F-35 news roundup

[11bee]

Solution's easy: bring back the Tomcat.

I'll match you on that. Lets bring back the original overly-hyped multi-role combat aircraft - the good ole F-4. Jack of all trades, master of absolutely none.

[Mark M.]

Maybe we should devote a separate thread to all the editorializing and alternative-suggesting? Seems we got off track a few times here and I personally like this thread as it keeps me up on the F-35 news. I would like to keep it a good source of news.

[Berkut]

Seriously?

Yes. The super duper liftfan technology they claim to have invented (which has already existed on papers long before F-35) still makes the airframe carry dead weight. How much does the liftfan, shaft, "spoiler" and possibly gearbox weigh? I would guess along the lines of what the liftfans on Yak-141 weigh. ;) When in flight, both designs have dead weight.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Berkut

[11bee]

Yes. The super duper liftfan technology they claim to have invented (which has already existed on papers long before F-35) still makes the airframe carry dead weight. How much does the liftfan, shaft, "spoiler" and possibly gearbox weigh? I would guess along the lines of what the liftfans on Yak-141 weigh. ;) When in flight, both designs have dead weight.

So the VTOL version should have been designed with two engines? I'm not sure what your point is? Did you mean that it should have had a second, dedicated lift engine?

Any VTOL aircraft is going to have plenty of "dead" weight, it is the nature of the beast. Having either a dedicated lift engine or dual engines will not change this fact.

[Berkut]

So the VTOL version should have been designed with two engines? I'm not sure what your point is? Did you mean that it should have had a second, dedicated lift engine?

Any VTOL aircraft is going to have plenty of "dead" weight, it is the nature of the beast. Having either a dedicated lift engine or dual engines will not change this fact.

What i meant all along is that JSF competition, when it started in 90's (before X-32 and X-35 was chosen and made) had a rule, and that rule was: one engine only. And as i said, that rule was a stupid rule, because it automatically ruled out designs that had two engines.

And what did we end up with? Practically two engined beast afterall, although the vision was to have close to zero "dead weight".

[GRAIL007]

What i meant all along is that JSF competition, when it started in 90's (before X-32 and X-35 was chosen and made) had a rule, and that rule was: one engine only. And as i said, that rule was a stupid rule, because it automatically ruled out designs that had two engines.

And what did we end up with? Practically two engined beast afterall, although the vision was to have close to zero "dead weight".

One of the original goals was to have an affordable joint strike aircraft, hence one engine as twin engines add cost and maintenance.

[MarkW]

Your assessment doesn't make a lot of sense. Two engines would greatly increase all costs.

Procurement cost because two engines cost a lot more money than "practically two engines".

Airframe cost also increases to carry the extra fuel and extra engine.

Operations costs increase due to fuel and maintenance cost increases.

Cost was one of the foundational considerations on this program, essentially cost as a capability. So, as smart as all the armchair experts second guessing everything like to sound, there is much more behind all the design choices and tradeoffs than simple name calling would lead you to believe.

Minor for what it's worth--there is a huge difference between a paper design and an actual, working production lift fan. And even with the "dead weight", it still outflies every other VSTOL and most single engine fighters.

[TaiidanTomcat]

And what did we end up with? Practically two engined beast afterall, although the vision was to have close to zero "dead weight".

Along with what Mark said, i will add: Of the 3100 F-35s scheduled for production only around 300 will even be F-35Bs. And none of them will be in Norwegian service so whats the problem, and where does the "we" come from in the above quote? You are actually surprised that the Version that hovers will have some (relatively minor) compromises built in, and thus the whole program is wrong? Because 1 in every 10 JSFs have a lift fan they are all lousy? that makes sense.

And how is a lift fan a "second engine"?? Thats like saying any helicopter with a tail rotor has a second engine on the tail fin. That is false-- it doesn't use fuel and is driven by a shaft connected to the engine.

Edited June 13, 2011 by TaiidanTomcat

[Rapier01]

Talked to the Edwards guys a couple of days ago, they've hit Mach 1.53 and are well ahead of their current test plan. They're also doing "maturity testing" which is basically a test run of the syllabus just to see how the planes hold up.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6792072&c=FEA&s=CVS

[GRAIL007]

MCAS Yuma to begin construction for the new F-35 facilities.

