JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

[Viv S]

Modern radar is exceptionally technically sophisticated. Obsolete fighers like the JSF were designed to defeat 1970's vintage radars. But modern air defence radars are confronted with multiple low RCS targets.

Just out of curiosity, which radar band is the stealth on the F-22, PAK FA, J-20, J-31, ATD-X (and eventually AMCA) optimized for?

This is the size of several humans, not a "marble". So the first part, detecting stealth fighters is not difficult.
Even obsolete radars can pull that trick off.

So a marble sized RCS becomes 'several humans' sized in VHF band. How big then does an aircraft that's 'several humans' sized' in the X-band (like the Rafale for example), look in the VHF band?

But the second part, locking on and guiding a missile to where the fighter is?

LIDAR - LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING

LIDAR is a Multi-Band and Multi- Static anti-stealth technology. Laser radar can detect stealth targets efficiently because it has short wavelength, high beam quality, high directionality and high measuring accuracy,which helps functions of target identifying, posture displaying and orbit recording. Apart from these
,LIDAR holds higher resolution and counter-jamming ability due to its coherence property and ultimately high frequency.

And what sort of range will you get with LIDAR? 5km? 10km? Lets be generous and call it 20km in good weather. Its still comfortably out-ranged by most optical sensors. High resolution 3D imagery yes, but using LIDAR in lieu of an FCR is just absurd.

As above all methods of reducing RCS have been cracked. The stealth technology has gone as far as it could go. The fact that a stealth technology aircraft like F-117 could be downed by a Third World country (Serbia) by upgrading its 1960 SAM system, proves the fact that all stealth aircraft are vulnerable to existing and futuristic counter-stealth technologies.

You'd never guess that stealth had been 'cracked' from the number of stealth aircraft in service or development.

Some of the problems in BR are that we get a lot of military fanboys who adore the looks of sexy hardware like missiles and planes and ignore boring technology like radars.

The 'fanboys' accusation starts ringing hollow when in the same post you make a case for LIDAR adoption.

[Manish_Sharma]

Some F-35 Flight Restrictions Lifted

The Pentagon has lifted some flight restrictions on F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, while inspections will continue for the foreseeable future, according to a Defense Department official.

Speed restrictions were relaxed late last week from Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.6, while maneuverability restrictions were increased slightly from 3 Gs to 3.2, the official said.

Other restrictions remain, however, including borescope inspections of the front fan section of each F135 engine every three hours.

1.) Having zero technical knowledge I must be wrong, but isn't pulling Gs 3 or 3.2 is super-low for a fighter jet?

I thought all the modern fighters Typhoon, Su 30s, F-15s or Mig 29s pull 9 to 11 Gs. Doesn't the 3 to 3.2 Gs makes F-35 like F-117 type?

2.) Why jsf has been restricted to just 0.9 Mach speed, despite having such an advanced material airframe and world's most advanced engine?

3.) And checking blades of F-135 every 3 hours makes it expensive and headache to maintain.

If all above are true than definitely a turkey it is.

[NRao]

The 'fanboys' accusation starts ringing hollow when in the same post you make a case for LIDAR adoption.

The problem is google. google only provides random information, does not convert that into knowledge.

If all above are true than definitely a turkey it is.

You missed the real stuff ..................... F-35 cannot fly, cannot fire a gun, cannot drop a bomb.

It is a qualified turkey. The title of an entire thread on BR says so!! What more does one need?

[Viv S]

This is one major reason why NATO is relentless in its eastward expansionism despite the end of the CW.New military sales to new customers in a dwindling market. Replacing entire armed forces of a nation like the Ukraine to mesh with NATO eqpt. is given as the reason for replacing legacy eqpt.,even if as the Germans found out,East German MIG-29s were equal or superior to German F-16Cs in close air combat and kept them in service for some time.

NATO expansion has got little to do with military sales. The new NATO members have small militaries that don't account for any substantial military spending aside from a few dozen F-16s sold to Poland.

This is because the JSF has come in for a lot of criticism from some sources about its limited air combat capability,fixed AESA radar which cannot swivel,etc. against aircraft like the SU-35S, requiring it to keep a more frontal profile when attacking.

Its also come in for orders from a dozen customers and counting. All of which had the option of going for the Eurocanards or advanced variants of the SH and F-15E.

With the regard to the Su-35S - The Su-35S avionics and integrated defence system is inferior to “American fighters of the same type” - Russian Air Force chief (link)

Meteor will provide it with an advantage over most of its rivals ,given its range,and coupled with the Japanese AESA missile radar which has increased terminal detection range,will allow it to break off much earlier in combat with a first shot advantage.

It'll have the first shot advantage with or without a new Meteor seeker.

In the other report,news of the JSF's progress and engine problems ,Bogdan's statements earlier about new problems arriving and that it would take along time to fix them,etc., are repeated,discussed,analysed."Same team,same tools,etc" reg. those involved in the engine development.

The engine program has been identified and it wasn't a systemic problem. As for progress... its still on for IOC in 2015.

The Koreans meanwhile are pursuing their own stealth bird,but have yet to place the order for the chosen 40JSFs for budgetary reasons.

The contract signing was slated for late 2014. No budgetary factors involved.

Yes,it is juvenile to imagine that while stealth tech will advance,anti-stealth will remain static and radar development will languish.

Fortunately no one has suggested that stealth will advance while radar tech stagnates.

[Viv S]

Some F-35 Flight Restrictions Lifted

1.) Having zero technical knowledge I must be wrong, but isn't pulling Gs 3 or 3.2 is super-low for a fighter jet?

I thought all the modern fighters Typhoon, Su 30s, F-15s or Mig 29s pull 9 to 11 Gs. Doesn't the 3 to 3.2 Gs makes F-35 like F-117 type?

The F-35 has been tested past 9Gs. This is temporary restriction and will the retracted in stages.

2.) Why jsf has been restricted to just 0.9 Mach speed, despite having such an advanced material airframe and world's most advanced engine?

Did you READ the article you're quoting? It says quite explicitly that the Mach 0.9 restriction has been lifted and the aircraft is now cleared back upto Mach 1.6.

3.) And checking blades of F-135 every 3 hours makes it expensive and headache to maintain.

Every three flight hours. And that restriction too will be lifted once clearance certification comes through.

If all above are true than definitely a turkey it is.

'If all above are true'? Surely you could have googled it?

[Manish_Sharma]

It is a qualified turkey. The title of an entire thread on BR says so!! What more does one need?

Batao!!!

And you want this to be the M2k of 2045? No sir, thanks but thanks, keep this turkey? We'll manage.

[brar_w]

he much maligned Sweetman in AWST (2 reports) has reported that a joint Brit/Japanese JV is in the offing to use its superior Japanese AESA AAM radar on the Meteor missile to improve its capability to counter the Russian AA-12 .

A dozen or so other pubs have reported the same as the deal was signed in a public setting with news media covering the trip. The Japanese won't be countering any missile as this is not the reason missiles are upgraded. They are developing an enhanced capability now that they can JV up with other OEM's given the relaxation in laws and doctrine. The Japanese don't have an option to do the same with the US industry as all the Next generation work for BVR missiles is being lead by DARPA which is yet to draw up a blueprint for foreign partnerships for its high end, largely-classified systems. There is no way Japan could introduce its industrial base into the T3 program, the SITES program or other BVR missile related programs that the US is currently funding.

The Meteor ,which is unique unlike other AAMs in that its ramjet allows it to deliver full power right upto contact with the target,will also have to be reconfigured to fit into the JSF's internal weapons bay for use on RN JSFs.

Its a solid fueled, throttle ramjet. The concept is well understood and was first implemented on the USN GQM-163. The JSF integration is a known entity and is going to happen by the time the JSF receives the software patch to support the Meteor (Block 4s)

This is because the JSF has come in for a lot of criticism from some sources about its limited air combat capability,fixed AESA radar which cannot swivel,etc. against aircraft like the SU-35S

Wait a minute. So the Meteor would need to be integrated because the JSF has come into criticism? Are you serious? Because the AESA cannot swivel? Against aircraft like the Su-35S? Does the Su-35's AESA swivel? Does it even have an AESA yet? Swivel AESA's help in side lobe coverage as well as ground mapping at acute angles. The JSF goes past that via MADL as no formation will see the F-35 fly solo. The JSF eliminates the need to have a complicated swivel radar body (which ups the MTBF, as such design was studied by Northrop grumman before going in for a fixed radar with MADL SA buildup) or side/cheek arrays as was planned on the F-22. Its a design feature since the designers had a full SA picture built up through MADL without any quality compromise and because stealth aircraft do not fly in formations close to each other but spread out at distances where they cannot physically see the wingman.

Meteor is being integrated not because the JSF has come into criticism but because -

A) UK is a level 1 F-35 partner and is the main force backing the meteor. Its always wise to have your own weapons integrated onto a fighter which will be the main stay of your expeditionary fighting force

MBDA isn't dumb enough to surrender the entire BVR market to Raytheon just because the meteor is not integrated into the JSFs weapon bays, especially when the export orders of the F-35 will most likely surpass the total production of the eurofighter typhoon by 2030.

The Koreans meanwhile are pursuing their own stealth bird,but have yet to place the order for the chosen 40JSFs for budgetary reasons.

For contractual negotiations. They were always expected to sign the order by Q2 of 2014, but had warned that negotiations could slip into Q3.

Yes,it is juvenile to imagine that while stealth tech will advance,anti-stealth will remain static and radar development will languish.

It is also naive to imagine that what the JSF is is what it will be as the threat index matures. As the F-16 cycle has shown its more likely that the JSF will be kept up to date and ahead of the competing systems.

1.) Having zero technical knowledge I must be wrong, but isn't pulling Gs 3 or 3.2 is super-low for a fighter jet?

Its an operational jet for all practical purposes since the frontline fighter squadrons have the jets in large numbers. The procedure is to run a full investigation to find the cause, and while that investigation runs precautionary steps are taken to ensure that such an incident does not reoccur. Limiting the G is a temporary thing and the restriction would be lifted once the final report is submitted and changes made (if required).

I thought all the modern fighters Typhoon, Su 30s, F-15s or Mig 29s pull 9 to 11 Gs. Doesn't the 3 to 3.2 Gs makes F-35 like F-117 type?

The F-35A is a 9G fighter. The restrictions are placed on the G limits for a temporary time until a final report is submitted on the engine fire that occurred in June. Its not the limit on the jet.

Why jsf has been restricted to just 0.9 Mach speed, despite having such an advanced material airframe and world's most advanced engine?

Only the operational jets are restricted to 0.9 due to the flight restrictions imposed by the safety board that is conducting the investigation into the fire. The Test jets are cleared for mach 1.6. The F-35 is not restricted to mach 0.9 by design.

3.) And checking blades of F-135 every 3 hours makes it expensive and headache to maintain.

Something that you have to do while the investigation still continues. It does not involve taking out the engine. Its a boroscope inspection. If you want to maintain high safety standards like the program has done over the last 8 years (Since first flight) you have to do such things. Relax in the safety departments and you'll end up with crashes and lives lost.

If all above are true than definitely a turkey it is.

When incidents or crashes are investigated flight restrictions are imposed. This is a routine thing. F-16 groundings, flight restrictions are imposed all the time both in the uSAF and in the IDF (Happened just recently). There is a safety protocol in most professional air-forces around the world.

[brar_w]

Just out of curiosity, which radar band is the stealth on the F-22, PAK FA, J-20, J-31, ATD-X (and eventually AMCA) optimized for?

Precisely. No one knows what the optimized performance is against X band or what the RCS measure is against other bands. While it is true that the stealth is optimized for a range that falls into the X band, it is also true that stealth jets have protection against other bands as well. The amount of radar testing ranges available to the program and others like is unrivaled. You test out the jets against various threats and develop a survivable design. The entire argument is flawed as it cannot be backed by any cold, hard data. And the USAF is not going to declassify data just to prove a point.

So a marble sized RCS becomes 'several humans' sized in VHF band. How big then does an aircraft that's 'several humans' sized' in the X-band (like the Rafale for example), look in the VHF band?

Or the PAKFA, J-20, J-31

You'd never guess that stealth had been 'cracked' from the number of stealth aircraft in service or development.

