F-35 news roundup

[Litvyak]

Speaking of licence production and whatnot... am I the only one who suspects that Israel will eventually crack the system to do what they want with it?

(Not that I'd really blame them for it... that bit sounds really dodgy to me. Are they putting a remote-deactivation subroutine in it, that they don't want anyone to see?)

[Mark M.]

Ken Cartwright,

I think you have the wrong numbers on the P-51D, even. Its climb rate was at best 3400/3500 feet per minute to start with. While that may be par with the 1943-ish A6M Zero, the Fw190D9 significantly outclimbs it by a wide margin. The Fw190As, when not loaded with hundreds of pounds of anti-bomber armor and guns, were able to climb just as well if not better (depending on setup, available boost additives, prop type, etc) than the P-51D.

The initial P-51 design with the allison engine was slower at all alts than the P-39D [EDIT: if I'm reading that chart linked below correctly, I mean], barely faster than the P-40F, and had an abyssmal climb rate in the low 2000-fpm range. RAF test at Boscombe Downe said best rate of climb was only in the 1900 fpm range. The initial design could only do 316mph at sea level. At this time they already had spitfires nearing or exceeding that. Fw190As were already breaking that speed down low by.

The later models were used to help win the war. I don't deny that. The initial model was a disappointing product. The only reason they (the RAF) accepted it was because they were desperate, and accepting anything (brewsters, curtiss p-40s, p-38s, anything they could).

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51-37320-chart.jpg

Now back to our regularly scheduled F-35 news :)

Edited May 26, 2011 by Mark M.

[11bee]

Interesting article over at Flight Global. It appears that later batch (LRIP-4) F-35's will be the first aircraft to utilize carbon nanotube structures to replace selected non-loadbearing components. They offer superior strength and 25-30% weight reduction.

Read more:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/05/26/357223/lockheed-martin-reveals-f-35-to-feature-nanocomposite.html

[GreyGhost]

>>> Article <<<

Gregg

[-Neu-]

First off Ross, I don't think anybody wants to debate this "in private." Nor do I think its necessary either, as most people here can discuss this in a respectful and informative manner.

To be honest, and I've said this before, like you, if the F-35 turns out to be as good as is claimed it may well be money well spent, but it's still horrifically expensive and good economic thinking says that if there's a cheaper alternative that will do the job required of it is it not better to go for the alternative.

I do not think the F-35 is "horrifically expensive." It will cost $75~80 million USD, compared to over 100 million for a F-15K or 50 million for a F-16E.

:D, Hi 11bee,

I don't think you're moving into the political arena at all. Since the end of WW2 Australia has always had a military doctrine of being as independant as possible. Because of difficuties obtaining equitpment just before and during the war, after the war we obtained licences to build (everything up to the F/A-18) or permission to assemble our military aircraft equipment (F/A-18) locally and the F-35 will be the first aircraft since WW2 that we haven't been able to do that with. To many Aussies this is a mystery. On the one hand the US calls us her greatest ally in the Pacific region, but on the other hand it seems they don't trust us enough to give us a licence to produce the product locally or even assemble it locally. To us this seems very strange and we're only getting tidbits for offsets. Personally I can't see any real reason for this although I realize there would be some reason for it. If a manufacturing licence were granted the US could produce more aircraft on her own soil in the case of an attack and we could also get permission from the US to produce more if we needed them for any reason. We certainly have the ability and capacity to do so and it would even provide back up production for the US military if needed.

Two things. Australia is not producing F/A-18Fs, you are just assembling them. Basically all the parts are produced in the United States... actually over 95% of the Hornet's parts are made there so its a fallacy that this is anything close to indigenous production. Nobody except the possibly the Japanese among the West have the technical industrial base to actually undertake truly indigenous production, and that came at tens of billions of dollars of investments over the past sixty years. Licensed production schemes is horribly expensive, it can easily double the cost of every airframe you purchase. Its not cost effective, which is why even the Japanese have reconsidered their policy of insisting on licensed production.

Second, the JSF's competitive subcontract process is far more valuable than traditional offset schemes. Basically the structure of the competitive process builds on a country’s strengths in the aviation industry, providing benefits to firms best able to compete on a global scale. Participation in a leading edge program like the F-35 has an added benefit for these firms by giving them access to advanced technologies incorporated in the fighter.Traditional offset schemes don't do that as they are often one time purchases. So even if the total amount might be less than a 1 to 1 replacement, the benefit for Australia or any other partner country's industry is far greater in the long term.

