F-35 news roundup

[Kei Lau]

I think you've just been taken in by Slowman... replete with his characteristically completely fictitious numbers (220 million gap for the "cheaper F-15"? I'd love to see a source for that). He's a notorious troll that has been banned from almost every single forum that has some sort of effective moderation because he makes up bull****.

The numbers don't even add up as well.

Who is the "Slowman"? I never heard of him/her.

I am trying to understand what the South Korea tries to accomplish by reopening bidding for stalled fighter jet competition. Did they see a chance that Boeing may bite at the budget number? It is a question, not a statement.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that ROKAF wants the F-35. But will the politics in South Korea allows it today due to the much above budget cost? What is the gap number flowing around? These are questions, not statements.

[MarkW]

The canted tails on the F-15SE weren't intended so much for "stealth" as they were for reduced drag and weight distribution ...

-Gregg

Not just me saying it...turns out the aero benefit was minimal, dominant reason was and is stealth.

http://defense-update.com/20120914_silent_eagle.html

[GreyGhost]

Not just me saying it either ...

The Silent Eagle also features twin vertical tails canted 15° outward. Canted tails provide rear lift to the aircraft and reduce ballast usage, while increasing the range by 75 to 100 nautical miles. Coatings will also be applied to various areas of the aircraft to minimise the radar signature.

>>> Article <<<

Maybe the "Stealth" benefits were found to be "minimal" as well ...

-Gregg

[Diamondback Six]

The other thing to consider is different stealth design philosophies... F-35 is optimized for all-aspect stealth like F-22, while Silent Eagle is focused more on reducing its return against airborne threats only with ground radars not as big a priority, at least according to what I've read from various Boeing sources.

And I'd call a 400-500# ballast reduction plus 100nm range extension not too small either... considering that most fighters have a combat radius around 600-700mi. IIRC, that is a nice added reach, plus 500# less airframe weight on the same gross allows 500# more fuel and ammo for MTOW.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Diamondback Six

[MarkW]

...except it didn't achieve any of that aero performance based on wind tunnel testing. The UK website Greg posted is out of date, and they clearly didn't recognize any of the other stealth features beyond the CWB.

600 nm would be great for most smaller tactical fighters.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Who is the "Slowman"? I never heard of him/her.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_06_03_2013_p24-583039.xml

his comments are at the bottom. He is a teenager who makes it up as he goes along, and is generally loathed everywhere he appears.

I am trying to understand what the South Korea tries to accomplish by reopening bidding for stalled fighter jet competition. Did they see a chance that Boeing may bite at the budget number? It is a question, not a statement.

Your guess is as good as mine. I think its a last attempt before they go back to the drawing board and rewrite the requirements or add money or both.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that ROKAF wants the F-35. But will the politics in South Korea allows it today due to the much above budget cost?

They are all over budget, all 3 bidders failed to meet the price requirement.

Edited July 29, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat

[GreyGhost]

...except it didn't achieve any of that aero performance based on wind tunnel testing. The UK website Greg posted is out of date, and they clearly didn't recognize any of the other stealth features beyond the CWB.

600 nm would be great for most smaller tactical fighters.

Both sites we posted are from the same approximate time frame from nearly a year ago ...

However, your's does state that the F-15SE as being the probable best deal on the table for Korea ... I would bet that the "stealthy" properties of canting the tail's were negligible as well...

-Gregg

[-Neu-]

Who is the "Slowman"? I never heard of him/her.

I am trying to understand what the South Korea tries to accomplish by reopening bidding for stalled fighter jet competition. Did they see a chance that Boeing may bite at the budget number? It is a question, not a statement.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that ROKAF wants the F-35. But will the politics in South Korea allows it today due to the much above budget cost? What is the gap number flowing around? These are questions, not statements.

So the Korean times put a piece out suggesting the variance as $200 million... so there you go.

The big problem with the F-35 is that its manufacturing timelines are not favorable for the Korean Competition. FRP in 2017 cause a dramatic decrease in the per-unit cost... going from $120~100 million to $85 million and below. From what I've seen the Korean competition basically wants most of their capability delivered before that point. Thus they are competing against a F-15SE that will be in the $90~100 million ballpark. The other problem is that the F-35 is completely run through FMS and they will incur those fees as well as the cost to set up the logistical and maintenence system. F-15 can take advantage of the current manufacturing and maintenence infrastructure (as shown by the partial DSCA notice versus the full one for the F-35). The problem is that the F-15SE will cost significantly more to operate over the long run.

