media report of the recent GAO testimony to the House Armed Service’s Tactial Air and Land Subcommittee. So a senior Government official from what some on this forum consider to be an incredibly reputable source.

2. http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/06...entagon-leaders-laud-lockheed.html where the news article references Frank Kendall and LTGEN Bogdan. Kendall has been critical of the program previously but is now giving positive commentary. Bodgan has been critical and still remains reserved in a lot of his comments but he is now generally optimistic.
Both individuals probably have greater access than 99.999% of the US population/government/military to the details on the jet.

3. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/98aaaa1eed4a The writer references his own article where he compares the F-35 to how it has been used in Hollywood movies with most of the non movie related references in that article also pointing to previous articles he has authored.

4. http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/11/10/the-self-dismembering-f-35/ is a 2009 article written by Winslow Wheeler, an outspoken critic of pretty much most defence acquisition programs and an individual that has no access to any information about the aircraft or the program other than what has been published in the public domain.

So what do we get from above. He ignores the information from reputable organisations that have internal knowledge and access to the F-35 development program, and are legally liable for what they write or say, and instead provides more weight and bases his argument around his own article and the writings of someone who has never flown a fighter jet, has no military experience and has no access to internal program information.

Quoting kanban (Reply 61):
Military assessments are always suspect.. they are usually from people who have a vested interest in following the chain of command's perspective, and few if any have equal experience with competing planes to have any more than second hand knowledge.. Would any general keep his stars if he stated it was a disaster publicly?

Fortunately I have met many US service men and women, a number of them star ranked, who demonstrate honestly and integrity in their duties on a daily basis. I therefore fail to see how painting the entire US military establishment, or even just star ranked officers, as suspect, dishonest, lacking integrity or simply afraid to speak the truth helps prove your argument.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4026
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:47 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 64):
You don’t think that 12 years of development history are a bit more than expectations and fears?

personally I think that after 12 years of development and another 7 before a complete package is available leaves us with both expectations on actual performance and fears that capabilities may have been over sold. Personally I care less about the F-35 as a weapon and more about the taxpayer fleecing by the manufacturer.

I also have read comments by pilots and staff with glowing reviews in comparison to aircraft they have never flown.. Even the most ardent supporter here denigrates competition based of gossip and innuendo about foreign technology capabilities. I'm concerned about a false sense of security in a product that is still in development and requiring 97 planes today in the test fleet and another 50 or so to come before the design is complete.

As far as the brass, they have to go pleading to Congress for budget.. do you think they would ever say "I don't know" or "It hasn't been designed to work yet".. ? Would they ever go say the newest technology is still too green to trust in national security.

Lastly your rehash of unacceptable journalists reflects attempting to overcome doubt and poor press with verbosity..

There have been several military leaders who shot all who disagreed.. I don't propose that, however they all lost in the end because they didn't listen to the bad news.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Thu Aug 22, 2013 4:52 am

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 63):
Per Kanban's comments, everyone is entitled to comment on any issue on this site.

You're missing the point. It is not about what people say on this site. It is about the article and what level of credibility we should give it.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 63):
But to deride and denigrate posters simply because they disagree with you is, at best, puerile. Actually it's a form of bullying.

Again, you have soundly missed the point. Nothing I have said references specific posters on this site but is related to the article that the thread is based on.

Quoting kanban (Reply 65):
Personally I care less about the F-35 as a weapon and more about the taxpayer fleecing by the manufacturer.

Okay, so let us reconvene in 15 years and see whether the taxpayer actually gained value for money.
Quoting kanban (Reply 65):
As far as the brass, they have to go pleading to Congress for budget.. do you think they would ever say "I don't know" or "It hasn't been designed to work yet".. ? Would they ever go say the newest technology is still too green to trust in national security.

I want them to say what they think is the right answer irrespective of whether it is controversial or not. Given how many closed hearings occur they probably do, you just don't get to hear it. Many of these individuals have led men in combat and without doubt none of them want to see another American serviceman die anywhere in the world.

Quoting kanban (Reply 65):
Lastly your rehash of unacceptable journalists reflects attempting to overcome doubt and poor press with verbosity..

So me providing commentary on the article is attempting to overcome doubt and poor press? Perhaps it is actually about examining the article in question to determine whether the information provided is valid or not.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:31 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 62):
Rafale is yesterdays news, no one is buying it.

We are talking about available alternatives right? Which Rafale is. And nobody is buying it, which is why it will remain in production till 2030? Can you reconcile those two facts? Didn't India buy over 100 copies?

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 62):

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 49):
3. Gripen NG

Paper fighter, hasn't even flown yet. Your arguments are weak.