It was fashionable to say "stealth is finished" when only the F-117 and B-2 existed and the F-22 was "just arrived" the moment the russians, Chinese started developing stealth fighters and bombers, stealth became fashionable once again and the rhetoric died down a bit. Now a lot of the "stealth is obsolete" talk revolves around the F-35, as if the PAKFA, J-20 are immune to the challenges of broadband stealth coverage and as if the designers and planners within the pentagon don't have 3 decades + of stealth design expertise coupled with the best L band, VHF and X band test ranges including elements of opponent systems such as the S-300.

[Viv S]

MBDA isn't dumb enough to surrender the entire BVR market to Raytheon just because the meteor is not integrated into the JSFs weapon bays, especially when the export orders of the F-35 will most likely surpass the total production of the eurofighter typhoon by 2030.

It should be able to surpass EF production much earlier. No later than 2022 would be my guess.

Eurofighter: 570 units by 2017
F-35: 100+ delivered. Another 250 or so before 2020 (at least one FRP batch).

[brar_w]

It should be able to surpass EF production much earlier. No later than 2022 would be my guess

I meant the exported F-35's surpassing EF production

[Manish_Sharma]

The F-35 has been tested past 9Gs. This is temporary restriction and will the retracted in stages.

Did you READ the article you're quoting? It says quite explicitly that the Mach 0.9 restriction has been lifted and the aircraft is now cleared back upto Mach 1.6.

3.) And checking blades of F-135 every 3 hours makes it expensive and headache to maintain.

Every three flight hours. And that restriction too will be lifted once clearance certification comes through.

'If all above are true'? Surely you could have googled it?

Never could have dreamed of googling OR any other ing.

Have been reading here continuously about the super-duper capabilities of F-35 compared to what the whole world have or developing, so it came as a HUGE-SHOCK to read that the F-35' G capability has been increased from 3 to 3.2 G ONLY While normal 4 - 4.5 generation fighters are pulling 9 - 10 Gs.

Horrors on top that 8 years after first flight not only the speed restriction was less then Mach 1 but engines have to be DEEPLY checked "borescope inspections" every 3 (flying) hours.

Mein Gott! After 400 billion dollars spent and all that.

Honestly its a shock to find that it indeed is a turkey.

[Viv S]

Never could have dreamed of googling OR any other ing.

I really can't tell whether you're be facetious (and if so why would you mock your own ideas). Most commentators on the thread understand that the F-35 has been tested past 9Gs, Mach 1.6 and a max AoA of 50 degrees.

[brar_w]

Have been reading here continuously about the super-duper capabilities of F-35 compared to what the whole world have or developing, so it came as a HUGE-SHOCK to read that the F-35' G capability has been increased from 3 to 3.2 G ONLY While normal 4 - 4.5 generation fighters are pulling 9 - 10 Gs.

You read wrong. The F-35A is a 9G fighter. The flight restrictions were imposed after an engine incident in June. Its standard practice to ground aircraft, and resume flight operations in a restricted fashion while the incident is under investigation. Groundings and restrictions have been imposed upon all fighters, western or otherwise. Groundings have occurred on the F-15, F-16, Su-27/30 fleets around the world at various times. Protocols are in place for most professional air-forces to deal with such things during peacetime, and for good reason. No one wants to loose lives when incidents can be avoided.

Horrors on top that 8 years after first flight not only the speed restriction was less then Mach 1 but engines have to be DEEPLY checked "borescope inspections" every 3 (flying) hours.

Flight restrictions, groundings and engine inspections have occurred on operational F-16's and F-15's as recently as less then a year ago. Its a standard practice after most incidents which are above a certain class of damage.

Mein Gott! After 400 billion dollars spent and all that

400 billion have been spent? 398 billion is the cost of 2500 F-35 A,B,C's on a procurement run that lasts decades. No one has spent 400 billion yet.

Honestly its a shock to find that it indeed is a turkey

The aircraft has completed 9G testing and this has been reported many times. They took the CTOL variant up to 9.9 G, 0.9 G's above the limit requirement

The current G limitations aren't that damaging to the program for the simple reason that envelope expansion is virtually complete. The program briefing at farnborough showed that 95% of the envelop expansion testing is finished. What is remaining between now and IOC (2015 B version, 2016 A version) is around 20% of 2B testing (and 3a) and weapons that need to be cleared and tested along with the sensor fusion of the jet. This does not involve high G's, and long flying times. The restrictions would be lifted once the final report is published and changes if any incorporated. It shouldn't take more then a few weeks.

[TSJones]

The F-35 has been tested past 9Gs. This is temporary restriction and will the retracted in stages.

Did you READ the article you're quoting? It says quite explicitly that the Mach 0.9 restriction has been lifted and the aircraft is now cleared back upto Mach 1.6.

3.) And checking blades of F-135 every 3 hours makes it expensive and headache to maintain.

Every three flight hours. And that restriction too will be lifted once clearance certification comes through.

'If all above are true'? Surely you could have googled it?

Never could have dreamed of googling OR any other ing.

Have been reading here continuously about the super-duper capabilities of F-35 compared to what the whole world have or developing, so it came as a HUGE-SHOCK to read that the F-35' G capability has been increased from 3 to 3.2 G ONLY While normal 4 - 4.5 generation fighters are pulling 9 - 10 Gs.

Horrors on top that 8 years after first flight not only the speed restriction was less then Mach 1 but engines have to be DEEPLY checked "borescope inspections" every 3 (flying) hours.

Mein Gott! After 400 billion dollars spent and all that.

Honestly its a shock to find that it indeed is a turkey.

OMG, you have destroyed all of the pro JSF arguments in one stroke! I bow before your masterful perspicacity. You have obviously read through months of arguments on this thread and deduced their weakness.

[NRao]

Radars and stealth.

Feb, 2014 :: Bill Sweetman :: Broadband Stealth May Drive Taranis Design

The wing leading edges are highly swept to reduce head-on radar cross-section at all wavelengths. The double-V trailing edge is swept more acutely than on most blended wing-body UCAS designs. Unlike the Northrop Grumman X-47B or the Dassault-led Neuron, there are no short-chord wing sections or short edges: The shortest edge is more than 11 ft. long.

This most likely indicates Taranis is designed to avoid detection by very high frequency (VHF) early warning radars such as those being developed by Russia and China as counter-stealth systems (AW&ST Sept. 2, 2013, p. 28). VHF radars can detect some stealth shapes with wing and tail surfaces close in size to their meter-range wavelengths. When that happens, radar scattering is driven by “resonant” phenomena not affected by the target's shape.

A counter to those Russian/Chinese radars.

BTW, Miss Feb and the Boeing solutions seem to have very similar features.

[brar_w]

Again some problems in the article. The X-47B is not a stealth design but a STR design. Boeing developed the Phantom Ray as a fully stealthy design because they funded the design out of their own pocket. Northrop grumman won the J-UCAS program and as such the X-47B was a representative design given the maturity of the companies stealth ability. A decision was made that an STR setup would do for the demonstrator as a costly full stealthy prototype was not required. Northrop had delivered a broadband stealth design in the B-2 bomber, and were developing the RQ-180 at the same time the X-47B was being produced. If and when the company wins the UCLASS concept they will show up with a vehicle that conforms to the stealth requirements. The X-47B was not required to be stealthy by the program office and the only RCS testing on the aircraft (static) that occurred was funded by Northrop grumman internally. Given the level of maturity of stealth within the Company and the design team the X-47B concentrated on other risk reduction efforts such as landing on and taking off from a carrier. Autonomous flight operations. Autonomous aircraft landing and takeoff, deck handling, mid air refueling etc etc. Boeing on the other hand were a new entry into stealth being only a second partner on the B-2 bomber. With major stealth programs expected in the pipeline such as the Next generation bomber, USN UCLASS, Secretive Stealthy ISR, they decided to spend their own internal money to develop the Phantom Ray as a full stealth prototype and they concentrated more on flying qualities and RCS testing so that they were better prepared for the competitions that would be coming soon. As a result the X-45C or Phantom ray let go of the CARRIER deck performance requirements that it would have been slaved to had Boeing won the J-uCAS competition. Boeing concentrated on a Stealthy UCAV design with similar program requirements to the Taranis while the X-47B changed due to the program heading into the final phase which involved concept validation in the carrier operations regime.

This most likely indicates Taranis is designed to avoid detection by very high frequency (VHF) early warning radars such as those being developed by Russia and China as counter-stealth systems (AW&ST Sept. 2, 2013, p. 28). VHF radars can detect some stealth shapes with wing and tail surfaces close in size to their meter-range wavelengths. When that happens, radar scattering is driven by “resonant” phenomena not affected by the target's shape.

He should read Dr. Grant's book on the B-2. Broadband stealth was the main driver of the design as the generational shift from F-117 to B-2 occurred in the design phase.

BTW, Miss Feb and the Boeing solutions seem to have very similar features.

Miss Feb was a Skunk works design. Both Lockheed and boeing are emphasizing greater broadband stealth as part of their 6th gen early illustrations, Northrop grumman's RQ-180 has been reported by Amy Butler to be very well protected in that domain . The X-47B is just a poor program to compare the taranis too. Its a program extension that leads to a validation of capability. The Taranis is a first of a kind flying stealth test bed for the UK industry. Big difference.

This is a stealthy UCAV design



These are also stealth demonstrators -



This is only a stealth test representative design (Meant to be fully stealth when in full production, but not a stealth test aircraft as delivered)



The designs mature according to the requirements. Taranis has RCS and stealth as a key program criteria for the program. The X-47B does not. Other things that need to be taken into consideration and considered as a whole are RCS, Defensive and offensive sub-systems, Range, Payload, Carrier performance, cruise performance (Altitude and speed), MTBF and mission availability requirements as well as carrier deck handling. Northrop grumman modified their early UCAV designs from a flying wing to a kite to a cranked kite because that design was the most flexible as far as morphing into a stealth optimized design, or sitting back and trading some of the stealth for range, payload and mission flexibility. The same design is reported to be the base for the RQ-180 that has been reported by Bill Sweetmann's employer as a major breakthrough in broadband stealth, and the same design is the base for a moderate-high stealthy UCLASS program of the USN.

[NRao]

Stealth Trials Push Taranis Project Forward


An Anglo-French Taranis or Neuron derivative could replace the Eurofighter Typhoon and its equivalents in the 2030s. Credit: BAE Systems

[brar_w]

The Taranis is a continental Stealth UCAV strike aircraft. The Eurofigther typhoon is a mach 2 air to air fighter which is slowly getting to be a true multi-role aircraft. Only the long range strike mission of the typhoon would be handed over to the Taranis or its offsprings. The more one reads up on this the more similarities emerge between the Taranis program and the Boeing X-45C phantom ray. Almost identical program goals and mission sets. The only problem with the Boeing design was that the USAF decided to pass over an unmanned stealthy continental UCAV in favor of an Intercontinental stealthy, optionally manned bomber that eventually would replace the B-52 and B-1 bombers and one that could operate alongside Continental UCAV's that provide ISR data to it and perhaps even carry strike weapons. The USN UCLASS has different requirements that blends the ISR drain that NIFC-CA brings/requires with the long range strike that a UCAV delivers.

[brar_w]

Japan is considering a follow on order for the F-35 along with other 5th generation developments. They are currently going to decide by 2018 whether to go it along or look to partner with someone on a next generation fighter program.

ATD-X Emerges Amid Japanese Fighter Choices

[Rien]

The issue of cost is the subject of this post.

The JSF is being promoted in all out assault, by the US government at the highest levels. Obama himself is nothing more than a JSF salesman.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/war/ ... t-military

Also on this thread are noticeable astro turfers. Lockheed Martin's 1.5 trillion in profits is in dire jeopardy. Even the US cannot afford a jet fighter more costly than solid gold.

http://nation.time.com/2012/07/09/f-35- ... -baseline/

Set in 2001, the total acquisition cost of the F-35 was to be $233.0 billion. Compare that to the current estimate of $395.7 billion: cost growth has been $162.7 billion, or 70%: a lot more than what GAO stated in its summary.

However, the original $233 billion was supposed to buy 2,866 aircraft, not the 2,457 currently planned: making it $162 billion, or 70%, more for 409, or 14%, fewer aircraft. Adjusting for the shrinkage in the fleet, I calculate the cost growth for a fleet of 2,457 aircraft to be $190.8 billion, or 93%.

The cost of the program has almost doubled over the original baseline; it is not an increase of 42%.

Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon have gone so far as to lie to Congress and its foreign partners about the cost of the JSF, which is crucially reliant on more orders. The blood is in the water. Since the US cannot afford to order the numbers that LM continually quotes(2,443 fighters). The other JSF partner nations have already abandoned ship.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/f-35-s-ex ... -1.1194904

Orders cancelled, delayed

In February, Italy, a JSF partner, cut its order by 41 planes. In 2002, it had agreed to purchase 131 F-35s. State-owned Finmeccanica is to assemble the jets that Italy, the Netherlands and Norway purchase.

Julian Fantino, Canada's associate minister of National Defence, surprised a Commons committee on March 13 when he announced that Canada's purchase of 65 F-35s was not guaranteed.

A few weeks later, Japan, the JSF's first customer in Asia, warned in a letter to the U.S. Defence Department that the growing cost and program delays may lead to cancellation of its order for 42 F-35s. The deal with Japan had only been reached in December 2011.

It's not only under fire overseas, but at home. This brings its cost estimates up further. Because each country is cutting orders because of its expense, the cost for the remaining partners gets higher and higher. There are fewer planes to recoup the development costs from, so each plane costs more. This is turn makes the partner countries cut orders even further, which increases the cost even more, and so on. This is called a Death Spiral. Stick a fork in it, this Turkey's DOA.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-mu ... f95d239398
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -cost.html
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/f-35-mai ... -1.1797599

However this is a beautiful opportunity to saddle Pakistan with this plane. It is precisely a plane that you wish your worst enemy would buy. Unfortunately, even the F-16 obsessed Pakis are not that stupid.

[TSJones]

Absolutely clueless. Plus, introduces Pakistan into his message.

[Viv S]

The issue of cost is the subject of this post.

$112M flyaway currently. <$75M at FRP. Competitive if not cheaper than the Rafale and Eurofighter and not too far off from the Gripen E.

The JSF is being promoted in all out assault, by the US government at the highest levels. Obama himself is nothing more than a JSF salesman.

Also Cameron & Merkel are Eurofighter salespeople and Hollande, a Rafale salesman. Comes with the job.

Also on this thread are noticeable astro turfers. Lockheed Martin's 1.5 trillion in profits is in dire jeopardy. Even the US cannot afford a jet fighter more costly than solid gold.

http://nation.time.com/2012/07/09/f-35- ... -baseline/

RAFALE -
Program cost - $63 billion
Order size - 286 units (now downsized to 225)
Unit Program Cost - $220M each ($180M minus VAT)

That's a higher unit cost than the F-35.

Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon have gone so far as to lie to Congress and its foreign partners about the cost of the JSF, which is crucially reliant on more orders. The blood is in the water. Since the US cannot afford to order the numbers that LM continually quotes(2,443 fighters). The other JSF partner nations have already abandoned ship.

In February, Italy, a JSF partner, cut its order by 41 planes. In 2002, it had agreed to purchase 131 F-35s. State-owned Finmeccanica is to assemble the jets that Italy, the Netherlands and Norway purchase.

US orders have remained steady at 2443. Four new customers have come on board with more to follow, comfortably offsetting cuts in European orders (which in turn were a result of poor economic conditions).

Julian Fantino, Canada's associate minister of National Defence, surprised a Commons committee on March 13 when he announced that Canada's purchase of 65 F-35s was not guaranteed.

Whatever reservations Canadians might have about it, ifact remains the RCAF is going to operate F-35s.

Canadian review recommends purchase of Lockheed F-35 fighter jet - Jun 2014

A few weeks later, Japan, the JSF's first customer in Asia, warned in a letter to the U.S. Defence Department that the growing cost and program delays may lead to cancellation of its order for 42 F-35s. The deal with Japan had only been reached in December 2011.

Done deal.

Ospreys and F-35s on Japan’s $240B Shopping List - Dec 2013

Meanwhile,

i). Australia is considering new F-35Bs, over and above the 72 F-35As already contracted,
ii) Singapore has reported that it will eventually buy the F-35B,
iii) Israel is looking to eventually operate 75 aircraft, the F-35 is all but certain to win in Denmark and
iv) its has become in contender in the Belgian & Finnish competitions (bad tidings for the Gripen E).

[Philip]

In the post made in the MMRCA td. reg some JSF issues,one reason given why the F-22 production was curtailed was because more jobs were available producing the JSF. This is quite acceptable considering that in the US,there is no unlimited budget,lack of accountability,etc. that bedevils our DPSUs. It is survival of the fittest.Def. manufacturers fight with each other for orders.True they are helped with dev. costs by the govt.,but jobs are huge issues for congressmen and senators who get the spear up their nether ends if they don't lobby hard enough for their voters/manufacturers. Russia and China will find the money somehow for their 5th-gen birds no matter what the cost.They have to have a counter to the F-22.

This is where in the US "sequestration",an euphemism for budget cutting rears its ugly head. The JSF is consuming a massive amount of the def. budget.It can't hog the whole cake,has to share it with diverse programmes too.In the age of an eco downturn,LM/PW have to get their act fast so that options can be firmed up,advance money collected from buyers and initial production numbers stabilised. The next 12 months are going to be crucial.A smooth USMC induction will send a positive sign to fence-sitters.

[brar_w]

Some comments made by Phillip that warrant further discussion on this thread -

"Twist to what argument" ? There is no argument here.It is a simple statement of fact.The US now has only one fighter programme,the jack-of-all-trades JSF.Yes there are 3 variants but only one manufacturer.

The JSF by design is a replacement for the F-16, F-18 and the Harrier. This is not a situation where they not find themselves in but a situation that exists by design.

And only one engine manufacturer too.

How many engine manufacturers does the Typhoon have? The Rafale? Su35? Gripen?

The US has taken the route that "one fighter fits all",while others have preferred "safety in numbers".

Others have taken safety in numbers? What about the french? Why is the rafale replacing everything with them? No one has developed more than 2 stealth fighters apart from the US and china whenever the J-20/J31 combo materializes. Even the russians are only working on one 5th generation while Europe has no 5th generation. The US has rejected the 4.5 generation Advanced Hornet or Silent Eagle and have wound down the F-22A procurement. Thats 2 fifth generation planes for the USAF, one 5th generation and 4.5 generation plane for the Navy.

The claim that Lockheed is the only fighter producer is also highly exaggerated. The current state of the industry has seen Boeing produce more than 500 Super Hornets and Growlers in the last years. In addition to this Boeing has produced close to 150 Advanced versions of the F-15E strike eagle in the SA, k or S form. They continue to market advanced versions of both these jets. Moreover Boeing was a leading partner on the F-22A program where they produced upwards of 30% of the components. Thats some major work on fighters over the last 2 decades or so. Northrop grumman has also been busy building fighters. They were lead partners in the F-18E/F and F-18 Hornet programs, and are Lead Partner in the F-35 program. The current demand from the US is for 2 5th generation jets and not one. The F-22A has been delivered in a smaller amount but still delivered. The F-35 fills the role of the F-16, Harrier and F-18. Except the Harrier the F-16 and F-18 common platform would have not surprised anyone, the French did the same. The US squeezed in another capability (STOVL) from the program which shows great flexibility in design and execution. The next demand cycle comes a decade or more down the line when the F-18E/F replacement cycle comes. That cannot be escaped so something has to be developed starting pretty soon. Here Boeing and Lockheed (and possibly Northrop Grumman) are working on designs and studying submissions. There is plenty of industry for fighter jets in the US quite contrary to what is claimed.

If the votaries think that the JSF can go it alone without any help,well good luck to them.

Voter thinks? Are you serious..The voters have to vote now for aircraft choices for the services?

There are several analysts and experts who have different views.Here are a few.

I could have guess which reporters you would cite. Bill Sweetmann has had an axe to grind with the F-35 ever since he made the comments on this on the media that got him suspended on aviation week for a while. He openly bats for the gripen while taking pot shots at the F-35. Most of this stuff is rebutted on this thread. Repeatedly bringing up the articles and/or points makes no sense. Go find the rebuttals to those arguments and try to counter them. Posting the same old stuff over and over again makes little sense and does not accomplish anything.

F-35 Stealthier Than F-22?

BS is nowhere in the program. He is a reporter. The person that made the comment is the ACC Boss of the USAF. The highest authority on tactical fighters in the USAF and perhaps one of the most knowledgable persons on both the F-22 and F-35. He repeated this (F-35 is stealthier) a few days ago as well. The entire print and web based media heard it. Perhaps they'll report it perhaps they'll report what he said about Electronic warfare, F-35 and 6th generation fighter. But he said its for all to hear. Unless Bill sweetmann can come with official data no one is going to take the word of a reporter over a General that is the USAF tactical air boss and fully briefed on all the classified elements of the aircraft.

-35 News. General Hostage admits the poor kinematic performance of the plane.

This has been explained and discussed on this thread. You can go back and read the analysis of what he said. The F-35 is a medium altitude aircraft just like the F-16C, it carries 4 missiles instead of 6. It has a much smaller supersonic radius than the high flying F-22 (even at high altitude for the F-35). This all makes it inferior to the F-22 in the intercept mission for which it is not designed. Similarly the F-35 with its SA and EODAS+HMD is superior to the F-22 in dogfights based on the available sensors, is better at mixed missions, is better at CAS, is better at penetrating IAD's and is better in many areas such as linking up with multiple vehicles to share information (General Hostage referred to the F-35 Sensor fusion as a generation or two ahead of the F-22)


Most of these articles and what they claim have been discussed earlier in the last 10 or so pages. Rather then littering the thread with the same old points, it would much further the discussion if you re-read those points and countered them.

[brar_w]

In the post made in the MMRCA td. reg some JSF issues,one reason given why the F-22 production was curtailed was because more jobs were available producing the JSF

Reason given by who? By analysts, reporters or by the actual people in the loop? The reason the F-22 was cut short was because it was a SINGLE TASK fighter that would have required huge costs to make it a true multi-role fighter It was a cold war specialist weapon designed around the motto " Not a pound from Air to Ground". This sort of thinking does not have much room in a post-cold war world where maximizing the platform is the primary concern. Expect the future USN and USAF 6th generation aircraft to be multi role aircraft from the start, even the ones replacing the f-22.

The JSF is consuming a massive amount of the def. budget.

Prove it. 398 Billion spread over 25-30 years or 1 trillion spread over 55 years. What is that as a function of the overall budget. Please do the calculation and share with us all. How does this compare to tactical fighter spending in the past. Remember we are talking about a complete overhaul of the tac air fleet.

[brar_w]

The JSF is being promoted in all out assault, by the US government at the highest levels. Obama himself is nothing more than a JSF salesman

One of the things each executive leader is responsible is the promotion of trade, defense ties and promoting the defense industry in the export market. What do you think was the mission of the people sent by the EU, France and the US that met modi first thing after his swearing in?

Also on this thread are noticeable astro turfers. Lockheed Martin's 1.5 trillion in profits is in dire jeopardy. Even the US cannot afford a jet fighter more costly than solid gold

Profits in jeopardy? This is about replacing the legacy tac air fleet as planned. The JSF is purchased by the customers through a fixed price contract where the profit margins are controlled by rules, regulations and laws.

Set in 2001, the total acquisition cost of the F-35 was to be $233.0 billion. Compare that to the current estimate of $395.7 billion: cost growth has been $162.7 billion, or 70%: a lot more than what GAO stated in its summary

The 398 number is problematic. First of all one has to distinguish in which "year" dollars the cost is being compared. Then one has to come down to the current trends in cost. The 398 number is an Estimate based on assumptions which have been shown to be false over the last few years, both in predicting the cost rise during the EMD phase when the challenges were being overcome and during the conclusion phase when the costs negotiated by the JPO were lowered than the SAR estimates. Then the costs needs to be put into proper context, compared to what that same cost will get you apart from the F-35. At 75-80 million a piece the F-35 compares favorably to designs older then it, inferior to it in technology and capability and designs that have a shorter shelf life than it.

nce the US cannot afford to order the numbers that LM continually quotes(2,443 fighters). The other JSF partner nations have already abandoned ship

Do you realize that the number Lockheed quotes is an official Pentagon number that the 3 services remain committed towards? They did not pull the number out of thin air, but its a technical requirement to procure those numbers for a smooth replacement of the legacy tac air fleet.

The other JSF partner nations have already abandoned ship

So which fighter are the Canadians procuring at the moment instead of the F-35? What about the Japanese, South Koreans, Israelis? that have come onto the program. Facts unfortunately do not support your "abandoned ship" analogy. The fact is that the program has added customers since the list of multi-tier partner nations was finalized.

