F-35 news roundup

[fulcrum1]

For better or worse we're stuck like chuck with the jsf. I think the only real argument left is how many of these planes will we actually see in the air, and after that number is hashed out how will it affect our strategy/doctrine with nothing in the pipeline.

[TaiidanTomcat]

For better or worse we're stuck like chuck with the jsf. I think the only real argument left is how many of these planes will we actually see in the air, and after that number is hashed out how will it affect our strategy/doctrine with nothing in the pipeline.

Its going to be in production a long time. You can look at how long the Super Bug has been in production and keeps the line going with an order here, and an order there.

Under current plans, Boeing will have delivered 135 Growlers and 563 Super Hornets to the Navy by the end of 2016. Australia also plans to buy 12 Growlers. Boeing has delivered 24 Super Hornets to that country.

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2022726342_boeinghornetxml.html

FRP started at the end of 1997, so thats 19 years of construction for 734 aircraft if that all holds true. The USAF alone plans on just over double that amount. I'm just trying to emphasize that the F-35 is more akin to the F-18E/F than the F-22, which I think is the big fear for a lot of people. 3,000 F-16s total was once considered hopelessly optimistic and the fantasy of general dynamics salespeople. The F-16 line continues to this day and is at over 4700 aircraft built.

Once the F-35 line gets going its going to hum at full pace for at least 15 years (probably more,) before settling to a slower pace for another decade plus, and that's at a minimum. And then like usual, trying to actually shut down the line and kill all those jobs will be like pulling teeth, and we will get long winded speeches from the politicos in the affected districts crowing on and on about an "excellent aircraft with over 25 years of sterling service around the world!"

50 years later its finally retired, with ARC lamenting its passing and talking of whatever replaces it not being up to snuff, and how a Super Tomcat -- sorry-- F-35 would still be kicking butt if it wasn't for short sided idiots.

Todays "horrible news" is tomorrows footnote, is next weeks "didn't something happen there once?" before its completely forgotten like all the trouble and controversy the teen series fighters once had. (which again is why we have a hard time with perspective when development programs have issues) I know the osprey is doing great because its no longer in the headlines. Aircraft are only fun to report on for general audiences when things are breaking, cost "too much" money, or are crashing. The rest is trivia for airplane nerds. No one cares about the osprey and its 100,000 plus hours flown or whatever. Its no fun anymore now that it works.

[MarkW]

On the plus side, given the amount if composites used in the F-35 we won't have to worry about shaving with parts of one in 50 years.

[11bee]

FRP started at the end of 1997, so thats 19 years of construction for 734 aircraft if that all holds true. The USAF alone plans on just over double that amount. I'm just trying to emphasize that the F-35 is more akin to the F-18E/F than the F-22, which I think is the big fear for a lot of people. 3,000 F-16s total was once considered hopelessly optimistic and the fantasy of general dynamics salespeople. The F-16 line continues to this day and is at over 4700 aircraft built.

Want to make a friendly wager that the F-35 production numbers are nowhere near what is currently forecasted? If you really think the USAF will have the desire / funds to purchase 1,400 of these aircraft, I think you must be living in Colorado and enjoying too much of the local produce. The boys in blue are already getting excited over a new long-range stealth bomber, something has to give budget-wise if they want that new toy. My guesstimate is that the USAF ends up with a maximum of 350 airframes.

Keep in mind that the USAF also had plans for a relatively significant fleet of F-22's, look how that turned out. Budget issues are much more severe than back in the good old days of yesteryear and will probably only get worse, not better over next few decades.

For a very unscientific exercise, just take a look at how the USAF tactical jet fleet has been declining over the last 40 years. Using those numbers, extrapolate forward a few decades and then take another 30% off that number to account for our national budget mess. That curve should also apply to the USN and the rest of the partners in the JSF program as well.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Want to make a friendly wager that the F-35 production numbers are nowhere near what is currently forecasted?

Sure, Ill bet you it goes well beyond 350, especially since the USAF already has about 41 in service, 47 more on order with FRP still 5 years away and larger production batches in the mean time. hundreds of JSFs are to be produced in LRIP before the full FRP starts. they already cracked the 100 JSF mark as well.