Japan is in a similar case and it just decided to pay the upfront cost of an early F-35 buy... however they are pretty sure that this is only the start of their purchases. After replacing their F-4s, its likely that the JASDF will start to replace their older F-15Js with F-35s, and possibly deploy F-35Bs on the 21DDH class of "helicopter destroyers",

[Kei Lau]

The Korean Times is the oldest English newspaper in South Korea. I don't know how good their sources are, but the article does not sound "Slowman". This piece just came out today.

F-35 to be first to bow out

The U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency said in April that a potential foreign military sale (FMS) of 60 F-35 stealth jets and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support, would cost an estimated 12.4 trillion won.

It is almost 50% over the Korean's 8.3 trillion won budget.

This number sounds reasonable when comparing the the reported US$9.6B that Japan pays for 42 JSF. In addition, the Korean wants their own maintenance depot and does not want to use the Japanese one.

At this point, what the F-35 can do seems to just wish the bidding to be called off and DAPA to increase the budget, as the agency said if there is no entry with price within the project budget after the resumption of the bidding, it will review other options including increasing the budget.

If you do not like what the Korean Times said, go to comment at their website. Don't yell at me.

[-Neu-]

The Korean Times is the oldest English newspaper in South Korea. I don't know how good their sources are, but the article does not sound "Slowman". This piece just came out today.

F-35 to be first to bow out

The U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency said in April that a potential foreign military sale (FMS) of 60 F-35 stealth jets and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support, would cost an estimated 12.4 trillion won.

It is almost 50% over the Korean's 8.3 trillion won budget.

This number sounds reasonable when comparing the the reported US$9.6B that Japan pays for 42 JSF. In addition, the Korean wants their own maintenance depot and does not want to use the Japanese one.

At this point, what the F-35 can do seems to just wish the bidding to be called off and DAPA to increase the budget, as the agency said if there is no entry with price within the project budget after the resumption of the bidding, it will review other options including increasing the budget.

If you do not like what the Korean Times said, go to comment at their website. Don't yell at me.

Uh, I was agreeing with you. It was a mea culpa.

[Kei Lau]

Uh, I was agreeing with you. It was a mea culpa.

The problem is that the F-15SE will cost significantly more to operate over the long run.

Operating any modern fighter fleet is never cheap. The F-15 is a known case, metallic airframe, hydraulic actuation with recent fly-by-wire upgrade. The Korean knows what to expect because they already got 60 F-15K.

The F-22 was supposed to replace the whole F-15C fleet, but it never materialized. There are nany reasons, and cost and maintenance logistic are among them. But the capability over the F-15C was never an issue.

The F-35 has so many new systems, the operating cost is largely an unknown. Its networking, sensor suit, if proven reliable, will put it light years ahead of any competition. The key word is reliability.

[TaiidanTomcat]

The Korean knows what to expect because they already got 60 F-15K.

they sure do:

http://www.socialphy.com/posts/news-politics/9388/Maintenance-cost-for-F-15k-soars-10-times-over-4-years.html

LRIP Deal:

(Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp and the Pentagon have reached agreement on orders for the next two batches of F-35 fighter jets, a deal worth over $7 billion, a person briefed on the discussions told Reuters on Monday.

The deal covers 71 of the radar-evading planes, with 36 jets to be purchased in the sixth production lot, and 35 in the seventh. The total includes 60 F-35s for the U.S. military, and 11 for Australia, Italy, Turkey and Britain.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/29/lockheed-fighter-idUSL1N0FZ1PO20130729

Edited July 30, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat

[Kei Lau]

Operating any modern fighter fleet is never cheap. The F-15 is a known case, metallic airframe, hydraulic actuation with recent fly-by-wire upgrade. The Korean knows what to expect because they already got 60 F-15K.

they sure do:

http://www.socialphy.com/posts/news-politics/9388/Maintenance-cost-for-F-15k-soars-10-times-over-4-years.html

The (ROKAF) Air Force official pointed out that it was no surprise to hear that the annual maintenance cost has begun to exceed 90 billion won, which is about the price of a new jet.