Orders cancelled, delayed

In February, Italy, a JSF partner, cut its order by 41 planes. In 2002, it had agreed to purchase 131 F-35s. State-owned Finmeccanica is to assemble the jets that Italy, the Netherlands and Norway purchase.

Julian Fantino, Canada's associate minister of National Defence, surprised a Commons committee on March 13 when he announced that Canada's purchase of 65 F-35s was not guaranteed.

A few weeks later, Japan, the JSF's first customer in Asia, warned in a letter to the U.S. Defence Department that the growing cost and program delays may lead to cancellation of its order for 42 F-35s. The deal with Japan had only been reached in December 2011.

So the capability of the F-35 has lead Italy to cut back its order? Are you serious? The state of the Italian economy has nothing to do with that? The italians will order the F-35, just fewer since their economy is in the can right now. They have a FACO line in Italy, and if they want to maximize their investment they have to order more to make full benefits of the assembly line. Economic downturns warrant a reduction and that is not a reflection on the capability of the jet. The french have reduced procurement plans for the Rafale. Does it mean that the Rafale is crap. The Swiss decided against the Gripen E due to economic reasons. Is the Gripen E carp? The Typhoon program has been greatly reduced, and early typhoons face retirement prospects. Is the Typhoon crap?

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/how-mu ... f95d239398
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -cost.html
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/f-35-mai ... -1.1797599

Ah, perfect. First David Axe, who has been on a mission..Good that articles exist exposing his reporting on this thread for those that seek to be better informed.

The next link is quite interesting , from a website that claims -

By guest contributor Don Bacon

Do us a favor. Email the website, ask them the credentials of Don Bacon, ask them whether that is actually the persons REAL NAME or whether that is something that is made up for the internet. Also ask them what credentials uniquely qualify the person known as Don bacon to actually report on the F-35. Is he a journalist, an aviation expert, a budgetary or government expert involved in public financing etc. Unless one buys whatever crap some nameless person writes, these questions should come naturally.

P.s - I'll help you out. This Expert Commentator in DON Bacon AKA The truth shall prevail recently claimed in a comment section that the downing of the Malaysian airliner was a smoke screen for the assault on Gaza.

Read a detailed rebuttal on his f-35 non sense here -

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... space.html

This chap has credentials that are recognized amongst aerospace professionals over at the f-16 community both from professional fighter pilots who fly it, people who work with Aerospace engines for the Military and other aerospace community members.

[brar_w]

From the horse's mouth..

[Philip]

An extensive analysis of the JSF's "unaffordable" costs and how the money earmarked for it could be more effectively spent..
http://www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/ ... he_F35.pdf
The Unaffordable F-35:
Budget History and Alternative
April 2014
http://www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/ ... he_F35.pdf

Methodology
All budget numbers contained in this document come from Department of Defense
source documents located at http://comptroller.defense.gov/budgetmaterials.aspx The
referenced Department of the Air Force and Department of the Navy documents go
back as far as FY01 and continue up to and including the FY15 budget request.
These numbers all come from the unclassified version of the budget request and may,
therefore, be understated. For instance, although it is the subject of much debate in budget watchdog circles, we accepted as accurate all Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps
estimates of Gross Weapon System Unit Costs.
References to mission capability and/or aircraft modernization plans of various aircraft
are quoted from 1) either the same source budget documents or from back-up briefing
materials provided to Capitol Hill and to the public on Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force, and Department of the Navy websites, or 2) the website of the
prime contractor at https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities
Where prices have been “inflated” to current year costs, we used the Bureau of Labor
Statistics “Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator” located a
t http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Introduction
At least $8 billion of the Pentagon’s budget for fiscal year 2015 is devoted to a single aircraft program: the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Already on track to be the most expensive weapon system in history, the F-35 is becoming a black hole in the Pentagon budget. In the face of continuing budget cuts, it is worth considering more conservative investments the military could be making.
The DoD “base” budget request for this year is $495.6 billion.
1
This single aircraft, one item in the entire U.S. military arsenal, is eating up approximately 1.6% of the entire Pentagon budget in FY15.
2
Of the total Pentagon FY15 procurement request of $90.6 billion, $6.3 billion – just under 7 percent of the entire Pentagon unclassified procurement request – is being spent on procurement of a single aircraft program.The focus of this analysis is on the affordability of the F-35 and the ready availability of existing alternatives. Problems with the development of the F-35 are well-documented and ongoing. For instance, in its report in January of this year, the Pentagon’s Office of Test
and Evaluation warned that software development has fallen behind schedule. This, in
turn, has a negative impact on the ability to complete development and to flight test the
initial combat software package prior to the Marine Corps’ stated desire to have operational aircraft in the last half of 2015.
Research and Development The history of developing high-tech weapons systems for the US Department of Defense
(DoD) is littered with programs chronically behind schedule and over budget. Unfortunately, the US taxpayer has grown numb to the idea that nothing is ever going to be as “cheap” as the Pentagon says or take as few years as predicted to reach production.

A look back at early assumptions of the F-35 program tells this story in spades.
In early February of 2000, the Pentagon budget for Fiscal Year 2001 (FY01) stated the
planned dates for Initial Operational Capability (“IOC”) of the F-35 as FY05 for the Air
Force, FY06 for the Marine Corps and FY08 for the Navy. After previously slipping several
times, in May of 2013 the Pentagon finally announced the new IOCs as FY16 for the Air
Force, FY15 for the Marines and FY18 for the Navy. Assuming there are no more delays,
this means at least an additional 11 years of spending on Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (“RDT&E”) for the Air Force, nine years for the Marine Corps, and 10 years for the Navy before a single operational aircraft is in the air.
As a result of the delays, the Air Force will spend more than $17.5 billion in additional
RDT&E money in the interim eleven years; the Navy will spend an additional $4 billion
prior to having an F-35 that will fly operationally from an aircraft carrier; and the Marine Corps will spend $17.6 billion.
3
Combined, at least $39.1 billion has been spent on RDT&E that was never in the Pentagon’s original program costs for the F-35.
In large part,
3
F-15E Strike Eagle (Boeing)
that money went to contractors for additional research and several rounds of redevel-opment when the contractors failed to meet the F-35 goals set by the Pentagon. There appears to have been no penalty to the contractors for those failures.
Air Force
The Air Force expects the F-35 to be able to conduct nearly all of its aircraft missions.
4
The prime contractor lists the widely divergent missions the F-35 is expected to meet:
air-to-surface, air-to-air, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), Command
and Control, and Electronic Attack.
Air Force budget documents state the F-35 is, “the next generation strike fighter which
entails increased aero performance, stealth signature and countermeasures. Its advanced avionics, data links and aadverse weather precision targeting incorporate the latest technology available.”

What else can you get for $8 billion?
Other Things That Cost About $8 billion in the FY15 Budget Request (table in link)

In its FY15 request, the service has devoted 100 percent of its combat aircraft procurement budget to this one plane. The Air Force’s “Gross Weapon System Unit Cost” for the
F-35 is $149.7 million per aircraft in FY15.
6
It wants to buy 26 F-35s in the coming fiscal
year. Therefore, in procurement of “Gross Weapons Systems” (airplanes) only, Air Force’s
budget documents identify an investment of more than $3.8 billion.
7
When all the procurement, research and development and modifications to aircraft already in service
are tallied, the Air Force is devoting more than $4.6 billion to the F-35 this year. The new
hangars with the infrastructure to support the requirements of these aircraft as well as
new school buildings to teach the pilots and ground crew who will be flying and maintaining the planes and handling the ordnance will cost an additional $66 million, bringing
the total costs to more than $4.7 billion.

What else could $4.7 billion buy?
After thirteen years of war that focused spending and modernization on the Army and
Marines, the Air Force is struggling within the Pentagon budget process for attention to
its force structure. The Air Force lists its core missions as: 1) Air and Space Superiority, 2)
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), 3) Rapid Global Mobility, 4) Global
Strike (including nuclear deterrence), and 5) Command and Control. Air Force budget
documents list modernization efforts the Air Force deems critical to each of these core
missions. Of greatest interest to this analysis is the modernization efforts listed under “Air
and Space Superiority” and “Global Strike.”
New Combat Aircraft Procurement
The U.S. currently flies the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world. Two of the most successful fighter aircraft in modern warfare are the F-15 Eagle and the F-16 Falcon. The F-15 Eagle runs the gamut from early “A” models to the most recent F-15E Strike Eagle.
Back in 2001, the Air Force described the F-15E as retaining all the capabilities of earlier
F-15 models and adding, “the systems necessary to meet the requirement for all weather deep penetration and night/under -the-weather air-to-surface attack.” In the FY02
budget, the Air Force listed flyaway cost as $75 million. Inflated to 2014 dollars, a highly capable F-15E Strike Eagle would cost the Air Force $99 million each – roughly $50 million
a copy (or one-third) cheaper than what the Air Force is listing as this year’s unit cost for an F-35.
In 2001, the Air Force described the F-16 Fighting Falcon “as the world’s premier multi-mission fighter”:
It is a fixed-wing, high performance, single-engine fighter aircraft. ...the F-16 has proven itself in combat in a variety of air-to-air and air-to-surface missions such as defense suppression, armed reconnaissance, close air support, combat air patrol, forward air control, and battle air interdiction (day/night and all-weather). Also during these years the
aircraft has evolved in its capabilities to exploit the advances made in computer, avionics systems, engine and structures technologies. The F-16 has been selected by 20 air forces around the world. USAF and foreign military sales production will continue well into the 21 st century.” An F-16 cost $23 million in FY01, roughly $30.5 million today. It is 80 percent cheaper than
the $149 million currently listed for an F-35. With a standard operational mix of one-third F-15s and two-thirds F-16s, and a budget
equal to the $4.6 billion procurement request for the F-35, the Air Force could instead buy 48 new F-16s and 24 new F-15s for $3.7 billion. That would leave almost $1 billion to devote to an array of other high priority aircraft needs. For instance, the Air Force might
continue modernizing the A-10 to continue the close air support role that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent excursion suggests may not be so obsolete after all.
8
In-service aircraft also come with existing infrastructure and training already purchased by the
Air Force. So the new military construction and training costs that are part of the logistical “tail” of any new aircraft would also be saved

Ongoing Combat Aircraft Modernization
Instead of buying new aircraft, the Air Force could accelerate existing plans to modernize the combat aircraft currently in the inventory:
F-22 Raptor.
The F-22A Raptor is described by the Air Force as “...the most advanced operational fighter aircraft in the world.”
9
The Air Force maintains a program to modernize its entire fleet of Raptors to, “...ensure its ability to dominate in every environment. maintaining a positive glide path toward sustaining air dominance within highly-contested environments. ... To stay ahead of evolving threats and remain the world’s premiere air dominance fighter, modernization of the F-22’s combat capabilities is a major area of
emphasis.” The total price tag to modernize the F-22 fleet is listed as approximately $3.7 billion. In FY15, the Air Force requests $180.2 million. The Air Force states they have spent $2.17 billion through FY14 on modernizing the Raptor,
leaving approximately $1.5 billion to complete this modernization effort.
F-15 Eagle.
The Air Force has an ongoing program to modify its F-15C/D aircraft. The plan is to modernize 179 of the total 230 with both offensive and defensive improvements to radars and warning survivability systems. According to Air Force budget documents, this
modernization, “...vastly improves F-15 survivability through installation of a new radar warning receiver, internal jammer, and an integrated countermeasures dispenser system.These efforts enable the ‘Long-Term Eagle Fleet’ to operate effectively for decades to
come.” Total price tag to modernize 179 F-15s is listed as $3.9 billion. In FY15, the Air Force
requests $387 million. The Air Force states they have spent $1.5 billion through FY14 on this
program, leaving approximately $2.4 billion to complete this modernization effort.
F-16 Falcon.
The F-16 Fighting Falcon is the most ubiquitous and successful multi-role fighter aircraft program in the world. The most current of the life extension programs for the F-16 is intended to add 8-10 years of service life to each airframe. The Air Force
budget prices the improvement program at $962 million overall, but does not state how many airframes are modernized for that amount. In FY15, the Air Force requests $12.3 million. The Air Force states they have spent $660.5 million through FY14 on this
program, leaving approximately $301.5 million to complete this modernization effort.
The Air Force’s budget documents indicate that all currently planned modernization for
the F-22, the F-15 and the F-16 could be purchased for $4.2 billion. This is well within the
more than $4.6 billion the Air Force is asking Congress to devote to procurement and
research and development of the F-35 in just the coming fiscal year