So we shouldn't have to wait long for me to collect.

Just tell me what you want to wager I'm game.

If you really think the USAF will have the desire / funds to purchase 1,400 of these aircraft, I think you must be living in Colorado and enjoying too much of the local produce.

Likewise, its going to crack quadruple digits. You think the USAF is going to have half the medium weight multi role fighters than the USN?

You need to remember that its not like they are buying 1400 aircraft in a single year. Whats going to happen is every year the USAF will get billions of dollars to buy more airplanes, then it uses that money every year to buy more and more F-35s. This will continue for decades in various numbers of lots. Especially since the KPMG report for Canada puts their aircraft at 75 million a piece (although this number is lower than was originally forecasted in the honey moon phase, its damn close to a super hornet flyaway cost, with vastly more capability built in--IE no targeting pod needed, internal pylons included) Procurement cost was around 130 million each. This will be vastly cheaper than a long range bomber that probably won't get to service before 2030.

So what you are saying is between 2016 and 2030 the USAF will buy around 250 F-35s or 18 a year? Keeping in mind it is buying 23 in LRIP 6? and 24 in LRIP 7 already, Bringing the number up to over 100 in USAF service by 2015?

even if the USAF gets half the F-35s they want its still over 850 aircraft. 1,000 isn't that crazy.

The boys in blue are already getting excited over a new long-range stealth bomber, something has to give budget-wise if they want that new toy.

Traditionally bombers have had a harder time getting fielded than fighters. B-1 and B-2. plus when LRS B is having all its issues F-35s will have been in service for 10 years and it will be in full production. F-35 will also be out of the headlines.

My guesstimate is that the USAF ends up with a maximum of 350 airframes.

Just to put that in perspective the USMC is slated to have just over 300 V-22s in service. More if HMX-1 happens, or the navy jumps on.

Keep in mind that the USAF also had plans for a relatively significant fleet of F-22's, look how that turned out.

You didn't really bother to read my post about how the f-22 and F-18E/F are different did you? Keep in mind the F-35 has a crap ton of export orders as well, expanding the line and bringing down cost with export orders was widely talked about with the F-22 to help with cost. The Law forbid it, but the JSF doesn't have that problem. It also has multi service political incentive behind it. The politicos will want the one size fits all solution I promise. the problem with the F-22 was it fit one service and one job, and was very expensive not just to buy, but to maintain.

Budget issues are much more severe than back in the good old days of yesteryear and will probably only get worse, not better over next few decades.

Funny how that doesn't affect the new bomber you mentioned.

For a very unscientific exercise, just take a look at how the USAF tactical jet fleet has been declining over the last 40 years. Using those numbers, extrapolate forward a few decades and then take another 30% off that number to account for our national budget mess. That curve should also apply to the USN and the rest of the partners in the JSF program as well.

I agree that lacks any kind of scientific or basis.

[Horrido]

I think you must be living in Colorado and enjoying too much of the local produce.

Fine, ignore the superior Washington product.

[11bee]

Fine, ignore the superior Washington product.

LOL... perhaps that can be the basis for a separate thread. I don't partake in the usage of that stuff but a few associates do and they all speak very highly (no pun intended) about the product from your native state.

TT - Name your bet and let's see how things turn out. Maybe I'll be off on my estimate of 350, maybe you will be off on your estimate of > 1,400. Time will tell. I do get that these will be ordered over an extended period but I don't think there is any chance that total numbers for the AF will be anything close to that figure.

[TaiidanTomcat]

TT - Name your bet and let's see how things turn out. Maybe I'll be off on my estimate of 350, maybe you will be off on your estimate of > 1,400. Time will tell. I do get that these will be ordered over an extended period but I don't think there is any chance that total numbers for the AF will be anything close to that figure.

Well I'm betting 4 figures. 1,000 or more. We can bet something in your stash and when the 351st JSF is in service with the USAF You can send it to me. Then it will languish unbuilt on my shelf for upwards of 20 years. And if the USAF ends up with 999 or fewer I'll send it back. (If I end up building it between now and then I will send you a replacement kit along with a set of decals as "interest".)