Neither has a full production or fully capable F-35 flown yet and won't for years. For instance, the F-35s flying today are placarded from descending any faster than 4,000 feet per minute! An airliner can do better than that! Fully capable Gripen NGs will beat fully combat capable F-35s into service (2018 Vs. 2019, est.). You also omitted the UCAVS and the coming UCLASS, which will also be EIS before 2019. Not only are there alternatives, they are in full swing and available before fully combat capable F-35 planes will become available. And they're all cheaper, some substantially so.

[Edited 2013-08-22 00:42:36]
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3566
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:54 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 67):
Neither has a full production or fully capable F-35 flown yet and won't for years.

Same can be said about F/A-18 E/F, which was introduced with a very rudimentary weapons and sensors configuration, mostly borrowed from the Hornet. It was very late in production when advanced systems such as AESA radar's, more powerful avionics, and the ALE-55 towed decoy got fitted.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 67):
You also omitted the UCAVS and the coming UCLASS, which will also be EIS before 2019.

Of which the USAF is struggling to recruit and retain pilots to fly said UAV's:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...ce-Lacks-Volunteers-Operate-Drones

And I am not surprised at all. If you are a pilot, raise your hand if you want a job where you are a) not going to fly ever again and b) go into a career field that's so overworked that you can't do your promotion courses, etc, so your career is on halt while in the job. Yeah, I thought so, very few people will volunteer.

And don't forget, UCAV's are highly reliant on datalinks to control, and those datalinks can be easily jammed and disrupted. Not to mention the very limited bandwidth of the current US constellation of communications satellites. UCAV's have their use in a environment where long endurance, beyond what's reasonable for a pilot to operate is required, along with reducing risks to people. Other times, you will want a man in the loop to make the tactical decisions.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 67):
And they're all cheaper, some substantially so.

Of which is to be proven, and some figures are stating otherwise.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 67):

We are talking about available alternatives right? Which Rafale is. And nobody is buying it, which is why it will remain in production till 2030?

Of which they are making so few every year, it's tiny. Dassault was only making 11 Rafale's a year at best. Current production rates have dropped below that. It's only with the potential India order that the production line will go back to 11 per year.

In comparison, Ft. Worth, TX will put out around 200 F-35's a year at peak production. 200 verses 11. One has a massive economy of scale over the other. Even at our current phase of LRIP, we are building more F-35's a year than Rafale's.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:27 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 66):
Again, you have soundly missed the point. Nothing I have said references specific posters on this site but is related to the article that the thread is based on.

And I agree: nothing YOU have posted references anyone specific. It's not you I'm referring to.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 68):
Of which they are making so few every year, it's tiny. Dassault was only making 11 Rafale's a year at best. Current production rates have dropped below that. It's only with the potential India order that the production line will go back to 11 per year.

India currently has 126 Rafales on order, and has an option for another 63. I will go out on a limb and say they will take up that option. Dassault will built 10-12 frames themselves, the rest will be assembled in India, with increasing levels of India-sourced components, as part of technology transfer.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:05 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 54):
With F-35, the onboard avionics put together the information for you to create one common picture. All of the information from datalinks, radar, ESM, EO/IR, etc are all pulled together and is used to generate one picture of the surrounding battlefield. So, not only do you have more information, it's information that is easily acted upon.

That is not unique to the F-35. This kind of situational awareness is provided to any sensor fusion capable aircraft.
Flown on: DC-9, MD-80, Fokker 100, Bae 146 Avro, Boeing 737-300, 737-400, 747-200, 747-300,747-400, 787-9, Airbus A310, A319, A320, A321, A330-200,A330-300, A340-313, A380, Bombardier CSeries 100/300, CRJ700ER/CRJ900, Embraer 190.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:07 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 67):
Didn't India buy over 100 copies?

The plan is for 126 but there has been no order as yet even though the negotiations have been going on for more than a year and a half. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...hter-deal/articleshow/21377754.cms Things go slow in India but that is still a long time.

That leaves only 22 aircraft remaining to meet the French total of 140. Even if India orders, the French production line will shut down as HAL in India will be assembling the last 108 aircraft themselves.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 67):
Fully capable Gripen NGs will beat fully combat capable F-35s into service (2018 Vs. 2019, est.).

Pretty sure Gripen E is waiting on the Swiss to actually order, until that occurs the aircraft won't be built and the Swiss are not expected to order before mid 2014. The Swedes are not expecting to get the Gripen E until 2023. http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...2557f5-66ed-4a41-97cc-6b1195564464

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 67):
You also omitted the UCAVS and the coming UCLASS, which will also be EIS before 2019.

These aircraft are not replacing fighter aircraft in any nation's air force nor do they have any ability to defend themselves. It is hardly a valid substitute.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:40 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 71):
Pretty sure Gripen E is waiting on the Swiss to actually order, until that occurs the aircraft won't be built and the Swiss are not expected to order before mid 2014. The Swedes are not expecting to get the Gripen E until 2023.

It's still useful to contrast how cheaply it will be built (Saab has a long track record) compared to the F-35. The difference will be hundreds of billions AFAIK.