MCAS Yuma

VMFA-332 is set to become the first F-35 squadron, replacing a former F-18 squadron that was deactivated several years ago. VMFA-332 will not only be the first Marine Corps F-35 Squadron in Yuma, it is also scheduled to be the first F-35 JSF operational squadron in the Department of Defense.

The first F-35 pilots are scheduled to begin arriving at MCAS Yuma in November 2011, while the first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft is on track for September 2012.

I might have to make it a point to visit the In-laws when they go down for the winter next year.

cheers

Mark

[Mark M.]

LOL, but they probably aren't giving tours just yet

I found it rather interesting the comment about the super cruise, from the article above that one (the mach test). It stated that the F-35 doesn't supercruise. I thought it did! Guess I was misunderstanding or maybe thinking of the F-22. It says you use afterburner to get past Mach 1 then throttle back and it stays there at the minimal smallest afterburner setting. It can also do that in full load, unlike planes where the load limits performance (article compares F-16 and F/A-18 briefly)

Also on the Yuma article, a very interesting idea:

"Despite the impending transition between the AV-8B Harriers and the F-35 JSF, the conversion will take several years, meaning the Yuma community will have the privilege of seeing both air frames in action."

Now I know it's wonderful for national defense, security, etc... but am I selfish in thinking "Man, what a great photo op!" ?

Edited June 15, 2011 by Mark M.

[Shawn C.]

One of the original goals was to have an affordable joint strike aircraft...

How's that working out?

[-Neu-]

How's that working out?

Fairly well actually, thanks for asking.

[GreyGhost]

Fairly well actually, thanks for asking.

Stop, you're killing us !

Evidently Canada isn't spending enough on this project then ...

Gregg (Who remembers the $30 Million apiece, Flyaway Cost Per Airframe that was touted way back ...)

[MarkW]

Before you toss out numbers like that, it would help to point out that was in 1994 dollars, and explain to the uninitiated what exactly flyaway cost entails.

But if you did that, the $30M apples wouldn't sound as ridiculous compared to 2010 $90M oranges, would it?

[Ken Cartwright]

Before you toss out numbers like that, it would help to point out that was in 1994 dollars, and explain to the uninitiated what exactly flyaway cost entails.

But if you did that, the $30M apples wouldn't sound as ridiculous compared to 2010 $90M oranges, would it?

I'm not sure how the explanation of flyaway costs changes the equation, but according to this web site:

http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

$30M in 1994 is the equivalent of $44.43M in 2010.

[GRAIL007]

How's that working out?

And a twin engine design would have even higher intial and service costs.

As Neu has said pretty well, looking at the bigger picture. The F-35 gives Canada a nice chunk of industrial benefits and tech know-how, interoperability with our biggest ally, and of most importantly an aircraft that will be in production for decades to come which will guarantee parts supply and upgrades, unlike some other current aircraft.

What would you suggest as an alternative?

[-Neu-]

Stop, you're killing us !

Evidently Canada isn't spending enough on this project then ...

Gregg (Who remembers the $30 Million apiece, Flyaway Cost Per Airframe that was touted way back ...)

Stop acting like a troll, you're capable of far more than that.

Canada's decision to purchase the fighter occurred with the estimated flyaway cost $75 Million dollar flyaway cost, which is what it is at now. If we consider other major aircraft, like the F-15E/K/SG ($90~105 million) its still significantly cheaper and with superior capabilities in almost every area (except range). So is it an affordable strike fighter? I believe so based on my own research work, and so do 12 other nations military and civilian officials and a host of respected defence academics.

[mingwin]

Canada's decision to purchase the fighter occurred with the estimated flyaway cost $75 Million dollar flyaway cost, which is what it is at now. If we consider other major aircraft, like the F-15E/K/SG ($90~105 million) its still significantly cheaper and with superior capabilities in almost every area (except range). So is it an affordable strike fighter? I believe so based on my own research work, and so do 12 other nations military and civilian officials and a host of respected defence academics.

is the 16 billion contract for Canada's 65 f-35 are in no-value-future-Canadian dollars? (2015-2035 can$)

is it the same for the 29 billion that will cost the 16 billion deal? ( in 2015-2045 can$ ...)