The United States structured the program in this fashion because they wanted to eliminate their competition for this fighter; other programs were willing to over 100% offsets. By using a sub-contract competition scheme like how commercial aircraft manufacturers operate they basically made the F-35 extremely valuable to most countries which is why the program partnership has remained so durable despite the negative political atmosphere.

Edited May 26, 2011 by -Neu-

[Tony Stark]

Nobody except the possibly the Japanese among the West have the technical industrial base to actually undertake truly indigenous production

Edited May 26, 2011 by Tony Stark

[-Neu-]

I was more talking about second tier powers which can undertake licensed production rather than actual manufacturers of aircraft, but even then the development of the global arms market has made it very difficult for single nations to design and produce fighter aircraft.

Sure, in 1960. English Electric nolonger exists either.

Eurofighter Consortium. Five countries collaborating in its production because they couldn't afford undertaking indigenous production.

Panavia Consortium. Again, the exact opposite of indigenous production.

Okay, the French do have that ability (its my bad not to specify what I was getting at) however there is questions how long it may last if the Rafale does not obtain more sales (MRCA and the Brazilian competition are absolutely vital for the program's future.)

Sweden in the 1960s. However today SAAB cannot produce all the parts for the fighter indigenously, engines being the most important example.

Edited May 26, 2011 by -Neu-

[MarkW]

To be honest, and I've said this before, like you, if the F-35 turns out to be as good as is claimedit may well be money well spent, but it's still horrifically expensive and good economic thinking says that if there's a cheaper alternative that will do the job required of it is it not better to go for the alternative.

And this is the heart of the faulty logic used by many critics. The whole point is the F-35, assuming it delivers (which Ross is willing to concede), will be able to do things no other platform can, period dot. There is no other option, UCAV or manned, that can do what the F-35 is going to be able to do--again, assuming it delivers. Wishing that fleets of Flankers or slews of Super Hornets could deliver air superiority against modern IADS is simple fantasy. And yes, air superiority includes taking out SAM sites.

Since we seem stuck in WW II mode, remember fighters at that time were purely defensive machines. With modern PGMs, fighters are able to deliver tactical and strategic offensive power. How many PGMs would a Flanker be able to deliver against Chinese SAM site by itself? Remember, factor in that superior turn rate, range, acceleration, etc OH IT JUST GOT SHOT IN THE FACE. Nevermind.

As for Australia's industrial share, they are part of the program based on their share of the risk. The U.S. is supposed to spend billions of our tax dollars developing unique and cutting edge manufacturing technology (that $50 odd billion for the development program isn't just for the jet) and then hand it over to anybody? This is a defensive cooperative venture not a charity. Like out or not, my foreign friends, the U.S. is leading this effort because only we can.

[Berkut]

Okei. Stupid question maybe but:

What is the latest price for F-35A, B and C?

[MarkW]

Where's Dr.Evil when you need him?

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

The US Govt. debt is over $13 Trillion. The govt. it matters not which party holds power either adds about $1.5 trillion to that debt each year. Ultimately it is unsustainable. Add the fact all US debt, govt, corporate, personal debt is over $55Trillion.

Now back to only the Feds. for my argument here. Sure if by example Canada wanted to incur by same factor the same level of Federal debt ($1.3 Trillion. Take the US debt and divide by 10 to get a fair comparable) we'd have to move from our $600 billion Federal debt. which currently already sees our current govt. of choice add about $50 billion per year to its total and then add another $700 billion to it to get us to $1.3 T. If our govt. chose to do that and subsidize our military industrial complex the way the US govt. essentially has for over 50 years we too could develop a fully indigenous fighter jet and many other things. Hell we could even build a few aircraft carriers etc.

Simple fact is and this is NOT TO BE POLITICAL but a reality check! that the US has developed a vast military industrial complex, one can argue separately the politics of it elsewhere, that holds ransom all future generations with much of what will eventually be crippling debt level.

Look at it this way. One person who has gained access to high levels of credit can appear to look successful, wealthy, powerful and intelligent as long as that credit keeps rolling. Once it stops though the bubble bursts and the end will show that person as a phony, fool and a fraud.

Never under estimate the selfishness and greed of people especially those with influence. Many people will almost gladly sell their kids and future family into essential slavery to try to make another buck. And even if it bankrupts a nation. They have no allegiance to the state other than how they can try to make a buck from it.

Think about it folks.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Les / Creative Edge Photo

[GreyGhost]

And this is the heart of the faulty logic used by many critics. The whole point is the F-35, assuming it delivers (which Ross is willing to concede), will be able to do things no other platform can, period dot. There is no other option, UCAV or manned, that can do what the F-35 is going to be able to do--again, assuming it delivers. Wishing that fleets of Flankers or slews of Super Hornets could deliver air superiority against modern IADS is simple fantasy. And yes, air superiority includes taking out SAM sites.