It's by that standard that people criticize the F-35. It's not worth spending so much money to be a tiny bit better than a cheaper platform.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4026
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:49 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 68):
And I am not surprised at all. If you are a pilot, raise your hand if you want a job where you are a) not going to fly ever again and b) go into a career field that's so overworked that you can't do your promotion courses, etc, so your career is on halt while in the job. Yeah, I thought so, very few people will volunteer.

There was a time when pilots said if the cockpit wasn't open and they got to wear silk scarves they wouldn't consider themselves pilots... then after a few frost bitten noses, they wanted enclosed canopies.

I think the romance of the "Top Gun" pilot will soon be a fading memory also. But old romances die hard.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Thu Aug 22, 2013 5:31 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 72):
It's still useful to contrast how cheaply it will be built (Saab has a long track record) compared to the F-35.

It's cheaply built because its a cheap aircraft, with capabilities far below that of the F-35. They are not even in the same league.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 72):
It's not worth spending so much money to be a tiny bit better than a cheaper platform.

Tiny? If the margin was really tiny then why isn't the NG getting more orders? Peoples love for this hypothetical, paper aircraft that hasn't flown yet is starting to get pathetic.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:39 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 72):
It's still useful to contrast how cheaply it will be built (Saab has a long track record) compared to the F-35. The difference will be hundreds of billions AFAIK.

Let us be as clear about the numbers as we can. Your statement is a bit ambiguous so we have to break it down into two separate areas, development and acquisition.

Development - I agree that Gripen has been cheaper to develop but not "hundreds of billions". F-35 development is now expected to be US$55 billion.

Comparatively, the only figure I could find online for Gripen is Euro$1.8 billion so maybe US$2.5 billion. This seems very very low and I find it hard to believe so they have probably excluded some costs. As an example, one Gripen crashed during T&E and another at an airshow before any production aircraft had been manufactured. So we could easily double the costs to come up with a more appropriate figure of US$5 billion.

Hence Gripen is still much cheaper to develop than F-35, but also much cheaper to develop than Rafale, Eurofighter, PAK-FA and probably comparable to the KAI T-50.

As far as acquisition is concerned, Gripen appears to be cheapest but also has the least capability of all the above jets bar the T-50. It also hasn't won any competitions when it competed with the above aircraft. From a cost perspective, Gripen is listed between US$40-60 mil on Wiki in 2009, so maybe a 10% price increase in 5 years would make it US$45-65 depending upon how many you purchase.

F-35A on the other hand is US$115 mil for LRIP 7 and expected to be US$75-85 mil for full production in 2019. So once full rate production starts for F-35, prices will be close enough that it will come down to specific national requirements.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 72):
It's not worth spending so much money to be a tiny bit better than a cheaper platform.

That is the subjective part. If you need airspace security only, then Gripen is probably the platform of choice on acquisition and operating cost. If you need to penetrate a modern IADS, fly off a carrier, or land vertically then F-35 will be without doubt the most capable platform to do it.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4026
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:14 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 75):
If you need

always a debate between "need" and "want".. Paranoia drives too much in arms procurement as well as if it's new technology, it's automatically superior.

Nobody will "win" this argument.. the truth is still years away.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:22 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 76):
always a debate between "need" and "want"..

Sure, but the way it usually works is governments state the need, for example in Australia’s case the release of a White Paper. Militaries then write that need into doctrine and do the raise, train and sustain required to support the doctrine.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:28 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 68):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 67):
Neither has a full production or fully capable F-35 flown yet and won't for years.

Same can be said about F/A-18 E/F

News to me. F-18s are flying as full combat capable aircraft right now. Your false statements don't surprise me. That's why I quickly skim over all your posts.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 75):
F-35A on the other hand is US$115 mil for LRIP 7 and expected to be US$75-85 mil for full production in 2019.

Expectations are eternal and the F-35 has missed all cost expectations to date, for more than 10 years running. I doubt that'll suddenly change.

Secondly, you excluded the cost of the engine and the long lead items ordered and paid well in advance of the LRIP-7 order. Including those, the cost is well over $170 million for LRIP-7. This is clearly seen by the statements that costs for LRIP-7 will be about 8% cheaper than LRIP-5, which was almost $200 million each.

My hat will be off to them if they can get the price down to anywhere near $100 million, including long term lead items and engines. Even then, that would be twice the price of Grippen NGs. And probably cost twice as much to operate - if they can do it, which I doubt.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 71):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 67):
You also omitted the UCAVS and the coming UCLASS, which will also be EIS before 2019.

These aircraft are not replacing fighter aircraft in any nation's air force nor do they have any ability to defend themselves. It is hardly a valid substitute.