16 billions / 65 planes = can $ 246 153 846 each. for 20 years...

if flyaway cost is like you stated, 75 million, 20 years contract should cost 171 millions! ( around 8,5 million a year... very affordable...)

[-Neu-]

is the 16 billion contract for Canada's 65 f-35 are in no-value-future-Canadian dollars? (2015-2035 can$)

is it the same for the 29 billion that will cost the 16 billion deal? ( in 2015-2045 can$ ...)

16 billions / 65 planes = can $ 246 153 846 each. for 20 years...

if flyaway cost is like you stated, 75 million, 20 years contract should cost 171 millions! ( around 8,5 million a year... very affordable...)

Sorry, can you clarify what you mean by no-value-future Canadian dollars? Im not exactly sure what you're getting at.

[Alvis 3.1]

Definition of Unit Flyaway Cost Used by DOD:

The standard definition of aircraft unit flyaway cost is found in the DOD Financial Management Regulations. Standard unit flyaway cost elements include the costs of procuring airframes; engines; avionics; armaments;engineering change orders; nonrecurring costs including production tooling, software, and other costs (if funded from aircraft procurement appropriations); divided by the procurement quantity. Flyaway cost does not include research and development, support equipment, training equipment, technical data, or spares.

Something that is being bandied aboot on the CF-35s is the so called "lifetime" costs, which do include repairs, support equipment, training equipment etc etc, in other words, all those other expenses that don't occur right at the time of purchase. Apples does not equal oranges, and both sets of numbers are used to support or decry the purchase, depending on who is using them.

Al P.

[GRAIL007]

is the 16 billion contract for Canada's 65 f-35 are in no-value-future-Canadian dollars? (2015-2035 can$)

Don't know what exactly you are trying to say here, but the $16 billion I am pretty sure is in current Cnd. $ (2011)

is it the same for the 29 billion that will cost the 16 billion deal? ( in 2015-2045 can$ ...)

$29 billion according to a PBO report which has a very sketchy method of figuring out a cost of a fighter (by weight), that report used a 2010 base year, and to realize how overestimated the report was in 2010 a F-35A should cost over $200 flyaway cost (according to the PBO), in reality the A model is $121 million. So only about $80 million off the actual price, doesn't hold much potential for any of their other figures to be remotely close.

16 billions / 65 planes = can $ 246 153 846 each. for 20 years...

if flyaway cost is like you stated, 75 million, 20 years contract should cost 171 millions! ( around 8,5 million a year... very affordable...)

That is a very simplistic calculation of the service contract, unfortunately not remotely close as the contract also includes weapons, infrastructure, management, set-up of logistics, a large contingency fund, upgrades and modifications.

Arriving at Canada's costs

Very good information, every Canadian should read it.

cheers

Edited June 18, 2011 by GRAIL007

[mingwin]

Sorry, can you clarify what you mean by no-value-future Canadian dollars? Im not exactly sure what you're getting at.

i mean, we don't know what future is like... (what will worth our money then... by example)

but i have no indication that it will getting any better soon for our economy

and we will have to face major cuts in our government finances in near future...

[Berkut]

Your assessment doesn't make a lot of sense. Two engines would greatly increase all costs.

Procurement cost because two engines cost a lot more money than "practically two engines".

Airframe cost also increases to carry the extra fuel and extra engine.

Operations costs increase due to fuel and maintenance cost increases.

Cost was one of the foundational considerations on this program, essentially cost as a capability. So, as smart as all the armchair experts second guessing everything like to sound, there is much more behind all the design choices and tradeoffs than simple name calling would lead you to believe.

Minor for what it's worth--there is a huge difference between a paper design and an actual, working production lift fan. And even with the "dead weight", it still outflies every other VSTOL and most single engine fighters.