Since we seem stuck in WW II mode, remember fighters at that time were purely defensive machines. With modern PGMs, fighters are able to deliver tactical and strategic offensive power. How many PGMs would a Flanker be able to deliver against Chinese SAM site by itself? Remember, factor in that superior turn rate, range, acceleration, etc OH IT JUST GOT SHOT IN THE FACE. Nevermind.

As for Australia's industrial share, they are part of the program based on their share of the risk. The U.S. is supposed to spend billions of our tax dollars developing unique and cutting edge manufacturing technology (that $50 odd billion for the development program isn't just for the jet) and then hand it over to anybody? This is a defensive cooperative venture not a charity. Like out or not, my foreign friends, the U.S. is leading this effort because only we can.

Be careful about making claims it does everything, that's when the fit hits the shan ...

Don't think for a momnent that technology ends with the F-35 ...

UCAVs are quickly catching up to it and won't put a crew member(s)in danger ...

Gregg

[MarkW]

I kind of thought I caveated my statement with enough "assuming"s, but apparently I didn't.

As for UAVs, having the experience I now have with how fragile the state of the art is, don't hold your breath on a miracle there. They are extremely capable, but extremely limited and truly in their infancy. Catching up fast is not remotely accurate.

Edited May 26, 2011 by MarkW

[-Neu-]

Okei. Stupid question maybe but:

What is the latest price for F-35A, B and C?

The US Air force projects that a F-35's Airframe and engine in 2016 will cost around $75 Million in FY2008 dollars. I can see it growing to maybe $80 million if there is some sort of major fault that needs an expensive fix.

I'm not clear on the F-35C and B version because their costs are buried in a single cost in the SAR, and I don't have the Navy's budget handy. The C should be around 10~15% more than the A version.

[GreyGhost]

I kind of thought I caveated my statement with enough "assuming"s, but apparently I didn't.

Just saying it jinxes it ... :blink:

As of right now, fly away cost of an F-35 is over $100 Million per ...

Will they come down ? Well, depends on how many we can actually afford ...

I seriously doubt it will be in the projected numbers ....

Remember, F-22 was 'supposed' to be a 700+ airframe buy ...

Gregg

[-Neu-]

Just saying it jinxes it ... :blink:

As of right now, fly away cost of an F-35 is over $100 Million per ...

Will they come down ? Well, depends on how many we can actually afford ...

I seriously doubt it will be in the projected numbers ....

Remember, F-22 was 'supposed' to be a 700+ airframe buy ...

Gregg

You are comparing apples to oranges. Manufacturing learning curves are pretty reliable when dealing with aircraft. Basically after the first 1000~1200 aircraft the cost does not decrease at all and the US is committed to the US is fully committed to getting at least that number of F-35s alone with its partners by 2018. Whether the US buys 2500 or 2000 doesn't really affect that price at all. The US absolutely requires those aircraft to replace those F-16 and Legacy hornets currently in service. Moreover canceling the program will absolutely eviscerate the US defence base. Its not even in question whether the program will happen or not. Quibbling over a few hundred won't change the price at all either.

[Aigore]

Sweden in the 1960s. However today SAAB cannot produce all the parts for the fighter indigenously, engines being the most important example.

Sure we can :D ever heard of Volvo Flygmotor? They build the engines for Gripen, they are based on the GE F404 but the RM12 are built by Volvo.

We´ve opted for using exisiting engines since it´s cheaper than developing an engine from scratch.

It works both ways tho since you´ll find a swedish parts in the Super hornets GE 414 engines, GE and Volvo´s been cooperating since 2000 :D

[Guest Hoban Washburne]

How many PGMs would a Flanker be able to deliver against Chinese SAM site by itself?

Errr...no offense, mate, but how many d'ya think an F-35 is going to be able to deliver by ITS own self? Considering the first wave of Chinese attacks will likely neutralize any potential land bases with ballistic missiles, and will prevent aircraft carriers from entering 'mongst the second island chain through a mite of DF-21D deterrence, I'd say yer F-35 has a snowball's chance of actually making it to the SAM sites. Couple in the fact yer not going "mano-i-mano" against a Chinese SAM, but against the entire coastal IADS, and I don't think yer F-35s are going to be able to get to their release points for PGMs against the ground sites. Fer that matter, even if an F-35 gets there, it's got, what? Two PGMs available for dropping? 'zactly what good does that do against something like an SA-21 site or its Chinese equivalent, with multiple launchers, vehicles, TERs, TARs, self protection jammers, etc...