Which aircraft do you think are making room for UCLASS on US Navy carriers? UCAVS are also displacing attack missions from manned planes in other branches and in other countries and making their names as attack aircraft, which the F-35 primarily is. How many have been lost to enemy fire and fighters? This trend going to grow is not stoppable - like it or not. It's too effective.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 71):
That leaves only 22 aircraft remaining to meet the French total of 140. Even if India orders, the French production line will shut down as HAL in India will be assembling the last 108 aircraft themselves.

You claimed there were no available alternatives, which is clearly not true. If someone wants to order Rafale or UCAVS, they can get them. The F-35 line could shut down too under any number of circumstances..

[Edited 2013-08-22 21:29:26]
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:36 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 73):
I think the romance of the "Top Gun" pilot will soon be a fading memory also. But old romances die hard.

Couldn't agree more. Change is painful to many. However, change is inevitable.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:17 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 78):
Secondly, you excluded the cost of the engine and the long lead items ordered and paid well in advance of the LRIP-7 order. Including those, the cost is well over $170 million for LRIP-7.

The figures I provided came straight from reply 39 in this thread from Revelation, who in turn took them from the following link. http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/AW_08_05_2013_p30-602514.xml&p=2 If you have a problem with those then talk to Aviation week and provide a source for what they should be.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 78):
Which aircraft do you think are making room for UCLASS on US Navy carriers?

None, the carriers already travel with a lighter load than in Cold War times and as you know, UCLASS is primarily focused on ISR with a secondary strike role for use in a lightly contested environment. http://news.usni.org/2013/06/26/navy...s-minimum-ranges-and-maximum-costs



Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 78):
UCAVS are also displacing attack missions from manned planes in other branches and in other countries and making their names as attack aircraft

Please provide examples of branches/countries where UCAVS have replaced manned fighter/attack aircraft?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 78):
How many have been lost to enemy fire and fighters?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7358761.stm
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/04/iran-shoots-down-us-drone
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...anon-opposite-haifa-coast-1.517611
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...down-by-al-Shabaab-in-Somalia.html

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 78):
You claimed there were no available alternatives

I claimed nothing of the sort, I merely answered the question you asked regarding the status of the Rafale selection by India.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 71):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 67):
Didn't India buy over 100 copies?

The plan is for 126 but there has been no order as yet even though the negotiations have been going on for more than a year and a half. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...hter-deal/articleshow/21377754.cms Things go slow in India but that is still a long time.

That leaves only 22 aircraft remaining to meet the French total of 140. Even if India orders, the French production line will shut down as HAL in India will be assembling the last 108 aircraft themselves.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4026
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:41 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 77):
Sure, but the way it usually works is governments state the need, for example in Australia’s case the release of a White Paper. Militaries then write that need into doctrine and do the raise, train and sustain required to support the doctrine.

I'll disagree.. county legislative or executive branches say your mission is "blah, blah" the military comes back and says the best way to do that is'------'. Seldom do they come back and say 'what we have is adequate'. Or 'there is no threat in that arena.' It's part of the game where if you don't overrun your budget, you'll get lead next budget. and what general is going to turn down new technology even if unproven...remember when the US Navy bought a block of hydrofoil missile boats? manufacturers have lost contracts because the theory wasn't do-able. The question with this plane is two fold, does thee need for all the tech really exist and can the tech be brought to production in a robust product. Tech is no good if maintenance keeps it on the ground for 2 hrs for every 1 hr of use. Not saying that is an issue with the plane, it's an issue with putting too many eggs in a theoretical basket.

Anyway.. the military wants this stuff more than it needs it.. shoot they have to dream up usage scenarios to justify it.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:43 am

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 44):
There is no new fighter on the horizon. When all the other lines are closed, the F35 will be the only choice, whether you like it or not.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 80):
I claimed nothing of the sort, I merely answered the question you asked regarding the status of the Rafale selection by India.

Got you guys mixed up. Sorry about that.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 80):
If you have a problem with those then talk to Aviation week and provide a source for what they should be.

Why do so many want to deny reality, I'll never know. And you do want an engine with that, don't you?

Given the information provided in each Lot 5 contract announcement, it is possible to compute, with a degree of accuracy, the cost of each version of the F-35. If the average cost is $203.4 million per aircraft, it in fact varies substantially according to the version:

-- F-35A: $172 million per aircraft;
-- F-35B: $291.7 million per aircraft;
-- F-35C: $235.8 million per aircraft.

read all the details of the contracts here, with links to those procurement contracts, including the engines and the long lead items, which Aviation Week is leaving out:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...%3E%28updated%29%3C%C2%A7i%3E.html

Clear enough? Can we now stop the phantasy that the F-35 is anywhere near $100 million? With engine and all the procurement contracts necessary? If you think these figures are wrong, including the public links, please state why and YOU provide links to that effect. Thank you.

[Edited 2013-08-23 01:45:07]
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:35 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 82):
Clear enough? Can we now stop the phantasy that the F-35 is anywhere near $100 million? With engine and all the procurement contracts necessary?