Navy and Marine Corps
The Department of the Navy, which purchases aircraft for both the naval service and the Marine Corps, devotes almost one-quarter of its combat aircraft procurement budget to the F-35 this year. The Navy’s two different “Gross Weapon System Unit Cost” numbers for FY15 are $344.8 million for the carrier variant, and $217.2 million for the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant.
10
The plan is to pro- cure two carrier variant and six STOVL variant F-35s in the coming fiscal year.Therefore, in procurement of “Gross
Weapons Systems” (airplanes) only, Navy budget documents identify an investment of more than $3.3 billion. And, like the Air Force, the Navy also devotes some scarce military construction dollars to preparing bases to receive the new system. The unclassified
total for the Navy investment in the F-35 in FY15 is $3.36 billion.
What else could $3.4 billion buy?
The Navy and Marine Corps mix of combat aircraft includes F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets,EA-18G Growlers, E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes, V-22 Medium Lift aircraft, the P-8 Poseidon and at least three different helicopters. As a whole, the naval service avoids the trap the
Air Force has pursued of putting all efforts at modernizing its combat aircraft into a singleairframe. The Marine Corps, however, is closer to the Air Force in its greater reliance on the F-35 airframe for the future of its tactical aviation mission. The Marines plan to have the F-35 replace both its short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) mission currently flown by the AV-8B Harrier as well as the missions performed by Marine Air Wings currently flying carrier- and land-based F/A-18s.
New Combat Aircraft Procurement
A debate lingers in the Navy about the cost-to-benefit ratio of purchasing more F/A-18E/Fs or transitioning to a carrier based F-35. In FY13, the last budget year with a significant Super Hornet buy, the Navy said, “F/A-18E/F can ... accomplish specific fighter or attackmissions. This capability allows the Operational Commander more flexibility in employing his tactical aircraft in a dynamic scenario. The primary design mission for the F/A-18E/F is a strike fighter which includes the traditional applications, such as fighter escort and fleet air defense, combined with the attack applications, such as inter
diction and close air support. Since the same airframe systems are used on attack missions as well as fighter
missions, excellent fighter and self defense capability is retained.”
The Super Hornet’s “Gross Weapon System Unit Cost” is $70.5 million for the last production year (FY13) as listed in the Navy’s most recent budget request. The Navy could save a lot of money by purchasing Super Hornets rather than either variant of the F-35.
Total cost for 8 Super Hornets: $564 million.
Looking at the unclassified documents stating the Navy’s requirement for F-35s through FY19, if unit costs remain the same (doubtful, but impossible to accurately gauge) the table below indicates what the Department of the Navy will spend on F-35s in the Future
Years Defense Program (FYDP):
Navy budget documents state there is a total requirement of 408 V-22, with 126 airframes still to be purchased. Total cost for 126 V-22s is $10.24 billion. The budget also indicates a total requirement of 117 P-8 Poseidon patrol aircraft, with 64 airframes still to
be purchased. Total cost for 64 P-8s is $17.33 billion. For the $27 billion between now andFY19, the Navy could complete the purchase of the entire remaining identified requirements for the V-22 and the P-8.
Ongoing Combat Aircraft Modernization
The Navy also has robust modernization plans for at least six different platforms beyond the F-18: the P-3 patrol aircraft is being replaced by the P-8, the venerable H-1 helicopter frame is being modernized to Y and Z variants, two versions of the MH-60 (R&S) are in production, the V-22 medium lift aircraft continues in procurement, and the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye is being updated.
For the remaining approximately $2.8 billion the Navy currently plans to spend on F-35s
just in FY15 it could instead fund 10 percent of its remaining V-22 requirement ($1 billion),
10% of its Advanced Hawkeye requirement ($874 million), 10% of its H-1 modernization
program ($473 million), 10% of its MH-60R ($113 million) and MR-60S ($24.5 million) requirements and still have more than $300 million left over. In other words, without purchasing
the F-35, the Navy could complete its current modernization plan for existing combat aircraft in 10 years.

[brar_w]

t least $8 billion of the Pentagon’s budget for fiscal year 2015 is devoted to a single aircraft program:

A single program that is the replacement for the entire remaining tactical fighter fleet. What would this person or persons recommend? That 8 billion be spent this year on 2 development programs? Or 5 Billion each on 3 development programs?

Already on track to be the most expensive weapon system in history

The "most expensive program in history" MEME returns. Lets say The US DOD decides to buy the block 90 F-16 after hypothetically modifying the aircraft to land on and operate from a carrier air deck. The Airforce decides to buy 1746 of them and the Navy 300-400 odd. The Block 90 F-16 becomes the most expensive program in US history. The repetitive nature of this meme to drive home an agenda is getting sickening. Anything that replaces the vast cold war tactical fighter fleet automatically becomes the most expensive acquisition program in history. Even 2500 Gripen - E's will make the Gripen E acquisition the most expensive program in history. But i guess the meme is still useful for "effect" when pushing an agenda.

This single aircraft, one item in the entire U.S. military arsenal, is eating up approximately 1.6% of the entire Pentagon budget in FY15.

Yeah, spending 1.6% of budget on development, R&D, acquisition (both aircraft and infrastructure) of 35-38 fighters over 3 types that will be the future of the tactical air fleet is so not appropriate. What was the Annual F-16 and F-18 procurement and development damage to the budget? in then dollars and then percentage?

This, in
turn, has a negative impact on the ability to complete development and to flight test the
initial combat software package prior to the Marine Corps’ stated desire to have operational aircraft in the last half of 2015.

Ummmm Negative impact is felt where exactly? Because the dates are not slipping. Its August Now and Not january. What we have heard in the last few weeks have told us that Block 2 B software testing is 80% complete, and 95% of the life sciences testing is complete. That was a month or so back. Expect that number to be in the mid 80's by now. 2b build and testing is on track to be delivered as tested by the end of the year as scheduled. The Marines have made statements in the last weeks that they are confident of the IOC dates. The USAF boss made a statement a couple of days ago (posted above) claiming that he is confident of the IOC in 2016 for the A variant. The reports in January are dated, as all reports that come out in january talk about periods much earlier than that.

Research and Development The history of developing high-tech weapons systems for the US Department of Defense
(DoD) is littered with programs chronically behind schedule and over budget.

Duh..They are embarking on high technology programs not developing a car for Ford or GM.

nitial Operational Capability (“IOC”) of the F-35 as FY05 for the Air
Force, FY06 for the Marine Corps and FY08 for the Navy. After previously slipping several
times, in May of 2013 the Pentagon finally announced the new IOCs as FY16 for the Air
Force, FY15 for the Marines and FY18 for the Navy.

the program is not the same as it was pre-2010. The restructure has made changes and invested proper money to see the development through. This isn't the F-16 development program where only a WVR capability is enough for IOC. The IOC is for a fully operational Multi role capability that covers everything from electronic warfare and cyber. The design delays are also indicative that proper investments and efforts were put in place to get the system right and back on track. If programs are not restructured they get cancelled. If that is the trend this article is advocating then every defense program that ever runs into delays and technical difficulties would be cancelled, and everyone will have to begin from scratch. Unfortunately that will only stifle advanced high technology development. We aren't talking about Toasters here but advanced aerospace products that are on the bleeding edge of capability globally.

Assuming there are no more delays,
this means at least an additional 11 years of spending on Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (“RDT&E”) for the Air Force, nine years for the Marine Corps, and 10 years for the Navy before a single operational aircraft is in the air.

Duh, time and money is required to develop capable products. Advanced fighter development takes time unless one operates at a warlike pace (as was done with the F-16) or lowers expectations at least initially. Operating at that pace means more concentrated investments annually, which if done would probably warrant an even larger PDF by the same author (s) on how the budget has grown to 2% or 4% of overall defense allocation.

Combined, at least $39.1 billion has been spent on RDT&E that was never in the Pentagon’s original program costs for the F-35.

Just to put things in perspective this amounts to a 3.9% overall rise on the program as a whole (If the figure is correct in the first place). Thats off by less then 4% from estimates that were made based on capability decades out. Most Force structures would be willing to live with that margin of error.

In its FY15 request, the service has devoted 100 percent of its combat aircraft procurement budget to this one plane. The Air Force’s “Gross Weapon System Unit Cost” for the
F-35 is $149.7 million per aircraft in FY15.

Gross system unit cost is not flyaway or recurring flyaway cost. But if thats the metric the author (s) want to use then fine, the same cost for alternatives is well excess of their unit fly away cost.

When all the procurement, research and development and modifications to aircraft already in service
are tallied, the Air Force is devoting more than $4.6 billion to the F-35 this year. The new
hangars with the infrastructure to support the requirements of these aircraft as well as
new school buildings to teach the pilots and ground crew who will be flying and maintaining the planes and handling the ordnance will cost an additional $66 million, bringing
the total costs to more than $4.7 billion.

God forbid the Air force actually wishes to have infrastructure upgraded and training regimens changed to accommodate their next generation fighter. Perhaps the USAF should bring back the F-4 since nothing new would be required. Perhaps bring back the original lightning.

What else could $4.7 billion buy?

What a bunch of non-sense to stay polite. What else could 4.7 buy. One can distort this to mean anything. How many homeless can 4.7 Billion shelter. How many hungry can be fed etc etc etc. Tactical fighter fleet ensures air superiority, something the US has taken for granted for decades now. Investments in tactical fighter fleet are traditionally tracked by institutions like the Mitchell institute and compared to other areas of strategic investment. This is why I asked you to do some research on your own, and figure out what percentage of the budget has been historically allocated to tactical fighters and how that compares to the F-35 and JSF program as a whole.

Instead of buying new aircraft, the Air Force could accelerate existing plans to modernize the combat aircraft currently in the inventory:
F-22 Raptor.

Of course, enter into a hybrid modernization effort that splits the F-22 into three or four smaller fighters. Get real. Modernizing the F-22 wont increase the fleet size, nor make up for the 1750 odd fighter requirement.

The Air Force has an ongoing program to modify its F-15C/D aircraft. The plan is to modernize 179 of the total 230 with both offensive and defensive improvements to radars and warning survivability systems. According to Air Force budget documents, this
modernization, “...vastly improves F-15 survivability through installation of a new radar warning receiver, internal jammer, and an integrated countermeasures dispenser system.These efforts enable the ‘Long-Term Eagle Fleet’ to operate effectively for decades to
come.” Total price tag to modernize 179 F-15s is listed as $3.9 billion. In FY15, the Air Force
requests $387 million. The Air Force states they have spent $1.5 billion through FY14 on this
program, leaving approximately $2.4 billion to complete this modernization effort.
F-16 Falcon.
The F-16 Fighting Falcon is the most ubiquitous and successful multi-role fighter aircraft program in the world. The most current of the life extension programs for the F-16 is intended to add 8-10 years of service life to each airframe. The Air Force
budget prices the improvement program at $962 million overall, but does not state how many airframes are modernized for that amount. In FY15, the Air Force requests $12.3 million. The Air Force states they have spent $660.5 million through FY14 on this
program, leaving approximately $301.5 million to complete this modernization effort.
The Air Force’s budget documents indicate that all currently planned modernization for
the F-22, the F-15 and the F-16 could be purchased for $4.2 billion. This is well within the
more than $4.6 billion the Air Force is asking Congress to devote to procurement and
research and development of the F-35 in just the coming fiscal year

Modernizing existing 4th generation aircraft has to deal with the law of diminishing returns. How many fleet hours are left, vs how much money is required. This is why the F-15E strike eagles are getting the most investment since they are 16,000 hour airframes. The entire fleet is going to get an AESA, possibly an IRST-21 along with new CP's and data links..This still does not mean that this is anything other then a BAND AID solution to the larger overall problem of survivability. What do you tell the ACC boss and other USAF strategists that do not expect 4th gen to cut it as far as survivability is concerned?



On a more serious note – the authors working for a fiscal bean counter publication are hardly the torchbearers of strategic planning and air dominance challenges in the coming years especially those that deal with force modernization within the US DOD Opinions like spend 1 billion on modernizing 60 F-15’s vs acquiring 10 F-35’s is laughable because in real world, warfighters fight wars and not accountants. Readiness and modernization is a balance that needs to be struck and the absolute worst way to look at this balance is through the sole eyes of bean counters and accountants rather than strategists and tacticians who conduct wars on behalf of the political class.