I don't think it matters whether yer sending an F-35 or a P-80, it ain't gonna be able to deliver anything of significane "by itself" in that environs. Yer kilometers-per-liter may vary.

[GreyGhost]

You are comparing apples to oranges. Manufacturing learning curves are pretty reliable when dealing with aircraft. Basically after the first 1000~1200 aircraft the cost does not decrease at all and the US is committed to the US is fully committed to getting at least that number of F-35s alone with its partners by 2018. Whether the US buys 2500 or 2000 doesn't really affect that price at all. The US absolutely requires those aircraft to replace those F-16 and Legacy hornets currently in service. Moreover canceling the program will absolutely eviscerate the US defence base. Its not even in question whether the program will happen or not. Quibbling over a few hundred won't change the price at all either.

There is absolutely no guarantee the US will be able to make a 2,000+ run ... I'm wondering if we will be able to foot orders for 1,000 of them ... Canada is wanting what, 60 of them ? Other partner nations are committing to less airframes too ...

Errr...no offense, mate, but how many d'ya think an F-35 is going to be able to deliver by ITS own self? Considering the first wave of Chinese attacks will likely neutralize any potential land bases with ballistic missiles, and will prevent aircraft carriers from entering 'mongst the second island chain through a mite of DF-21D deterrence, I'd say yer F-35 has a snowball's chance of actually making it to the SAM sites. Couple in the fact yer not going "mano-i-mano" against a Chinese SAM, but against the entire coastal IADS, and I don't think yer F-35s are going to be able to get to their release points for PGMs against the ground sites. Fer that matter, even if an F-35 gets there, it's got, what? Two PGMs available for dropping? 'zactly what good does that do against something like an SA-21 site or its Chinese equivalent, with multiple launchers, vehicles, TERs, TARs, self protection jammers, etc...

I don't think it matters whether yer sending an F-35 or a P-80, it ain't gonna be able to deliver anything of significane "by itself" in that environs. Yer kilometers-per-liter may vary.

In the scenario you're talking about, I imagine B-2s would be the opening punch ...

Gregg

Edited May 27, 2011 by GreyGhost

[GRAIL007]

Errr...no offense, mate, but how many d'ya think an F-35 is going to be able to deliver by ITS own self? Considering the first wave of Chinese attacks will likely neutralize any potential land bases with ballistic missiles, and will prevent aircraft carriers from entering 'mongst the second island chain through a mite of DF-21D deterrence, I'd say yer F-35 has a snowball's chance of actually making it to the SAM sites. Couple in the fact yer not going "mano-i-mano" against a Chinese SAM, but against the entire coastal IADS, and I don't think yer F-35s are going to be able to get to their release points for PGMs against the ground sites. Fer that matter, even if an F-35 gets there, it's got, what? Two PGMs available for dropping? 'zactly what good does that do against something like an SA-21 site or its Chinese equivalent, with multiple launchers, vehicles, TERs, TARs, self protection jammers, etc...

I don't think it matters whether yer sending an F-35 or a P-80, it ain't gonna be able to deliver anything of significane "by itself" in that environs. Yer kilometers-per-liter may vary.

Like Grey Ghost mentioned B-2 will kick down the door, and the F-22s and F-35s will follow. The F-35 would probably be carrying more than 2 PGMs, most likely instead 6 SDBs in place of the larger 2000lb or 1000lb bombs. So 12 SBDs per F-35 to deal with any targets. But that is only one loadout, there are many more options available. And I'm pretty sure the Navy will want to fire off some cruise missiles......

-Mark

[GreyGhost]

Like Grey Ghost mentioned B-2 will kick down the door, and the F-22s and F-35s will follow. The F-35 would probably be carrying more than 2 PGMs, most likely instead 6 SDBs in place of the larger 2000lb or 1000lb bombs. So 12 SBDs per F-35 to deal with any targets. But that is only one loadout, there are many more options available. And I'm pretty sure the Navy will want to fire off some cruise missiles......

-Mark

Yeah, China was a bit surprised last year when 3 Ohios surfaced simultaneously near three SE Asian ports ... All three being of the none Nuke, Cruise Missile fitted variety ...

Gregg

[Guest Hoban Washburne]

Certainly agreed B-2s might lead off, but they'd still have to FIND those mobile SAMs. And rightly, he DID ask whether there was a fighter which could deliver weapons in range of a Chinese SAM on it's own. I'm simply questioning even tbd F-35s ability to do so.