“Boeing officials estimate that keeping an F-15K or another fighter jet for 20 years would cost 2.3 times the cost of the actual aircraft,†he said.

It is easy to provide accurate estimate for the F-15K maintenance because it is basically a F-15E. It has a huge database from the USAF operation.

The article showed that there is practically no maintenance required in in 2008. (It was US$200K per aircraft.) It stablized from the second year on, back to what the ROKAF expects based on Boeing estimate. The article title is very misleading, but the content is accurate. The Korean did a good job keeping an 80% plus combat ready rate each of those years.

Another ranking military official said the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) will sign a performance based logistics (PBL) deal worth $310 million with Boeing as early as by the end of the month to curb the snowballing maintenance cost.

If signed, Boeing will guarantee supply of some 948 key components, which excludes engines and some spare parts, within a day and an 85 percent operational rate for F-15Ks for the next five years.

“We believe Korea will be able to save at least $100 million in maintenance of the F-15Ks through the PBL, while maintaining a higher operational readiness,†he said.

Under the PBL, he said, Korea would provide a maximum of 1 percent of the PBL cost as a financial incentive if Boeing exceeds the mutually agreed expectations. The U.S. company will pay back up to 4 percent of the cost as a penalty for poor performance.

It seems that Boeing convinced the ROKAF that they can do maintenance logistic better (cheaper) than the Korean can do themselves. It does not sound like a case of rewarding poor performance.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Kei Lau

[Waco]

Time to start talking beddown locations...

[MarkW]

The article showed that there is practically no maintenance required in the first year. It stablized from the second year on. The article title is very misleading. The Korean did a good job keeping an 80% plus combat ready rate each of those years.

That not what it says. The ROKAF had there F-15s prior to 2008, they just finished delivery of the first 40 then. The article states very clearly why the cost jumped--Boeing was unable to supply parts in a timely fashion.

Furthermore, it defies logic that there is "practically no maintenance required" in ANY year of operating a modern jet fighter. The first years can be bad as the maintainer force is getting trained up, or validating tech orders, or the ROKAF was at a higher ops tempos getting their pilots going. You also have a lot of "discovery", like JSF is having, about fielded parts not holding up as well as expected.

Edited July 31, 2013 by MarkW

[Dmanton300]

Gun issues

Kopp's bit is best ignored (as is almost anything he's ever said), but the Wing Commander's is an interesting perspective.

[MarkW]

Gun issues

Kopp's bit is best ignored (as is almost anything he's ever said), but the Wing Commander's is an interesting perspective.

So, noted hater Winslow Wheeler interviews an unnamed source, Dr. Krapp, and the "wing commander". That particular wing commander is a frequent "source" at APA, has exactly as much credibility as Krapp, Wheeler and APA in general.

As for the unnamed source, exactly how many helmet mounted gun solutions have been fielded in the last 30 years? Forget all the helmet mounted missile systems that work just fine, just gun systems...

It's sad when you can get more objectivity out of the Flanker fan boy crowd.

Edited July 31, 2013 by MarkW

[Kei Lau]

That not what it says. The ROKAF had there F-15s prior to 2008, they just finished delivery of the first 40 then. The article states very clearly why the cost jumped--Boeing was unable to supply parts in a timely fashion.

Furthermore, it defies logic that there is "practically no maintenance required" in ANY year of operating a modern jet fighter. The first years can be bad as the maintainer force is getting trained up, or validating tech orders, or the ROKAF was at a higher ops tempos getting their pilots going. You also have a lot of "discovery", like JSF is having, about fielded parts not holding up as well as expected.

The article showed that there is practically no maintenance required in in 2008. (It was US$200K per aircraft.) It stablized from the second year on, back to what the ROKAF expects based on Boeing estimate. The article title is very misleading, but the content is accurate. The Korean did a good job keeping an 80% plus combat ready rate each of those years.

Another ranking military official said the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) will sign a performance based logistics (PBL) deal worth $310 million with Boeing as early as by the end of the month to curb the snowballing maintenance cost.