Want to read some analysis on these things start with authors that are considered highly qualified to provide you strategic insights and in-depth analysis. Dr. Rebecca Grant for starters, authors working for the Mitchell Institute are another great source of well-thought out analysis done by people who have been highly successful, highly decorated and highly regarded for their strategic views on air-power, advances in air power and threat assessment/balanced threat counter. Listen to what the Air Combat Command is saying. Spend some time watching what Folks like Micheal Mosley, John Jumper, David Deptula, Mark Welsh are saying and how they wish to get things done for the future delivery of combat capability through modernization. Hitting POGO, financial/fiscal agenda pushing blogs, congressional lobbying professionals (both sides) is not going to leave you more informed on the doctrine, modernization plans, purpose-and –scope of the JSF program or the top priorities that the US Force modernization calls for both within the limited sequester era and outside of it.

Start with these –

Tactical Aircraft and the preservation of Air Dominance – Dr. Rebecca grant PHD

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-co ... inance.pdf


General Mike Hostage on the F-35, Electronic warfare, 6th generation fighters/technologies/capabilities and force structure: -

July 2014 – AUDIO ONLY

http://www.afa.org/Events/AFAAFBreakfas ... usPrograms

USAF Boss General Mark Welsh on various matters


[youtube]nqp9iHQoc34&list=WL&index=30[/youtube]

USAF Vision document released yesterday

http://airman.dodlive.mil/files/2014/07 ... tegy_2.pdf

These are just the strategic elements of this and other programs. Tactically I’ve provided with pretty much all the analysis and opinions of pilots who fly 5th generation day in and day out. Those videos are in this thread a few pages back.

[NRao]

IF the F-16 - per that report - is around $30 million per, then why not get that instead of the Rafale? Or even the LCA? (Thinking aloud.)

Here is a list of F-16s (perhaps some are missing), one of those DOA:

1 Pre-production variants

1.1 YF-16
1.2 F-16 FSD

2 Main production variants

2.1 F-16A/B
2.1.1 F-16A/B Block 1/5/10
2.1.2 F-16A/B Block 15
2.1.3 F-16A/B Block 20
2.2 F-16C/D
2.2.1 F-16C/D Block 25
2.2.2 F-16C/D Block 30/32
2.2.3 F-16C/D Block 40/42
2.2.4 F-16C/D Block 50/52
2.2.5 F-16C/D Block 50/52 Plus
2.3 F-16E/F
2.3.1 F-16E/F Block 60

3 Major modification variants

3.1 F-16A/B Block 15 ADF
3.2 F-16A/B Block 15 OCU
3.3 F-16AM/BM Block 15 MLU
3.4 F-16C/D Block 30 F-16N/TF-16N
3.5 F-16CJ/DJ Block 50D/52D
3.6 F-16 Özgür
3.7 F-16I Sufa

4 Special mission variants

4.1 A-16
4.2 F/A-16
4.3 Other CAS initiatives
4.4 F-16A(R)
4.5 F-16 Recce
4.6 RF-16A/C

5 Technology demonstrators, and test variants

5.1 Flight control variants
5.1.1 YF-16 CCV
5.1.2 HiMAT
5.1.3 F-16 SFW
5.1.4 F-16XL
5.1.5 F-16AT Falcon 21
5.1.6 NF-16D/VISTA/MATV
5.1.7 F-16U
5.1.8 F-16X Falcon 2000
5.1.9 F-16 Advanced Fighter Technology Integration
5.1.10 F-16 GCAS
5.1.11 F-16 Agile Falcon
5.1.12 F-16 ES
5.1.13 F-16 LOAN
5.1.14 F-16D 'CK-1'
5.2 Engine variants
5.2.1 F-16/79
5.2.2 F-16/101

6 Proposed and other variants

6.1 Vought Model 1600/1601/1602
6.2 F-16IN <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< -------------------------------------- Indian MMRCA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6.3 F-16V
6.4 KF-16
6.5 GF-16
6.6 QF-16

7 Major upgrade programs

7.1 F-16 MSIP
7.2 Pacer Loft I & II
7.3 Falcon UP
7.4 Falcon STAR
7.5 F-16 ACE
7.6 F-16 Falcon ONE
7.7 F-16 CCIP
7.8 CUPID

8 Derivative fighters

8.1 AIDC F-CK-1A/B Ching Kuo Indigenous Defense Fighter (IDF)
8.2 Mitsubishi F-2A/B (FS-X/TFS-X)
8.3 KAI FA-50 Golden Eagle (KTX-2)

[brar_w]

IF the F-16 - per that report - is around $30 million per, then why not get that instead of the Rafale?

These are the distortions that creep up in these sort of reports from agenda pushers such as bean counters or leftist think tank such as POGO withgeneral wheeler in charge. When was the last time anyone ever paid 30 million for an F-16? Authors are perfectly happy to take gross cost of the F-35 as a system but picks a figure for the F-16 that is no where close to reality and many times smaller than the recurring fly-away cost of the F-16 to customers that are getting deliveries of the jet. Another favorite things these so called FINANCIAL wizards cue around is the 20 million price tag of the A-10." Oh they are replacing the 20 million A-10 with a 100 million JSF bla bla". When was the last time a 20 million A-10 was built? Where is the production line buiding the A-10 @ 20 million a pop.
Nothing new here, such think tanks and leftists were in full swing during the F-16 and F-22 development programs. The same asking for F-22's to be modernized or brought back were calling it to be axed in the 90's and at the turn of the millennium. They count on short attention spans of their readers

[brar_w]

For those that do not want to listen to the entire General Mike Hostage session here are some of the Q's and A's from that including some from F-35 fans such as Bill sweet man

Question: Bill Sweetman, Aviation Week.
It’s been about 30 years since Norm Augustine wrote Augustine’s
laws and predicted that the price of aircraft would just
continue to rise. We all paid a lot of attention to that but we
don’t seem to have done very much about it to stop it happening.
Two questions, how reliant are you on the cost operating and
acquisition cost of [inaudible] efforts now being conducted by
the F-35 program? To what extent do you need that to reach the
acquisition goal of 80 aircraft a year?
The follow-on is how do you drive cost out of your future
aircraft and how big of a factor is that in your planning now?

General Hostage: I think you came to the wrong forum because I’m not really the acquisition guy. That’s not my lane to -- I couldn’t tell you how they drive costs. I know that’s what they’re doing and I know that’s critically important to us because the politics of this weapon system are such that ever dollar resonates in the political arena.
I’m very confident that Chris Bogden and the team along with our
industry partner building the F-35 are doing everything possible
to drive down the cost of that weapon system.
You’re exactly right, Mr. Augustine’s law appears to be holding
forth. What you have to look at though as well is what is the
combat capability that comes with that? I spend more for
weapons now but the weapon I produce has far more capability
than the weapon I paid a lot less for a decade before.

I’m confident that if we can produce the 1763 F-35s at the cost
that the industry and the JPO are forecasting, we’ll have a
fleet that will defend this country for as far into the ‘30s as
we expect it to, and the challenge will be how do we produce the
next capability? Remember, I don’t necessarily say it’s another
fighter. What is the next capability that will supplant that in
a cost effective way? Maybe that’s how we -- We don’t break the
law of Mr. Augustine’s writing, but we adjust that cost
challenge. So maybe it is another platform.

A follow up to a couple of things you said before and this might
[inaudible]. You point out the issue with magazine depth with
regard to F-35 and F-22. What if anything is the near term fix
for that? We saw activity on JDRADM and then that went away,
either went dark or died. Do you plan to do something in the
weapons community to fix that problem? Or is LRSB going to be
partly a solution to that?

General Hostage: We’re working on things to deal with the issue. We’re limited by physics with the current equipment we have. We’ve got some brilliant scientists out there that are rewriting physics, so I’m not excluding the possibility that they’ll bring me something that I can retrofit into the current fleet. As a matter of fact we’re talking about some capabilities that would go onto the legacy fleet to leverage new technology. So it would give us significant changes in the magazine depth. So no, I can’t. [Laughter].
Now we get back to that, so we live in a world where when I tell
you something, Amy, the next day it’s known around the world and
there are some very smart people who look at well gee, if they’re thinking that, what are we doing? And let’s go steal
what they’re doing. So I have to be careful about what we talk
about. But we are looking at capabilities -- I recognize the
challenge of magazine depth. I’ve spent a lot of time over the
past couple of weeks talking to the different labs that are
working on directed energy systems. There are some amazing
developments in that arena. Now does that define sixth
generation? I don’t know. I don’t know if we can take
something in the lab where it needs to be in enough time for it
to be part of that next generation, but I think it holds great
promise.
But at the same time I’ve got adversaries spending orders of
magnitude more money on that same technology. So if I don’t do
anything about leveraging it for myself I better damn well
figure out how to defend myself because I know somebody else is
going to produce that capability.
So I’m naturally circumspect about telling you a whole lot of
detail about what I’m doing, but yes, I’m well aware of the
problem and I’m confident we will have the capabilities before
somebody else does.

The Air Force certainly
doesn’t have in flight, or en-route jammers. Are you counting
on the F-35 to do that mission? Or are you looking at unmanned
systems? How are you going to handle the strike package jamming
going into contested air space?

General Hostage : In terms of EW, again, you have to understand how the stealth
element of fifth generation works. With stealth, I’ve got
platforms now that disappear in the noise level. If they’re not
disappearing in the noise level, then what I really, rather than
make them more stealthy, I don’t want to raise the noise level.
So I’m really kind of happy that there’s a fourth gen fleet out
there and some of my partners want to bring high powered brute
force jammers out there because what they do is drive that noise
threshold to a point that my fifth gen stuff disappear, which is
great. What I don’t want to do is have that high powered brute
force jammer flying anywhere close to my stealthy platforms
because I just gave up all that stealth. So I’m happy to have
them operating out there in the environment, I just don’t want
to have them too close to me.

One of the capabilities that F-35 will bring is jamming
capability. But we do jamming in a different way than brute
force. Again, if I’ve got a tiny little radar cross-section I
don’t need a huge jamming signal to hide it. I just need a very
small and focused capability.
Again, one of the beauties of the F-35 is the synergistic
capabilities of a multitude of airplanes, and I’ll just leave it
at that.

[Rien]

$112M flyaway currently. <$75M at FRP. Competitive if not cheaper than the Rafale and Eurofighter and not too far off from the Gripen E.

Australia paid 12.4 billion dollars for 58 planes. That works out to 214 million dollars per plane, which is just the acquisition cost. This is the price any foreign country would be paying.

As for what the US is paying. This is a 2014 update on current costs for the F-35A,B,C.

http://defense-update.com/20140103_much ... costs.html

F-35A $181 million per copy.
F-35 B $252.3 million.
F-35C $299.5 million for each one.

“Actual F-35 unit costs are today multiples of what Lockheed says they will be.” Wheeler asserted, “If you think it is
reasonable to expect them to plummet to the $85 million Lockheed glibly promises (thanks to the ubiquitous “learning curve” and other manipulations)” please consider a somewhat different analysis, also in Time, available here and here.” Wheeler wrote.

The Time Magazine Article Wheeler is referring to is this one below:

http://nation.time.com/2013/06/07/on-fi ... al-sanity/

When the lifecycle costs are added to the already unaffordable initial cost for the just the plane, the price hits 600 million!

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/f-35-mai ... -1.1797599

The Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Rideau Institute estimate the current numbers for the F-35 could be off by between $12 billion and $81 billion, depending on a variety of factors and risks over 40 years.

An independent analysis of the program, conducted by the Public Works secretariat overseeing the plan to replace Canada's CF-18s, pegged the total lifetime cost of owning 65 stealth fighters at just over $44 billion over four decades.

If anybody thinks the acquisition cost is high, and it is, it will be totally eclipsed by the operating cost. An
independent audit by KPMG has estimated the cost of buying and operating the F-35 warplanes at
$600-million per jet, two-thirds of that operating cost.

Captain Overstreet of the F-35 program office warned in November that while development costs are high for the F-35,
they will be “dwarfed” by the sustainability costs. Back in May 2011 Defense Undersecretary for Acquisition Ashton Carter described current projected costs for the F-35 as “unacceptable.”