Indeed, some people just can stand the truth. In average the procurement for 150 F-35 in 2013 was ~225 Million. Source GAO Analysis based on DOD Data.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653857.pdf

Btw some intersting Keypoints of the GAO 2013 Report:

Quote:

-Total U.S. investment is nearing $400 billion to develop and procure 2,457 aircraft through 2037.

-The new baseline projects the need for a total of $316 billion in development and
procurement funding from 2013 through 2037, or an average of $12.6
billion annually over that period.

-The current sustainment cost projection by
CAPE for all U.S. aircraft, based on an estimated 30-year service life,
exceeds $1 trillion. Using current program assumptions of aircraft
inventory and flight hours, CAPE recently estimated annual operating and
support costs of $18.2 billion for all F-35 variants compared to $11.1
billion spent on legacy aircraft in 2010.
Flown on: DC-9, MD-80, Fokker 100, Bae 146 Avro, Boeing 737-300, 737-400, 747-200, 747-300,747-400, 787-9, Airbus A310, A319, A320, A321, A330-200,A330-300, A340-313, A380, Bombardier CSeries 100/300, CRJ700ER/CRJ900, Embraer 190.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3566
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:05 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 82):
Why do so many want to deny reality, I'll never know. And you do want an engine with that, don't you?

Given the information provided in each Lot 5 contract announcement, it is possible to compute, with a degree of accuracy, the cost of each version of the F-35. If the average cost is $203.4 million per aircraft, it in fact varies substantially according to the version:

-- F-35A: $172 million per aircraft;
-- F-35B: $291.7 million per aircraft;
-- F-35C: $235.8 million per aircraft.

read all the details of the contracts here, with links to those procurement contracts, including the engines and the long lead items, which Aviation Week is leaving out:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...%3E%28updated%29%3C%C2%A7i%3E.html

Clear enough? Can we now stop the phantasy that the F-35 is anywhere near $100 million? With engine and all the procurement contracts necessary? If you think these figures are wrong, including the public links, please state why and YOU provide links to that effect. Thank you.

You repeated this in another thread:
FG: LM Cuts Price For Next Batch Of F-35 (by oykie Jul 30 2013 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
And people pointed out saying those numbers included non-reoccurring and development costs:

Quoting tugger (Reply 26):
Is that inclusive or exclusive of ongoing development costs?

Actually I don't need you to answer that as I found the source for your numbers.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...%3E%28updated%29%3C%C2%A7i%3E.html

And it does includes NRE and other development costs. Sure you can say this is all part of the cost but I think you know better on how manufacturing works. Like commercial jet products, the sunk and developmental costs are the not "final cost" of an aircraft production lot (look at how much that first F-35 then cost o the first 787), they are considered investment, long term and must spread over the entire production or counted separately.

Tugg
Quoting tugger (Reply 31):
Did you read your source?

Quote:
One contract, worth $485,000,000, is for LRIP 5 “non-recurring requirements,”

Additionally the source article implies that "cost plus incentive fee" means only that costs will go higher, yet the incentive fees only come into play if cost or time frame (which is money) decreases. They reference a PW contract which PW has agreed to assume cost overruns. It has incentive fee clauses though for if they beat and meet incentive clauses but is otherwise capped at the contract value. It makes me think they do not understand what they are writing.

Tugg
Quoting autothrust (Reply 83):

Indeed, some people just can stand the truth. In average the procurement for 150 F-35 in 2013 was ~225 Million. Source GAO Analysis based on DOD Data.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653857.pdf

The SAR for 2012 reports different numbers:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae...es/F-35Dec11FinalSAR-3-29-2012.pdf
I direct you page 61 and 64, regarding the APUC of the F-35 airframe and engines.

And in regards to sustainment cost projections, we have a new number:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...22-pentagon-manager-estimates.html
$857 billion over 55 years, or $15.58 billion per year. The reason for the cost decrease? Actual numbers from testing are being used, not estimates and assumptions. And this number will go down with further testing and development.
 
agill
Posts: 1099
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:38 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 71):

Pretty sure Gripen E is waiting on the Swiss to actually order, until that occurs the aircraft won't be built and the Swiss are not expected to order before mid 2014. The Swedes are not expecting to get the Gripen E until 2023. http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...64464

No they are expected to be delivered starting 2018, to the Swedish Air Force.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/saab-idUSL6N0AM3BG20130117
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6008
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:45 pm

I watch in amazement.

This thread either lives in fame or goes down in flames.


My purely non-technical, non-enlightened opinion is that this project should have been stopped long ago, like the V-22. There are fighters that give great value for the taxpayers money, but the F-35 and the V-22 all serve as corporate welfare to Lockheed Martin and Bell/Boeing.