Seriously though I'll pick a kit, and you can pick a kit.

Pick something you won't miss :whistle:/>

the bottom line is if the JSF gets to FRP and the price is in the 75-80 million per, 130 million Procurement cost, range its basically a lock. USAF procurement budget in 2013 was $154.3 billion, down from $162.5 billion the year before. So 10 JSFs would be 1.3 billion of that. 100 would be 13 billion. Yeah I'm feeling pretty confident. even if you cut that budget in half, its still 75 billion to play with.

Lastly the F-35 is the key to not just US but allied Airpower as well, and Airpower has been the ace in the allied Military's sleeve. So if the JSF ends up being delivered at the numbers you predict across the board for all services and countries its a strategic disaster, that goes well beyond the F-35 vs X, Y, Z debates. It cedes Western airpower advantage.

Edited February 10, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat

[11bee]

Lastly the F-35 is the key to not just US but allied Airpower as well, and Airpower has been the ace in the allied Military's sleeve. So if the JSF ends up being delivered at the numbers you predict across the board for all services and countries its a strategic disaster, that goes well beyond the F-35 vs X, Y, Z debates. It cedes Western airpower advantage.

Don't get me wrong, I hope you end up winning. We have ourselves backed into a corner, the F-35 has to be successful and we have to purchase it in larger quantities since the US military no longer has a Plan B.

My fear is that they will purchase in the quantities that are forecasted but the cost will be such that just about every legacy weapons system will be sacrificed to pay the bill. We've already seen the discussions on eliminating the A-10, U-2, KC-10 fleets to free up $, I fear there will be more to come.

[-Neu-]

Well I'm betting 4 figures. 1,000 or more. We can bet something in your stash and when the 351st JSF is in service with the USAF You can send it to me. Then it will languish unbuilt on my shelf for upwards of 20 years. And if the USAF ends up with 999 or fewer I'll send it back. (If I end up building it between now and then I will send you a replacement kit along with a set of decals as "interest".)

Pick something you won't miss :whistle:/>/>

the bottom line is if the JSF gets to FRP and the price is in the 75-80 million per, 130 million Procurement cost, range its basically a lock. USAF procurement budget in 2013 was $154.3 billion, down from $162.5 billion the year before. So 10 JSFs would be 1.3 billion of that. 100 would be 13 billion. Yeah I'm feeling pretty confident. even if you cut that budget in half, its still 75 billion to play with.

Lastly the F-35 is the key to not just US but allied Airpower as well, and Airpower has been the ace in the allied Military's sleeve. So if the JSF ends up being delivered at the numbers you predict across the board for all services and countries its a strategic disaster, that goes well beyond the F-35 vs X, Y, Z debates. It cedes Western airpower advantage.

The problem as well is that there is no replacement. The USAF recently passed on their previously planned F-16 upgrades for NG aircraft. Anything below 1400 means reductions in the force structure. If anything the AF would rather see force structure cuts in other specialist capabilities, while keeping the multi-role F-35.

Also, the F-22 is not a good comparison. The F-22 saw a constant series of cuts over its development life. F-35 only saw one cut at the beginning of the program and the numbers have been relatively stable for the decade since. One of the main parts of the dialogue between DoD and congress is that cuts in numbers will adversely affect the program. There has been a big education program about the effects of tinkering around budget numbers will have. That's partly in response to what happened with the F-22 death spiral.

Edited February 10, 2014 by -Neu-

[GreyGhost]

>>> Article <<<

-Gregg (the armchair quarterback)

[MarkW]

This is a bluff. They'd lose the FACO if they punt this much.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Don't get me wrong, I hope you end up winning. We have ourselves backed into a corner, the F-35 has to be successful and we have to purchase it in larger quantities since the US military no longer has a Plan B.