The price of the JSF was based on projected orders of as many as 3,448 aircraft. They have lost a full 300 from that list, with the total number of orders coming to 3,148. This means the prices I quoted above are all too low. The JSF is well on track to exceed even the highest end projections I cited and that means it will be a 700 million dollar fighter. Watch those orders get cancelled as the partners realize they were played for fools. Australia isn't rich enough to afford 40 billion for 58 planes, and it is the richest customer.

[Viv S]

Australia paid 12.4 billion dollars for 58 planes. That works out to 214 million dollars per plane, which is just the acquisition cost. This is the price any foreign country would be paying.

I suggest you go through the previous pages of this. All these figures have already been discussed. The flyaway cost of the aircraft is currently $112M and will fall to $75M post SDD phase.

The Australian contract includes long term support, base refurbishment and weapon costs.

________________________

From March 2014 -

F-35 Joint Strike Fighters: Pentagon says jets getting cheaper, Australia could become regional service hub

Australia is yet to formally decide on the total purchase of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) from the US, but the director of the Pentagon's F35 program says the planes are getting cheaper over time.

The first two of Australia's initial order of 14 F-35s are expected to be delivered this year at a cost of just under $US130 million each.
________________________

As for what the US is paying. This is a 2014 update on current costs for the F-35A,B,C.

http://defense-update.com/20140103_much ... costs.html

The article in question has been posted and discussed, multiple times. First of all, you need to see the distinction between flyaway cost and procurement costs. $75 million is the flyaway cost not the procurement cost. And Winslow Wheeler is being plain dishonest when he compares the current procurement cost with the target flyaway cost.

The actual costs negotiated by the JPO have actually beaten the fund appropriation from the Congress. Also subtract the retrofit costs from the final figure (they apply only to LRIP aircraft).

Bottom-line: procurement cost for the F-35A is about $160 million current which will fall to $120 million by the end of the SDD as production is scaled up.

When the lifecycle costs are added to the already unaffordable initial cost for the just the plane, the price hits 600 million!

The life-cycle cost estimated for the US F-35s is about $400 million in 2014 dollars. $1 trillion over 2,443 aircraft. And expected to fall further. Also note this figure includes all variants of the F-35 not just the (cheaper) F-35A.

The price of the JSF was based on projected orders of as many as 3,448 aircraft. They have lost a full 300 from that list, with the total number of orders coming to 3,148. This means the prices I quoted above are all too low. The JSF is well on track to exceed even the highest end projections I cited and that means it will be a 700 million dollar fighter. Watch those orders get cancelled as the partners realize they were played for fools. Australia isn't rich enough to afford 40 billion for 58 planes, and it is the richest customer.

Where did you find this 'projection' of 3,448 aircraft from? Its certainly not mentioned in the link you've posted.

As for the 'real costs', they're very much available from US budget documents and have shown sustained and massive falls since the first F-35 got airborne. Instead of searching the broadness of the internet, I again suggest you go through the previous pages and debates on this very thread.

[brar_w]

Australia paid 12.4 billion dollars for 58 planes

Australia hasn't paid anything yet. The contract for 58 planes has not been signed yet, and nor will they sign it all in one go but in batches as per the JPO.

Secondly, the contract includes the total weapons cost plus cost to upgrade the bases housing the JSF, send pilots and maintainers over to the US for joint training, buy weapons, spares, support equipment (ALIS) for the fleet and all technical know how required to operate and maintain a fleet of fighters. Everything you need to know about the RAAF F-35 projected costs including the breakdown of the cost to set up the 2 bases for the F-35's, buy weapons has been presented in this thread. Just scroll back a dozen or so pages and you'll find all of it in there.

F-35A $181 million per copy.
F-35 B $252.3 million.
F-35C $299.5 million for each one.

“Actual F-35 unit costs are today multiples of what Lockheed says they will be.” Wheeler asserted

There it is. I had predicted in my last post that its about time that Wheeler's name is going to prop up especially when taking gross or net costs and trying to project them instead of fly away costs as he uses such tricks when discussing about every high end weapons system, where his and is organizations position is always against those systems for some reason..

The US By law publishes SAR costs of all its weapons system. The standard price for fighters is usually the unit recurring fly away cost. When you operate a fleet of hundreds of fighters, you are required to procure a lot of stuff in addition to the fighter to maintain a proper logistical train and supply side so that you can smoothly operate the fighter for decades. Things like a optimum spare supply need to be upgraded every time a multi-ship order is placed. These include, spare helmets, spare engines, spare parts, components, electronics..basically everything that is likely to break, be damaged or require replacement is ordered and store in depots. Wonder why the F-22 is expected to last till 2040 while the F-119 (engine) is no longer in production and the factory is not even there to make any more engines? Because they have a huge surplus stock of spare engines. Same way there is added cost every time you order fighters. Its not a non-reccuring cost and depends upon your logistical situation at the time of order. It could be 500 million for 10 jets in one order or 50 million for 10 jets in another. It may cost 5 billion to set up a logistical supply chain for 1000 F-35's, but the 1001 F-35 procured may not require any more spares as per the logistical model. This is why only the Recurring fly away cost of the Fighters is used for comparison.

Here is a discussion on Wheelers cost estimates..

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=25794

Wheeler's cost deception -





Many have fallen for Wheeler's tactics through his website POGO which has been exposed in the past to support a leftist anti defense agenda.

When the lifecycle costs are added to the already unaffordable initial cost for the just the plane, the price hits 600 million

Where do those life cycle costs come from? CAPE? CAPE estimated the fleet life cycle costs to be 1.5 trillion a few years ago, and now estimates them to be 1 trillion or just over (2500 jets over 55 years). With that sort of dip are these numbers any reliable? Would the JSF program director be still in his job if his estimates were off by that amount? Get real !

Watch those orders get cancelled as the partners realize they were played for fools. Australia isn't rich enough to afford 40 billion for 58 planes, and it is the richest customer

Australia is going to pay 40 Billion for 58 planes? WOW..You do live in a wheeler fairy land..No one is canceling their orders and no one is paying 40 billion for 58 planes. Even before Australia inks its contracts, South Korea is going to ink its. A different contract as its an FMS deal but rest assured the price will be equal to or lower then what was bidder for by Lockheed and given your calculations that you borrowed from Wheeler Lockheed will be taking a 20 Billion or so loss on the f-35 since the South Korean contract would be a fixed price contract like all F-35 contracts. I guess once all the contracts are factored in, Lockheed is looking at a 100 Billion loss on the fighter with sales to Israel, Japan and South Korea alone.


You may wish to scroll back on this thread. Costs have been discussed before including official government sources that have been cited, including SAR costs and future SAR estimates, JPO estimates and contract negotiation costs. Please try to understand that Unit recurring fly-away cost is different from APUC which is different from total life system costs. There is a good reason for reporting on the URFA cost for fighter jets around the world as this is the fairest comparison tool available to compare cost of one system with another. Life cycle costs are also fairly well understood with a basic assumption that 2/3 the total cost of a fighter would be the life cycle cost with a 1/3 or so being the procurement cost. So yes, a 100 million dollar Fighter will likely cost another 200 million dollars to operate for 8000 or 10000 hours and this includes everything from spare parts, depot maintenance, overhauls, flying time, fuel, maintenance both routine and heavy etc etc etc. This applies to everything from a fighter to a bomber..Its the same for the F-16 as it is for the F-35 or the Rafale. The 2/3 of the cost portion is however spread over the airframe life and depending upon the customer that could be 40 years (200 hours annual flying), 20 years (400 hours annual flying) or somewhere in between.

The reason Unit recurring fly away cost is the industry standard comparison tool is because different deals are structured differently as per customer requirements. Lets take a notional Middle eastern Air force with mostly expat pilots. They have 25 Rafales, Typhoons or F-35's but have an extreme shortage of pilot strength and must pay outside agencies to outsource maintainers (this actually happens) through long multi-year contracts. This hypothetical air force may only want a 50% mission availability rate for its fighters because having a higher rate is pointless since its air force cannot make use of the higher tempo. Such an air force would not require the depth and volume of the logistical train, supply side stock that may be required by another air force that wishes to operate its multi role fighter with a 70+% mission availability rate. The notional expat-driven air force may wish to have no depot maintenance at all and may wish to fly its aircraft to neighboring countries such as Turkey to get major overhauls carried out. Both those air forces will pay a different APUC and total life cycle cost for their fighters over 8000 operational hours. Now lets bring in the IDF that pegs wartime mission availability rates even during peacetime. They would require multiple depot level kit at multiple bases, heavy logistical procurement to maintain that level of intensity. On top of that they need to sign multi year overhaul contracts with the Italians that they'll be sending their F-35's to for heavy work. All in all they will require a much larger investment to operate the aircraft over its projected 8000 hour life. Its for this reason that the unit recurring fly-away cost is the baseline standard. It is the cost of the fighter, its mission systems (Software, sensors, pods (if any), sub-systems), engine a few other things as delivered to the air force.

The CAPE'ers i.e the bean counters that do CAPE did not have the balls to figure out the Disposal cost of the F-35 because they claimed that its too far out (Not that 50-60 years worth of projections have held them back - in the past ). That aspect of the cost isn't likely to be cheap since, stealth aircraft, RAM and embedded sensors cannot be sold on the open market for disposal..Why not add 20-30 million further to the cost assuming it to be the disposal cost per jet. Lets keeping adding more and more and try to reach the goal of a billion dollars per aircraft. What about pilot salary, salary of the air chefs, cost to maintain the USAF website..PR and marketing expenditure for the various OEM's. Lets keep adding more stuff and try to beat wheeler and pogo with a ridiculously large number..

Yet the F-16 is only a 30 million fighter

Read the article exposing the anonymous-internet-figure known as Don Bacon (not his real name) that shows up as an expert without any credentials on the usual Briganti anti-JSF propaganda. Here the CAPE topic is dealt with in advance. What the CAPE'ers are doing is trying to estimate the cost of aviation fuel over 55 years. Can you do that? Can the GOI tell you what the cost of petrol or diesel is going to be 55 years out? Next comes the wrong assumptions part. Ever since the first CAPE estimate was published the three US services were all over the CAPE'ers claiming that the entire assumptions were total BS. The Marine version of the Jet was calculated to have majority STOVL operations when this is neither the case for the Harrier. Why would the marines choose Short take offs and Vertical landings on all F-35 B flying during peacetime? Same thing was used to project fuel costs for the A and C versions where only afterburner figures were used. The USMC and the USAF took a strong exception to this and it took the CAPE'ers 18 months to lower the number from around 1.3-1.5 trillion down to 1.04 trillion (in parts). The second point that the services made was that these assumptions are still invalid. Training costs include the cost of live rounds, which is not the case for any other fighter in the US inventory. Secondly, the training costs assume full maintenance on weapons systems including multiple sensors that are not present on other fighters as they are podded and as such their CAPE costs are calculated differently. The third and the most important aspect is the training aspect. Look at the training trends..The F-22 and F-35 (along with PAKFA) are all single seater fighters. For the Lockheed jets all the initial training is sim based..Even south korea judged the sim training regimen of the F-35 to be equal to that of the twin seater typhoon. The trend is clear - In the coming years, operators using the F-35 will spend a lot of time in the simulator for the basic training and the hours spent in the air would be for tactical stuff as has been happening with the F-22. The CAPE assumes that the training process and time-distribution on the F-35 would be the same as that on the F-16 which is not the case as has been shown by independent auditors based out of South Korea. Another assumption that is largely contested is that the maintenance and mission availability costs are no where mature enough to come to a relaible conclusion. ALIS is not fully developed and the niggles with it will take at least a year to sort out. How do you estimate the cost of the jet over the life cycle, when the things required to maintain are still in development? Expect the life cycle cost of the F-35 program to fall to around 800 billion or so over 55 years from the current 1.04 trillion. It would happen in one go but in multiple estimate adjustments much the same way as the reduction took place from around 1.5 trillion to 1.04 trillion. I expect this to happen by the time the fleet hours reach 30K-50K...Others expect it earlier. No one in the GAO or the CAPE will loose his/her job because of this and Wheeler'ites will continue to use dated and old data to make their points..