In Germany, we just had the massive cost-overruns with the Euro Hawk project. Germany wanted to buy Global Hawks, and testing and certifying them was for the Germans a constant hassle, as the US steadily updated its Global Hawks and rushed them to Afghanistan, using a preliminary certification - thus leaving no machines for the Germans to test. And then, EADS developed the intelligence/electronics suite for that Euro Hawk, spent 90% of the allotted budget already, and testing of that suite is nowhere in sight.

Huge cost overruns, and now the project has been cancelled.


David
Reading accident reports is what calms me down
 
Ozair
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:46 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 82):

Got you guys mixed up. Sorry about that.

No worries.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 82):
And you do want an engine with that, don't you?

The figures provided by aviation week include the engine price and half the modification price the US government is required to pay.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 39):
Variant and Lot Size Target Airframe Cost Estimated Retrofit Cost* Estimated Engine Cost Total Estimated Aircraft Cost
F-35A LRIP 5 (32) $105 $10 $14 $124

The problem is it appears Defence-aerospace is counting costs awarded during LOT V that are clearly related to development of the jet. So in essence the costs are being counted twice, once in the US$55 billion development fee and then again for the acquisition of the aircraft, the remaining US$336 odd billion. Development costs have to be awarded and assigned during LOT purchases for accounting reasons so it is understandable why the author comes to that conclusion.

So, if you want to count those costs as acquisition you can, just reduce the cost of the development program by the required amount. Either way, the total remains at the projected US$391 billion.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 83):
Btw some intersting Keypoints of the GAO 2013 Report:

Quote:

-Total U.S. investment is nearing $400 billion to develop and procure 2,457 aircraft through 2037.

-The new baseline projects the need for a total of $316 billion in development and
procurement funding from 2013 through 2037, or an average of $12.6
billion annually over that period.

-The current sustainment cost projection by
CAPE for all U.S. aircraft, based on an estimated 30-year service life,
exceeds $1 trillion. Using current program assumptions of aircraft
inventory and flight hours, CAPE recently estimated annual operating and
support costs of $18.2 billion for all F-35 variants compared to $11.1
billion spent on legacy aircraft in 2010.

Not only has the CAPE estimate being reduced, as linked by PointBlank in reply 57, but the following proves how invalid the CAPE estimates are, http://breakingdefense.com/2013/08/2...t-costs-17-percent-lower-than-osd/

Among the questionable assumptions Schmidle highlighted is this whopper: the Office of Secretary Defense estimate developed by the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office (CAPE) predicted that the F-35B would be flown at full throttle in STOVL mode — which uses enormous amounts of fuel and utilizes the highly sophisticated lift fan system at much greater rates than the Marines project — about 80 percent of its time in the air.

Anyone who has watched the Harrier or the F-35B knows that Marines pilots rely sparingly on STOVL mode. It’s only used for a limited set of tactical moves and, usually, for taking off or landing the aircraft. The great majority of the plane’s flight time — could it be as much as 80 percent? — would be spent flying without using the lift fan and STOVL.

The current CAPE estimate assumes $41,000 an hour for the F-35B. a senior defense official said they will eventually bring the costs down to $30,000 per hour, with an interim figure of about $37,000.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:15 pm

Quoting agill (Reply 85):
No they are expected to be delivered starting 2018, to the Swedish Air Force.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...30117

Thanks for that, I hadn't seen that report. Interesting though that the purchase is still somewhat linked to the potential Swiss order.

Quoting kanban (Reply 81):

I'll disagree.. county legislative or executive branches say your mission is "blah, blah" the military comes back and says the best way to do that is'------'.

You are a couple of steps ahead of where the process actually starts. The government states need and then the military and policy makers of government work together to define capability requirements and cost estimates. Post that doctrine is established by the military. It is then that the government says, your mission is blah.

Quoting kanban (Reply 81):
Tech is no good if maintenance keeps it on the ground for 2 hrs for every 1 hr of use.

If that was the number everyone would be ecstatic, the F-14 was somewhere near 1 to 30 while the F/A-18 is closer to 5-10 to 1. Over half of the key performance metrics for the aircraft are related to maintenance and sustainment so the focus has been there from the start and given the reports of ALIS should significantly reduce costs and increase serviceability.
 
comorin
Topic Author
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 5:52 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:05 pm

Just wanted to stop by and thank everyone for the great comments and debate. I know very little about the subject, and sure have learned a lot from your posts.

As to Ozair's post on the Rafales:

Quoting Ozair (Reply 71):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 67):
Didn't India buy over 100 copies?

The plan is for 126 but there has been no order as yet even though the negotiations have been going on for more than a year and a half.

India has been suffering a bit of a hangover the last few weeks with the Rupee plummeting and the Finance Minister trying to calm the FX markets yesterday. Apart from fundamentals such as a large current account deficit, there has been a flight of currency as the dollar strengthens and the Fed tightens up. A few controls have just been issued to prevent further erosion. I wonder if the Rafale deal will be delayed until the economy is back on track again.