If signed, Boeing will guarantee supply of some 948 key components, which excludes engines and some spare parts, within a day and an 85 percent operational rate for F-15Ks for the next five years.

“We believe Korea will be able to save at least $100 million in maintenance of the F-15Ks through the PBL, while maintaining a higher operational readiness,†he said.

Under the PBL, he said, Korea would provide a maximum of 1 percent of the PBL cost as a financial incentive if Boeing exceeds the mutually agreed expectations. The U.S. company will pay back up to 4 percent of the cost as a penalty for poor performance.

It seems that Boeing convinced the ROKAF that they can do maintenance logistic better (cheaper) than the Korean can do themselves. It does not sound like a case of rewarding poor performance.

Keeping an "85 percent operational rate for F-15Ks for the next five years" is no simple task. Just ask India and other Russian fighter user about what operational rate they get from their Russian aircrafts.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Kei Lau

[MarkW]

Keep in mind Russian aircraft from that era were designed with a fundamentally different maintenance concept than western fighters. The whole approach to phase, depot or O level maintenance are not even close, and the aircraft are designed from the drawing board with that different philosophy in mind.

As for Boeing and PBL:

She said the rate rose to 83 percent in 2009 and 86 percent in 2010 before dropping to 84 percent in the first half of 2011 due largely to constant delays in the supply of spare parts from Boeing.

That isn't "poor" performance. It's what you get when you DON'T have a PBL.

[GreyGhost]

Any indication why the ROKAF is the only Strike Eagle operator to have had such complaints of costs going up ? I wonder if it's because they decided to swap F110s for F100s ...

On another note ...

>>> Article <<<

-Gregg

Edited July 31, 2013 by GreyGhost

[Ken Cartwright]

Wow, I'm in San Diego and I'm bummed I missed the F-35 fly-by. Hopefully they'll do it more and if I'm paying attention, I might see one. I live near the base, but work right under the flight corridor Miramar uses to go out over the ocean, so hopefully I'll see one before too long.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Gun issues

Kopp's bit is best ignored (as is almost anything he's ever said), but the Wing Commander's is an interesting perspective.

FTFA:

With a paltry 180 rounds which translates to 3.2 seconds of firing 25 MM rounds, the gun is irrelevant in any air-to-air engagements other than shooting down unalerted airliners.

So even worse for those Flankers with 150 rounds then? useless in A2A fighter combat?

So, noted hater Winslow Wheeler interviews an unnamed source, Dr. Krapp, and the "wing commander". That particular wing commander is a frequent "source" at APA, has exactly as much credibility as Krapp, Wheeler and APA in general.

As for the unnamed source, exactly how many helmet mounted gun solutions have been fielded in the last 30 years? Forget all the helmet mounted missile systems that work just fine, just gun systems...

Its probably the same "Anonymous Russian Pilot" they interview all the time...

Aren't Apache and Cobra guns slaved by the helmet?

[Kei Lau]

Any indication why the ROKAF is the only Strike Eagle operator to have had such complaints of costs going up ? I wonder if it's because they decided to swap F110s for F100s ...

-Gregg

According to the article on socialphy.com, the ROKAF official pointed out that the maintenance cost was what they expected. Some Korean legistors did complain about the expect cost after a year of unexpected low spending. It is hardly a "complaints of costs going up". Being able to keep a mid 80% operational rate, it is better than or as good as any USAF squardan of any current fighter.

As MarkW pointed out, spare parts delay is to be expected without PBL. Someone has to bear the cost.

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://skiesmag.com/news/articles/19534-rafale-and-f-35.html

Rafale vs F-35 for RCAF

Edited August 1, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat

[Devilleader501]

Wow, I'm in San Diego and I'm bummed I missed the F-35 fly-by. Hopefully they'll do it more and if I'm paying attention, I might see one. I live near the base, but work right under the flight corridor Miramar uses to go out over the ocean, so hopefully I'll see one before too long.

That F-35 came from here in Yuma. It was IFR refueling over Mirimar a couple of days ago with a C-130 from VMGR-352 I believe. I will see if and when the next time they do it again so everyone can know about it. Maybe you all can get some good photos of it and share them.