So, i guess the lift fan on F-35 didn't cost a cent to develop? There were no problems at all? I do agree about the maintenance cost, but i am not sure i agree on the other points. And you sound so angry, chill.

My point was simple and straight forward: If they had agreed to have multiengine design from the start, they would have more designs to choose from. I don't see that as a handicap.

I do understand the logic behind that one-engine decision. To push development, to have unorthodox ideas, "sharpen" competition, etc.

Along with what Mark said, i will add: Of the 3100 F-35s scheduled for production only around 300 will even be F-35Bs. And none of them will be in Norwegian service so whats the problem, and where does the "we" come from in the above quote? You are actually surprised that the Version that hovers will have some (relatively minor) compromises built in, and thus the whole program is wrong? Because 1 in every 10 JSFs have a lift fan they are all lousy? that makes sense.

And how is a lift fan a "second engine"?? Thats like saying any helicopter with a tail rotor has a second engine on the tail fin. That is false-- it doesn't use fuel and is driven by a shaft connected to the engine.

I knew someone would use "we" in my sentence to full extend. Nice. "We" as in people interesting in this plane, "we" as in plane fanatics, "we" as those that pay taxes. Get it?

I never said whole program is wrong. One bad decision (chill, I-M-H-O) in whole program doesn't make it flawed or lousy. And i am not 3 years old, i understand that VTOL will have compromises. Lift fan is "second" engine in the sense that its weigh, cost and use space as much as a second engine would. Or maybe even more...Speaking of that, does any one have weight figure for the liftfan? I tried to google, but i didnt find it.

Mark.M: I am not sure if it was one of the program goals from the start (mid 90's), but X-35/F-35 have never been able to supercruise, so that requirement was deleted some time ago. It is too fat. Regarding the "throttle up, then down", Tu-128 could also do that for example. Afterburners to get up to supersonic speed, then throttle back to 93 % of full power. (full power of non-afterburning mode)

[MarkW]

So, i guess the lift fan on F-35 didn't cost a cent to develop? There were no problems at all? I do agree about the maintenance cost, but i am not sure i agree on the other points. And you sound so angry, chill.

My point was simple and straight forward: If they had agreed to have multiengine design from the start, they would have more designs to choose from. I don't see that as a handicap.

I do understand the logic behind that one-engine decision. To push development, to have unorthodox ideas, "sharpen" competition, etc.

I knew someone would use "we" in my sentence to full extend. Nice. "We" as in people interesting in this plane, "we" as in plane fanatics, "we" as those that pay taxes. Get it?

I never said whole program is wrong. One bad decision (chill, I-M-H-O) in whole program doesn't make it flawed or lousy. And i am not 3 years old, i understand that VTOL will have compromises. Lift fan is "second" engine in the sense that its weigh, cost and use space as much as a second engine would. Or maybe even more...Speaking of that, does any one have weight figure for the liftfan? I tried to google, but i didnt find it.

Well, no anger here, so you can keep your patronizing chill in check. As for tone, your reaction to the whole "we" thing sounded a bit angry. Since you are so busy handing out "chills", I'm sure it wasn't, but I thought you should know it sounded very bent out of shape.

Are you seriously suggesting the lift fan (let me get my reading glasses on so I get this straight), which comprises a vane box, fans, a tube and a driveshaft, with no combusting components at all,

Lift fan is "second" engine in the sense that its weigh, cost and use space as much as a second engine would. Or maybe even more...

Really? Wow. I'm not trying to make fun here, but I really have no idea where to go with this. To be fair, it did cost more in development than if it hadn't existed at all, point conceded. Beyond that, how the components that would make up less than the front 1/3 of a normal afterburning jet engine could conceivably weigh more than the entire engine....?

Back to the cost discussion, in addition to the $30M number being from 1994, it was also based on a buy of nearly 3000 tails, not today's current buy. And seriously, comparing a cost estimate from a time before the program had even sorted out the requirements, or even completed the JAST program, well before the LM down select, does smack a bit of trolling. After all, who remembers what the original F/A-18E/F UFC was before THEY cut production numbers and had a a huge spike in cost? Nobody, because the cost estimate and production numbers were not as real in the mid 90s as they are today.