My fear is that they will purchase in the quantities that are forecasted but the cost will be such that just about every legacy weapons system will be sacrificed to pay the bill. We've already seen the discussions on eliminating the A-10, U-2, KC-10 fleets to free up $, I fear there will be more to come.

Me too

Thats the idea. Its supposed to replace legacy systems. And yes, the A-10 may well retire. Its been suggested and well covered in other threads, and in those threads its also been discussed specifically why it is being retired. Its not supposed to go beyond 2030 that I know of anyway.

I don't know about the KC-10s, I assume that has to do with the USAFs new tankers, and I assume they will want to neck down on things (having 3 types of tankers is more expensive than 2 and eventually 1 in the end)

In the end if the price is right, its good to go. And that price is already trending downward in LRIP. If it delivers on the current projected cost, then its not a problem. In fact when that happens its downright affordable compared to other aircraft.

Edited February 10, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat

[Devilleader501]

Don't get me wrong, I hope you end up winning. We have ourselves backed into a corner, the F-35 has to be successful and we have to purchase it in larger quantities since the US military no longer has a Plan B.

My fear is that they will purchase in the quantities that are forecasted but the cost will be such that just about every legacy weapons system will be sacrificed to pay the bill. We've already seen the discussions on eliminating the A-10, U-2, KC-10 fleets to free up $, I fear there will be more to come.

If you look at the budget and price per fiscal year of what we spend on legacy and super hornets it's almost identical in terms of what we spend for the F-35 now vs the F-18 20 years ago. What you don't see is the inflation that you see with everything else we buy on a daily basis.

If per say the F-35 costs today 1 billion each. Then you can bet your but the F-18 of yesteryear would have been almost identical in price due to inflation and procurement prices of the time.

It still to this day numbs my mind to think people won't think outside of the box when it comes to prices of these things.

Take a P-51 in the years it was manufactured and we will talk the same numbers. The reason why is because 80 years ago 1 million dollars was worth as much as 1 billion today because of inflation.

So 380 billion is chump change for these aircraft compared to to hundreds of thousands we were spending 80 years ago.

Procurement costs also include maintenance and shipping of parts the aircraft needs as well as crews working along side the USN, USMC, USAF, and anyone else who happens to buy the plane.

How is a multi role super sonic stealth aircraft not in everyone's best investments.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Devilleader501

[MarkW]

It's a little more complicated than inflation. I can tell you exactly how many lines of code a P-51 ran....

Weapon systems are becoming far more complicated and far more capable. Today's F-35 already has greater range than any hornet. And a far superior radar. And built in systems that didn't even exist when the SuperHornet or Strike Eagle were developed.

So yes, it is more expensive than just inflation accounts for, but P-51s aren't putting steel in bad guys chests anymore either.

[Spongebob]

KC-10 is on the block because they need a CNS-ATM upgrade, similar to Pacer Crag for the -135's in order keep up with current air traffic requirements.

[MarkW]

And, by the way, all those airframes were on the block back in 2005 when Uncle Fester I mean Gen Mosley was trying to sacrifice the entire damn USAF on the altar of F-22.

Retiring airframes at this point has to be all or nothing. Unless that airframe is completely gone, you still end up paying the big bills for the infrastructure to support it. Which is why the plan to cut half the A-10 fleet was clearly made up by complete idiots, as it basically saves not much, but greatly reduces capability.

Probably the same idiots who cut the retiree COLA, but that's another subject.

[TaiidanTomcat]

And, by the way, all those airframes were on the block back in 2005 when Uncle Fester I mean Gen Mosley was trying to sacrifice the entire damn USAF on the altar of F-22.

Retiring airframes at this point has to be all or nothing. Unless that airframe is completely gone, you still end up paying the big bills for the infrastructure to support it. Which is why the plan to cut half the A-10 fleet was clearly made up by complete idiots, as it basically saves not much, but greatly reduces capability.

Agreed with all of the above. And to bring it back to the F-35, the easy selling point of a common logistics and support structure.