[-Neu-]

Sure we can :D ever heard of Volvo Flygmotor? They build the engines for Gripen, they are based on the GE F404 but the RM12 are built by Volvo.

We´ve opted for using exisiting engines since it´s cheaper than developing an engine from scratch.

It works both ways tho since you´ll find a swedish parts in the Super hornets GE 414 engines, GE and Volvo´s been cooperating since 2000 :D

GE produces over 60% of the engine... hardly indigenous production. And yeah Japan, the UK, and Sweden could build an indigenous fighter; they just don't find it cost effective or even strategically useful, which was the point I was originally making when referring to the Australian situation.

There is absolutely no guarantee the US will be able to make a 2,000+ run ... I'm wondering if we will be able to foot orders for 1,000 of them ... Canada is wanting what, 60 of them ? Other partner nations are committing to less airframes too ...

There is every guarantee that the US will make a 2000 run. ITs the fact that almost 3000 fighters will rust out in the next two decades and without replacement the core of the USAF and USN's aviation, the most used assets in their fleets will be left without a replacement. I will tell you this right now, no military general will stand up in front of congress and ask for the program to be canned. They will fight tooth and nail for it... just like Gates did. If you think otherwise, then you are profoundly blind to the reality of the US military's stake in this program. When people say this is the most critical program in the US military today, thats not hyperbole; its just plain fact. Moreover the damage of canning this program to US industry's prestige is so great that no senator in their right mind would do it.

Also, when the US concludes LRIP Lot 5 contract negotiation this year, there will be more F-35s on contract than all the F-22 produced. By 2014, there will be nearly 400 on order, which is when the cost curve starts slackening out.

[Litvyak]

Good or bad, this is bigger than the Deal of the Century - more than just Lockheed would die if this project fails...

[MarkW]

Errr...no offense, mate, but how many d'ya think an F-35 is going to be able to deliver by ITS own self? Considering the first wave of Chinese attacks will likely neutralize any potential land bases with ballistic missiles, and will prevent aircraft carriers from entering 'mongst the second island chain through a mite of DF-21D deterrence, I'd say yer F-35 has a snowball's chance of actually making it to the SAM sites. Couple in the fact yer not going "mano-i-mano" against a Chinese SAM, but against the entire coastal IADS, and I don't think yer F-35s are going to be able to get to their release points for PGMs against the ground sites. Fer that matter, even if an F-35 gets there, it's got, what? Two PGMs available for dropping? 'zactly what good does that do against something like an SA-21 site or its Chinese equivalent, with multiple launchers, vehicles, TERs, TARs, self protection jammers, etc...

I don't think it matters whether yer sending an F-35 or a P-80, it ain't gonna be able to deliver anything of significane "by itself" in that environs. Yer kilometers-per-liter may vary.

Well, no offense taken. I'll see your "no offense, mate" and raise you with dude, you have no idea what you are talking about, no offense. I have an advantage over most others in understanding not only what the jet is supposed to do, but what it has already proven to do. First, JSF will be employed as a four ship when the poo hits the fan. It has an lpi/lpd radar set, and will have the ability to share data over an lpi/lpd data link. So, while one jet is painting a SAR image of a SAM site, another jet can employ that bad @$$ radar in an electronic warfare mode. The third jet could be totally silent, while the fourth jet can simply sit back monitoring the air picture and seeing exactly what the other three jets are seeing while waiting to get to the release point, then pickle off munitions in a coordinated fashion with the rest of the flight. On the question of range, do the math. A 600++ NM range doesn't mean your carrier is 600 NM out, it means your tanker support is 600 NM out. That its well beyond the effective range of any current our planned air defense system. Yes, the pilots will need extra piddle packs, but they will be able to reach pretty far with that range. You can argue chinese ballistic missiles and aegis cruiser countermeasures all day, or whether a Taiwan Straits a scenario is even defensible. But given any high threat scenario, please identify an alternative that is available and better? And yes, everything above is available open source.

Those thinking the F-35 and F-22 are NOT day one platforms, having to wait for B-2s to "kick down the door", are completely unaware of what these platforms are capable of or how they are intended to be used. They are all day one platforms, that's kind of the point...

Final point: Lockheed Martin will not "die" if this program goes away. This is a cost plus contact, which means they have been paid all along the way with very little of the company dime involved. The Governments involved are bearing all the risk on the program. If it goes away, LM will need to generate new business, but they won't be out more than a few red cents. Even the cost of tearing down the JSF specific production tooling would be paid for by the govt in case of a termination. But like Boeing did when B-2 was canceled, LM would keep all the tooling and the technological knowledge gained on the govt dime.