The Bottom line is this - The CAPE'rs can be off by a huge (30%+) margin of the 55 year O&S cost and no leftist blog, anti-defense crusader will question them or call for them to be held accountable. Yet if the program delays, technical challenges result in a prolonged SDD phase that adds to the overall cost of the system a margin of error of less than 4% its BREAKING NEWS, eye popping revelations and the crusaders arm themselves to the teeth to try to get the program canned much the same way they have done to other programs before it. Good thing that these idiots have a limited audience amongst those that actually know their stuff!


One thing I have asked others on this thread when the topic CAPE, TLC and O&S costs have come up is this - What is the Total life cycle cost of the Su-30MKI produced in India? We know that UFC is around 65 million as per the various reports on other threads but what does it cost to operate, maintain and maintain a supply chain for the total projected airframe life of the jet. Include fuel costs, and expected aviation fuel inflation over the projected airframe life. Till date I have not received any reply on this question. No need to include upgrades such as AESA , enhancements in engines, avionics and other sensors, addition and integration of pods or Electronic warfare components that would be required for the jet to be viable for decades down the road. Also do the same for others like Rafale, Typhoon or the PAKFA. Give it a shot ! Without such comparisons the F-35's CAPE or O&S cost calculations even the distorted, inflated ones are quite useless by themselves.

[brar_w]

Some updates from the mouth of the Head of Australian airpower, and US Marine core tacticians that operate the F-35 for a living . I'll post only some of the stuff as the articles are lengthy.

THE RAAF AND THE F-35: AIR MARSHALL BROWN DISCUSSES THE WAY AHEAD

Earlier this year, I attended a seminar held by the Williams Foundation in Canberra, Australia where the focus was upon the future of air combat, with a special focus upon the F-35. At that event, two F-22 pilots, one of whom is as well an F-35 pilot, provided insights into the break from traditional capabilities to fifth generation re-norming of airpower.

One was Australian and one was a Marine. A second speaker from the USMC discussed how the Marines were looking to integrate the F-35 into the overall evolution of the integrated force structure of the Marine Corps known as the MAGTF.

Air Marshall Brown spoke at that event and highlighted how he saw the evolving airpower transition associated with the F-35. At that event, Brown underscored that a shift from 4th to 5th generation fighters was not simply a transition in technologies but a “generational shift for everybody involved.” And clearly a key reason to acquire the F-35 is to get on the right side of generational change.

History tells us some things with relative certainty about air combat operations in 2025 and beyond. Importantly, it tells us that technologies will have evolved markedly by 2025, making it essential to acquire capabilities with future growth. 5th generation capabilities, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, offer a quantum leap in air power capabilities over their compatriots,

The missions they will undertake may not be new, but the capabilities 5th generations fighters bring will vastly change the character and effectiveness of how the missions are undertaken.

For me, the most impressive thing about the aircraft is what it brings to the fight in terms of situational awareness and decision dominance…not just for the pilot sitting in the F-35 but fro the entire Joint and Combined air, land and maritime forces deployed in and around the area of operations.

We are introducing into service a revolutionary capability and our evolution as a force must align with the opportunity this offers us. The F-35 does not replace anything.

If I looked at the F-35 as a replacement for the Hornet or the Super Hornet in Australian service, I would undermine from day one the real capability of this aircraft.

Like any revolutionary capability, its potential to generate effects beyond the mainstream will have far reaching impacts in any future application.

I view the F-35 as a platform that can operate across the spectrum from tactical to strategic or anywhere in between as required. It will be the key node in enabling our new fluid force concepts.”



What is envisaged is not an interdependent air combat system, but an integrated air combat system.

And if commonality is maintained – and commonality for the core combat systems is currently the reality — then the data and communications links provide an integrated combat force of F-35 pilots spearheading defense operations.

It also means that a rainbow fleet can be deployed where F-35 partners can work together where there is the need or the political will.

For example, both the Netherlands and Australia see the need to involve assets in the current post-Malaysian Ukrainian situation to secure the crash site. With the F-35 future fleet, Australia could send a four ship F-35 force to marry up with the Dutch and be supported by a Dutch maintenance capability supplemented by Aussie maintainers. Rainbow fleets will provide an important political tool matching a variety of anticipatable settings for 21st century operations.

VISITING THE F-35 SQUADRON AT YUMA AIR STATION: THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF VMF121 PROVIDES AN UPDATE

Question: How do you externalize your learning outside of the squadron?

Major Summa: One way is working with the USAF at the 422 Test and Evaluation squadron at Nellis.

We tend to busy here, so we send operators from the training department or former patch wearers (MAWTS-1 and TOPGUN) to work with SMEs from the Navy and USAF at conferences or simulator events.

The young senior company grade who are coming off of a tour with a Hornet or a Harrier and now wearing a Green Knights patch go into the room with the aviators at Nellis with F-16 and F-15 pilots and work through the process.

In effect, an F-35 enterprise is emerging built around a group of individuals in the profession of arms who want to make this airplane as lethal as possible.

People come in from different backgrounds – Raptor, Eagle, Viper, Hornet or Harrier – and are focusing on the common airplane and ways to make it work more effectively in a tactical setting.

And talking to the experience of a common plane is a crucial piece of the effort.

When an F-35 pilot sits down regardless of what service he is in, he’s talking with an individual from another service on the same data point.

Let me explain what I mean. f I sat down as an F-18 pilot, and I wanted to talk about AMRAAM performance, I was talking about it relative to how it integrated with an F-18.

The F-18 is a Boeing product, a McDonald Douglas product, totally different than F-16, which is a Lockheed product.

When I talk AMRAAM with an F-35 pilot from the Air Force, maybe one of the squadrons at Luke.

I am talking about the same exact radar, I’m talking about the same exact software — everything’s the same.

If we differ in training, it doesn’t have to do with hardware, it doesn’t have to do with software; it has to do with service approaches or carry-over from previous doctrinal employment.

When an F-35A pilot talks with an F-35B pilot and they discuss what they would to see with the evolution of the aircraft they are discussing essentially the same airplane and its evolution.

It is two operators of the same airplane focused on what they want to see evolve even though they are in different services.

And the commonality point is really lost in the broader discussion of the F-35.

And when it comes to strategic impact it is the commonality associated with logistics, which will have a really significant operational impact.

The interoperability at the supply level, the logistics level, the procurement level or the maintenance training level is a key foundation for joint and coalition airpower going forward leveraging the F-35.

Question: When you fly the plane how do you balance the air-to-air and close air support missions?



Major Summa: hat is a good question.

The plane and its combat systems and the way the cockpit is designed allows the pilot to handle the missions in a very effective an integrated manner.

To be able to do CAS, you have to make certain that you can suppress threats that would make it prohibited.

With this plane, you can affect the environment to make CAS more readily available and more quickly.

Question: The F-35 is a multi-mission aircraft and as such how do you approach doing air-to-air and air-to-ground missions?

You can flip between the two without ever forgetting where you were on the last one.

And let me explain that a little bit better. In the F-18, when we were going to air-to-ground mode specifically on the strike, and we are using the radar, and if we want to the targeting pod, we would get to a certain point in time in the mission, where we have to use some sort of a planning tool.

The pilot would have to sort out when he would be able to go all heads down to try to find the target and employ on the target.

And I need to have a certain amount of distance between me and a threat so that when I come heads back up and start looking for possibly an air breathing threat or a surface-to-air missile, would need to suspend the task of employing that piece of ordinance or that weapon for the CAS mission.

This airplane’s different because with the data being fused, I’m not using multiple different displays with each.

The main difference that I see between federated and fused systems is in the F-18, not only was it all in different displays, but each sensor had its own uncertainty volumes and algorithms associated with it.

t was up to me as an aviator knowing the capabilities and limitations in my system to decipher and draw the line between the mission sets.

In the F-35, the fusion engine does a lot of that in the background, while simultaneously, I can be executing an air-to-air mission or an air-to-ground mission, and have an air-to-air track file up, or multiple air-to-air track files, and determine how to flip missions.

Because the fidelity of the data is there right now, which allows me to determine if I need to go back into an air-to-air mindset because I have to deal with this right now as opposed to continuing the CAS mission.

And I have a much broader set of integrated tool sets to draw upon.

For example, if I need an electronic warfare tool set, with the F-18 I have to call in a separate aircraft to provide for that capability.

With the F-35 I have organic EW capability. The EW capability works well in the aircraft. From the time it is recognized that such a capability is need to the time that it is used requires a push of a button.

It does not require that a supporting asset be deployed.

Question: Obviously your pilots need to be trained to combine the air-to-air and CAS capabilities and to use the new organic tools sets as well?

It does.

Now we’re going to have a pilot that’s versed in doing CAS, if he needs to use the electromagnetic spectrum or exploit it to accomplish his mission, he’ll be educated and have the equipment to do so.

If he needs to use it in the air-to-air arena to exploit it, to accomplish his mission, he’ll have the training and the equipment needed to use it as well.

In the current situation, I would deploy a Prowler to work with my legacy fighters.

The Prowler would have to be sortied and would operate only for a period of time and in a specific operational area.

With the low observability of the F-35 combined with the organic EW capability of the aircraft, the aircraft expands my capabilities for both air-to-air and CAS.

[brar_w]

Operational/tactician

http://vimeo.com/37878585

[NRao]

Operational/tactician

http://vimeo.com/37878585

That is (a huge?) part of the foundation for the much maligned "Pivot".

But, people need to first listen to what is being said, understand it, digest it, ........

[brar_w]

Listening to people who actually fly the aircraft, fight with it day in and day out or strategists who are decorated, have decades of experience as tacticians, strategists and force planner is soooo boring when one can simply open up the favorite David axe blog post or gizmodo/time article citing Wheeler and his distortions that are quite transparent within the informed community, or when the enlightened Briganti takes a phantom internet troll who's only qualification is that he litters aerospace article's "comment" section and gives him a front line article (I am referring to the article cited a few posts above by one of the members) as if this person is a qualified aerospace engineer, professional or a reporter with a verifiable track record. His highness from Europe does not even bother verifying whether that is in fact is his real name or cross checking his credentials which are also not provided. So much for the internet raising the bar for objective and transparent reporting But I guess the F-35 is going to screw up business cases for so many other programs for so many other OEM's around the world that there would be a PR machinery created to try to discredit it as has happened with various programs from various countries in the past. We have had the internet bloggers run wild with a supposed study that claims that the F-35 cannot survive against Chinese naval flanker clones, only when this was deeply investigated that the creators of the study themselves denied doing it formally, and then further investigations found that the study was based loosely on a video game (I kid you not..I have provided evidence of this on my earlier posts). This is the level of reporting that many bloggers and tabloid blogs have. What was about selling newspapers in the last decade is about generating clicks and people like David Axe, Gizmodo, PCMAG, CNET, Daily Beast know exactly what sort of headlines generate these sort of reviews. Constant cost MEME's are generated without any sort of context..The F-35 is the trillion dollar fighter is the usual headline..Trillion dollars for what is never discussed. The underlying absurd assumptions and the attempt to calculate something that has never EVER been accurately measured before is never discussed. Yet the F-35 is a trillion dollar fighter. Its something that large military systems have to live with in free nations. I often wonder what these folks will banter about when the CAPE quietly re-adjusts the O&S cost to below 1 trillion? It should be be too far out..Expect this to happen in a year or so, but very quietly and without much reporting..

http://vimeo.com/88812521

http://vimeo.com/48211330

http://vimeo.com/73913274



EXPEDITIONARY LOGISTICS: PUTTING THE F-35 EFFORT INTO A GLOBAL CONTEXT

This meme sums up the feeling the wheelers and Axe's of the world must be having every time the F-35 is ordered, or wins an endorsement and positive comments from tacticians and strategists of air forces around the world that have had access to it its classified briefings.



On a lighter note, some fresh pictures of the turkey





5th generation family









First F-35 Squadron to declare operational status around July of next year -

[NRao]

July 10, 2014 :: DOD Plans To Deliver F-35’s 5th Gen Capability At 4th Gen Cost By 2019

Today, the Department of Defense announced an agreement aimed at reducing the price of an F-35 Lightning II 5th generation fighter to the equivalent of today’s 4th generation fighters by the end of the decade. Designated “The Blueprint for Affordability,” the DoD and F-35 industry partners – Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems signed an agreement to implement cost reduction initiatives to lower the production costs of F-35 aircraft.

The reduced URF will have long reaching benefits for the program, and international countries purchasing F-35s will also benefit from this savings. In the future, the government is looking at similar ways to drive down the costs of operating and sustaining the F-35