[fulcrum1]

the bottom line is if the JSF gets to FRP and the price is in the 75-80 million per, 130 million Procurement cost, range its basically a lock. USAF procurement budget in 2013 was $154.3 billion, down from $162.5 billion the year before. So 10 JSFs would be 1.3 billion of that. 100 would be 13 billion. Yeah I'm feeling pretty confident. even if you cut that budget in half, its still 75 billion to play with.

The AF dreams it had 154.3 billion just for procurements. I think you're mixing the total budget and OCO funds, FY14 aircraft procurement for the USAF is around 11.5 billion and will get smaller through FY16.

[fulcrum1]

The reason why is because 80 years ago 1 million dollars was worth as much as 1 billion today because of inflation.

1 Million 80 years ago is worth 17.3 million today.

How is a multi role super sonic stealth aircraft not in everyone's best investments.

When you can't afford it.

[TaiidanTomcat]

When you can't afford it.

Can we afford to keep all the legacy planes going at all? let alone going with the kind of upgrades they would need to survive?

Do we start over with multiple platforms for all the requirements?

Or do we just let it all lapse, and get out of the whole western air power dominance business? let it all slip quietly into the boneyard, while our allies buy other airplanes?

My mistake on the procurement budget (no john, it doesn't change my bet)

[Ruud]

From http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/

What Test Pilots Say about the F-35

Today’s video from WEST 2014 gathered several JSF test pilots, who said the aircraft is “extraordinarily easy to fly”, meaning less training will be required and pilots can pay more attention to what’s going on around them. Ease of use also shines while hovering with the B version. To provide a comparison that many naval aviators are familiar with, the F-35 with internal payload offers performance comparable to a “slick” Super Hornet (i.e. without external pylons or fuel tanks):

[Devilleader501]

From http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/

What Test Pilots Say about the F-35

Today’s video from WEST 2014 gathered several JSF test pilots, who said the aircraft is “extraordinarily easy to fly”, meaning less training will be required and pilots can pay more attention to what’s going on around them. Ease of use also shines while hovering with the B version. To provide a comparison that many naval aviators are familiar with, the F-35 with internal payload offers performance comparable to a “slick” Super Hornet (i.e. without external pylons or fuel tanks):

It was only a matter of time before true testimonials came out. I talked to one pilot here and he said the thing damn near fly's itself.

But then again who could afford 3,000 planes over the 9,000 these are replacing.

Seems math is making a comeback and people need to go back to school.

[TaiidanTomcat]

The reformers continued to pick at the Eagle as the years rolled by. In 1981, Sprey wrote an airpower section in a book issued by the Heritage Foundation which questioned the F-15’s effectiveness.

The F-15 was larger and more visible than its predecessor the F-4, wrote Sprey, making it vulnerable in daylight close-in dogfighting. He claimed the Eagle was too dependent on radar guided missiles, which "are not likely to be more effective than those used in Vietnam."

Since 1960, Sprey wrote in the 1981 piece, too much of the Air Force tactical aviation budget had been devoted to complex night/all-weather systems "of highly questionable capability." Sprey urged the Air Force to emphasize the F-16 over the F-15 because "in visual combat, the F-16 has been demonstrated to be the superior aircraft."

This was the point where the military reformers misfired.

Future air combat would not, as they assumed, take place largely in daytime, close-in engagements. The F-15 would go on to become the dominant air-to-air force in the skies precisely because of its radar missiles and long reach.

In the first Gulf War, the F-15 accounted for 36 of 40 Air Force aerial victories. Of those, 28 involved radar guided missiles. Worldwide, the Eagle has racked up an unprecedented kill ratio of 104-to-zero.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2010/August%202010/0810failures.aspx

[11bee]

It was only a matter of time before true testimonials came out. I talked to one pilot here and he said the thing damn near fly's itself.

But then again who could afford 3,000 planes over the 9,000 these are replacing.

Seems math is making a comeback and people need to go back to school.

As opposed to all those false testimonials that came out before? I'm glad the forces of evil have been pushed back so the real truth can finally be heard.

Wasn't aware that the JSF was replacing 9,000 aircraft. That's real interesting. Any chance you could provide some backup for that figure? I'm a bit weak on math and could use some assistance.