Back to the F-35....
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:49 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 84):
You repeated this in another thread:
FG: LM Cuts Price For Next Batch Of F-35 (by oykie Jul 30 2013 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
And people pointed out saying those numbers included non-reoccurring and development costs:

The truth bears repeating. And no, it does not include development costs. Yes, people have made that claim, but it is false. Just becuae people say something does not mean it is true.

The fact you are repeating and supporting those post lead me to believe you are saying teh same thing and that the Long Lead Items and Engine contract for LRIP-5, actually include development costs - so your in the same fallacy boar - OK, nice to know. This is another fallacy of yours. along with the X-47B stories you made up. And easily provable for anyone who wants to look up what those contracts entail, its puvlic information. All anyone has to do is look. But that's too much to ask I guess. Shortcut: They do not include development costs.

You can look up every single contract yourself. And the APUC you linked to is a projection over 2,443 F-35s far into the future. It is not an actual APUC cost for any particular LRIP tranche, rather over 2,443 frames. Here is the copied figure from you page:

Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC)
Cost 224333.7 224332.9
Quantity 2443 2443
Unit Cost 91.827 91.827 0.00

And these include fantasy assumptions over decades and doesn't even include engines. The APUC is different from URF costs, (Unit recurring flyaway), which does include engine. But total URF costs is not listed. I wonder why? Dishonesty and incompetence permeates the entire F-35 program and from many supporters.

[Edited 2013-08-23 09:52:35]
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4026
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:03 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 88):


You are a couple of steps ahead of where the process actually starts. The government states need and then the military and policy makers of government work together to define capability requirements

I think we are trying to say similar things in local variations of the English language.. Simply, the government says protect our coasts, the military says to do that I need the following .... It seldom and should never start with the government saying (although the US congress does occasionally) here are 20 super widgets, find a use for them.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 88):


If that was the number everyone would be ecstatic, the F-14 was somewhere near 1 to 30 while the F/A-18 is closer to 5-10 to 1.


did you reverse the numbers on the F-14?.. anyway it was a rhetorical statement. Buying a platform that spends more time in maintenance the in the field isn't very bright. Especially if actually needed. I recall a gas turbine tank that needed serious engine maintenance after every 60 miles... (top speed was 60MPH) so it would have to be trucked to any battle site. We might as well go back to the dark ages were battles included a lunch break, were never fought after sunset, and truces were arranged to collect spent arrows. (sarcasm... so some don't try to refute)
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:10 pm

Quoting autothrust (Reply 83):
Indeed, some people just can stand the truth. In average the procurement for 150 F-35 in 2013 was ~225 Million. Source GAO Analysis based on DOD Data.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653857.pdf

Btw some intersting Keypoints of the GAO 2013 Report:

Thanks for this. I'll take this any day over an article which just repeats press releases. Ir concurs with adding each LRIP5 procurement contract up individually that is publicly available. All the supporters saying the costs is anywhere near under $150 million are just ignoring the most thorough analysis that is mandated by law. If they deliberately fudge the numbers, people can go to jail. Press releases and projections and assumptions are not held to the same legal standard.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:32 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 84):
The reason for the cost decrease? Actual numbers from testing are being used, not estimates and assumptions. And this number will go down with further testing and development.

This puts the cost for an F35A @ $85million in 2018. Costs are decreasing and performance of the aircraft is slowly being discovered, yet JSF critics are still spewing their false information and rhetoric.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:58 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 91):

did you reverse the numbers on the F-14?..

Thanks for the catch, it should definitely should have been reversed.

Quoting kanban (Reply 91):
Simply, the government says protect our coasts, the military says to do that I need the following

Agree although in the Australian context the government and military usually consult each other and reach consensus on the second part.

Quoting kanban (Reply 91):
It seldom and should never start with the government saying (although the US congress does occasionally) here are 20 super widgets, find a use for them.

As a rule I agree but again, within the Australian context, the ADF has benefited greatly from Government mandating purchases. Both the C-17 and the Super Hornet acquisitions over the last ten years were Government mandated purchases, pretty much took the ADF by surprise, and were significant increases to overall Australian capability.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 11088
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:03 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 90):
The truth bears repeating. And no, it does not include development costs. Yes, people have made that claim, but it is false. Just becuae people say something does not mean it is true.

Then if the truth bears repeating then I will do so as well: The numbers you quoted did include development costs. And I found the source you used (but you did not provide) and provided the link for your and everyone's review.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...%3E%28updated%29%3C%C2%A7i%3E.html

Quote:
One contract, worth $485,000,000, is for LRIP 5 “non-recurring requirements,” which adds $16.6 million to the price of each of 30 LRIP 5 aircraft.

While you may debate what non-recurring requirements mean, they are not "recurring production costs". They may be specific for that stage of development and they may very well be used during current and future production. But they are not "production" costs.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=1f5999e054cc31a92a5a030409d846e2&tab=core&_cview=1

Quote:
contract will provide for twenty-seven (27) Conventional Take-off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft, seventeen (17) Short Take-off Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft, eight (8) Carrier Variant (CV) aircraft (or other such quantities as may be authorized and appropriated by Congress); as well as associated sustainment support including spares, support equipment, non-recurring autonomic logistics sustainment activities, training, autonomic logistics information system (ALIS) hardware, depot activation, performance based logistics (PBL) operations, and maintenance for all CTOL, STOVL, and CV aircraft; ancillary mission equipment (AME), production non-recurring (PNR) activities to support the JSF production ramp rate including tooling, test equipment, production aids, production equipment, support labor and technical assistance; technical and financial data; and proposal preparation for LRIP Lot VII full funding and LRIP Lot VIII long lead. In addition, there will be ordering line items to allow for additional supplies and services, including but not limited to diminishing manufacturing sources (DMS) procurements, retrofit efforts required to update accepted aircraft to newer configurations, engineering change proposals (ECPs), and government furnished equipment (GFE) maintenance.

The cost that you provided also included the F-135 long lead engine materials order which happens to include tooling and materials and engine development and repair needed for future engine production (hence "long lead"). Yes in includes actual material and parts to be used for actual production of the Lot 5 aircraft but it is (was) not only for that.

Quote:
contract will provide for twenty-seven (27) Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) propulsion systems, seventeen (17) Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant propulsion systems, eight (8) Carrier Variant (CV) propulsion systems (or such other quantities as may be authorized and appropriated by Congress); as well as CTOL, CV and STOVL associated sustainment support including spare engines, initial spare modules and parts, support equipment, non-recurring autonomic logistics sustainment activities, support of air system contractor manufacturing operations, depot activation, performance based logistics (PBL) operations and maintenance; production non-recurring (PNR) activities to support the JSF production ramp rate to include tooling, test equipment, production aids, production equipment, support labor and technical assistance; technical and financial data; and proposal preparation for LRIP Lot VII full funding and LRIP Lot VIII long lead planning. In addition, there will be ordering line items to allow for additional supplies and services, including but not limited to dimishing manufacturing sources (DMS) procurements, retrofit efforts required to update propulsion systems to newer configurations, Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs), and government furnished equipment (GFE) maintenance.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=acc86459ef4eba3068397a749da29730

Tugg

[Edited 2013-08-23 15:09:50]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4026
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Sat Aug 24, 2013 1:51 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 94):
Agree although in the Australian context the government and military usually consult each other and reach consensus on the second part.

You people are too polite.. our congress is a bunch of dingo droppings.. consensus is just a step before socialism, communism, tootti frutti-ism..

Quoting Ozair (Reply 94):
As a rule I agree but again,

Maybe I should move down there where there is civilization and logic.. Your legislators at least have common sense.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8633
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Sat Aug 24, 2013 6:09 am

Whatever it costs it's not worth it.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Sat Aug 24, 2013 7:15 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 84):
The SAR for 2012 reports different numbers:

Well GAO Report clearly see a rise in cost for 2013, even when the SAR differs from that in 2012.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 93):
This puts the cost for an F35A @ $85million in 2018.

I don't believe that for a second, the GAO report sees many high risk and doubts for the program. I recommend you to read the whole report.

[Edited 2013-08-24 00:17:47]
Flown on: DC-9, MD-80, Fokker 100, Bae 146 Avro, Boeing 737-300, 737-400, 747-200, 747-300,747-400, 787-9, Airbus A310, A319, A320, A321, A330-200,A330-300, A340-313, A380, Bombardier CSeries 100/300, CRJ700ER/CRJ900, Embraer 190.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3566
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F35 - "World's Worst New Warplane"?

Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:06 am

Quoting autothrust (Reply 98):
Well GAO Report clearly see a rise in cost for 2013, even when the SAR differs from that in 2012.

The Selected Acquisition Reports reflect actual contract numbers, not estimates.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 98):
I don't believe that for a second, the GAO report sees many high risk and doubts for the program. I recommend you to read the whole report.

GAO reports report what happened in the past, and does not really attempt to predict future behaviour, beyond basic concern about the future. No GAO report is ever positive, even for a program that is supposed to be going 'well'.

And if we took GAO reports that seriously, I can pull out GAO reports from the past on previous fighter programs:
Here's one from the 1981 on the F/A-18 Hornet, where the GAO expressed considerable concern over the F/A-18:
http://archive.gao.gov/f0102/114371.pdf

Another one from 1996 on the F/A-18 E/F's, where the GAO said that the Super Hornet offered marginal performance improvements for a high price:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/160/155498.pdf

Another from 1977 on the F-16, also negative on the F-16 programme:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/120/116765.pdf

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos