JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

[Philip]

Latest AWST news on the Oz air show,has the plans for the F-35 in delay mode and the options of more SHs to be the most likely option,as the JSF might enter service only by 2018 at the earliest.The figure for about 60 JSFs is estimated at a staggering $10billion for just 60.Over 160+m per plane!

[Philip]

Here's what AWST says:

No more time.

"Patience is a virtue,but you reach a point when living on take-out pizza is playing hell with your hypertension....Moreover,until the freaking kitchen sink gets done you can't afford to fix the leaky bedroom ceiling". We don't know and that is unacceptable.The users and the taxpayers need an IOC date,IOC capabilities and some real cost numbers.If that's too much to ask after 11 years,its time for someone to get fired."

Has the JSF reached that stage? We don't know and that is unacceptable.th user and the taxpayer need an IOC date,IOC capabilities,and real cost numbers.If that's too much to ask for after 11 years,it's time for someone to get fired.

[Singha]

Allies and munnas have options like euro planes or f18 or f15

But think of it from usaf pov the prime end user
They will not buy hornet
F16 production has stopped now
F15 production has stopped though the saudis ordered a huge new lot, but usaf likely wont buy these new models.

What is the usaf to do? They need to replace close to 300 eagles and 700 vipers if you count the ang units also.maybe more.

The proj is too important to fail.

Likewise the usn has a margin of comfort with hornet being pretty new and all that but by 2020 they will need some next gen kit whether jsf only or jsf plus ucav.

Usmc has even less options. Its the lumbering harrier or nothing for them.

[Philip]

True.The est. is that the US will have aircraft almost 30-40 yrs old still flying by 2030.The reliance placed upon dev. of one "paper plane" (JSF) is alarming everyone,as costs are simply in freefall and allies are worried and are looking at alternatives.4++ gen aircratf today like the Eurocanards and ven the Gripen,which is being developed incrementally and within budget,are going to get a lot of attention in the future.

This where a window of opportunity has opened up for the LCA if we remain focussed and take up IOC,FOC with a war footing.Another parallel effort is needed for rapid production of the LCA,at least 18-20 aircraft a year to meet just the IAF's needs.If exports are planned,then we need to ramp up production even further.I cannot understand why the MK-2 mockup has not been seen when 4 years ago it was known that a new engine was needed .Perhaps the advice that AWST has given for the JSF (if no dates,cost,etc. are forthcoming....."someone needs to be fired")also needs to be given to the head of the LCA programme by the MOD/GOI.

[TSJones]

"if the JSF were indeed to be as nimble and highflying as its backers claim it to be in tests, would be a break from the past trends....a fat fuselage and stubby wings have not made for a agile fighter ever in the past. the whole history of air superiority is replete with tapered fuselages, big wings, big control surfaces, low drag, big engines...JSF is a unique claimant to the throne."

Singha, I'm really not sure what you are referenceing here but one of the best dogfighters ever made was the A-4M (which I worked on). That doggone thing could turn on a dime and it had quick acceleraltion too even though it was not supersonic. Everyone of my pilots loved their "scooter". I saw several of them at Yuma Az. attack a target and talk about awesome! OMG! I had my head swiveling every which way and COULD NOT SEE THEM COMING and DROPING THEIR BOMBS until it was already done. And gone in a flash! Those little guys were fierce! In fact, the US Navy chose these Marine aircraft to be their oppressor air force at fighter school. They were won repeatedly against F-14s and F-18s. Of course the F-14s and F-18s had to deal with simulated SAM sites, etc., while dogfighting the A-4M. But hey, train like you're gonna fight, right?

If the f-14s and F-18s could not out dog fight the A-4M I doubt the F-35 could either BUT the F-35 should have way better avionics and missiles. Also I will say this w/o revealing too much but..... you really can't fly a F-22 or a F-35 without a computer. The control surfaces just aren't there due to the stealth aspect. Maybe you could get it back to base w/o a computer but you sure wouldn't want to fight w/o it. It's too difficult to fly otherwise.

[shiv]

Off topic but until the Harrier came along the A-4 was the only fighter that was as small as the Indian navy carrier Vikrant's lift would allow and would have made a good replacement for the Seahawk. But like the C-130 the US was unwilling to sell the A-4 to India. Australia and Singapore operated them IIRC.

The strange thing about that fabulous program I linked on the Multimedia thread about Lockheed is that most of the early "revolutionary" aircraft mentioned in the program went into Pakistani hands. F-86, F-104 and even the U-2 was flown by a Pakistani pilot. The US has never been averse to selling or giving some of its best stuff to weird nations. F-14s went to Iran. KSA got F-15s which few other nations got. Pakistan got F-16s. I would not be surprised at all if Pakistan got a squadron of F 35 in exchange for merely surviving and handing over names of anti-US Islamists to the FBI

[PratikDas]

The F-35 has a wing loading in the ballpark of 110 lbs/ sq. ft.

The A-4 had a wing loading of 58 lbs/ sq. ft.

The A-4 might have been great but the F-35 won't be a beneficiary.

PS. The LCA has a wing loading of 45.4 lbs/ sq. ft.

[shiv]

Way off topic again, but while I was waiting in line to buy tickets for Aero India there was a young Iranian enthusiast behind me who claimed that Iran wanted to send F-14s to Aero India. He also claimed that Iran wanted to send armed F-14s to show that they are not only flying them but have figured out how to arm them with different weapons. India refused to allow that claimed the Iranian.

[Austin]

U.S. Air Force Begins F-35A Operational Testing

Operational testing and evaluation of the F-35A has begun, with the delivery of four aircraft to Nellis AFB. They were accepted by the U.S. Air Force Warfare Center in a ceremony on March 19. Eight more F-35As will join them by 2019. The Air Force has now received 24 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing aircraft. Another 34 F-35s have been delivered to the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Navy.

Orlando Carvalho, the new executive vice president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, said, “The work done by the Nellis team will forge the F-35 into the fighter of the future and test it to its limits.”

Following the brief grounding for engine investigations last month, the F-35 program has also advanced on other fronts. In mid-February the first production F-35C for the U.S. Navy took to the air. It will be delivered to Fighter Attack Squadron 101 (VFA-101) at Eglin AFB for training later this year. Nine F-35As and 13 F-35Bs are already there, training Air Force and Marine Corps pilots and maintainers. Also last month, the Marine Corps began flying its first operational F-35Bs at Yuma MCAS. Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VMFA-121) is scheduled to receive 16 aircraft by year-end.

[Katare]

The question is why JSF should dog fight? Aircraft are not built to dog fight but to achieve a mission objective, JSF is designed to do it without ever getting into old school close combat situations. Even in close combat, turning on a dime is not the only way to win, if I can see and fire 360 degree around me where is the need to twist and turn and run?

Don't make a future fighter fight a simulated battle of past and call it a looser. New gen aircraft will fight on their on terms in their own wars where 4th gen stuff will feel outdated.

[NRao]

Don't make a future fighter fight a simulated battle of past and call it a looser. New gen aircraft will fight on their on terms in their own wars where 4th gen stuff will feel outdated.

So true.

But the problem is that most people are still stuck in the past. They are unable to deal with newer technologies and therefore tend to superimpose the older ones they are familiar with. Sensors, as an example, is even today, rather foreign to most.

[TSJones]

The question is why JSF should dog fight? Aircraft are not built to dog fight but to achieve a mission objective, JSF is designed to do it without ever getting into old school close combat situations. Even in close combat, turning on a dime is not the only way to win, if I can see and fire 360 degree around me where is the need to twist and turn and run?

Don't make a future fighter fight a simulated battle of past and call it a looser. New gen aircraft will fight on their on terms in their own wars where 4th gen stuff will feel outdated.

I think most of the guys here are worried that India will be "talked into" buying the F-35. Therefore they are highlighting the problems the plane has. I doubt India would ever buy the plane. India is more comfortable participating with Russia in buying their planes and it is less costly. *And* I highly doubt that Pakistan will get the F-35 either. They will probably get Chinese planes. The US will muddle along with the F-35 and the X-47 drones.

[Austin]

Well documented Technical issues apart which perhaps can even be ignored , F-35 program was recently lashed out by none other then US Lieutenant-General Christopher Bogdan F-35 program chief for “trying to squeeze every nickel out of” the Pentagon for an F-35 warplane that is the most expensive combat aircraft in history and being unaffordable to them.

http://rt.com/usa/f35-pentagon-lockheed-lightning-557/

[NRao]

Well documented Technical issues apart which perhaps can even be ignored , F-35 program was recently lashed out by none other then US Lieutenant-General Christopher Bogdan F-35 program chief for “trying to squeeze every nickel out of” the Pentagon for an F-35 warplane that is the most expensive combat aircraft in history and being unaffordable to them.

http://rt.com/usa/f35-pentagon-lockheed-lightning-557/

Thanks.

That is third or fourth post of your on that!!

[PratikDas]

Don't make a future fighter fight a simulated battle of past and call it a looser. New gen aircraft will fight on their on terms in their own wars where 4th gen stuff will feel outdated.

I certainly didn't do that, not that you suggested that but I'm making sure I'm not perceived as being a laggard with difficulties in comprehension. I just pointed out that there is reason to believe that the JSF won't be able to turn on a dime when someone claiming aviation credibility from having worked on the A-4 was drawing false corollaries.

I think most of the guys here are worried that India will be "talked into" buying the F-35. Therefore they are highlighting the problems the plane has.

Only because you bluffed or didn't even realise you were wrong.

But the problem is that most people are still stuck in the past.

And some are only responding to the bluff with facts.

[Austin]

Well documented Technical issues apart which perhaps can even be ignored , F-35 program was recently lashed out by none other then US Lieutenant-General Christopher Bogdan F-35 program chief for “trying to squeeze every nickel out of” the Pentagon for an F-35 warplane that is the most expensive combat aircraft in history and being unaffordable to them.

http://rt.com/usa/f35-pentagon-lockheed-lightning-557/

Thanks.

That is third or fourth post of your on that!!

Data Point , Just to quote what Pentagon thinks about JSF , LM & Co

[TSJones]

Don't make a future fighter fight a simulated battle of past and call it a looser. New gen aircraft will fight on their on terms in their own wars where 4th gen stuff will feel outdated.

I certainly didn't do that, not that you suggested that but I'm making sure I'm not perceived as being a laggard with difficulties in comprehension. I just pointed out that there is reason to believe that the JSF won't be able to turn on a dime when someone claiming aviation credibility from having worked on the A-4 was drawing false corollaries.

I think most of the guys here are worried that India will be "talked into" buying the F-35. Therefore they are highlighting the problems the plane has.

Only because you bluffed or didn't even realise you were wrong.

But the problem is that most people are still stuck in the past.

And some are only responding to the bluff with facts.

Baloney. If you guys want to believe that the US will field a plane that doesn't meet mission requirements and is incapable of dealing with various threat postures then that is your self delusional problem. My point still stands: India is highly unlikely to buy the F-35 and Pakistan is completely out of the picture. That doesn't mean the plane won't do its job however. It will accomplish its mission requirements through block model changes and thorough testing by the pilots in their respective military branches. I will agree that it is a costly way of doing it but that won't stop the process because the need is there. End of story.

[member_20292]

^^^ thats about right.

JSF is not a first 5th generation for a highly import dependent US, like the LCA is for us.

It is going to replace many a F 16 F 15 F 18, so it jolly well, by hook or by crook, will be made good enough.

[It may lose to the LCA in Cope India 2025...but thats another topic]

[PratikDas]

I certainly didn't do that, not that you suggested that but I'm making sure I'm not perceived as being a laggard with difficulties in comprehension. I just pointed out that there is reason to believe that the JSF won't be able to turn on a dime when someone claiming aviation credibility from having worked on the A-4 was drawing false corollaries.

Baloney. If you guys want to believe that the US will field a plane that doesn't meet mission requirements and is incapable of dealing with various threat postures then that is your self delusional problem. My point still stands: India is highly unlikely to buy the F-35 and Pakistan is completely out of the picture. That doesn't mean the plane won't do its job however. It will accomplish its mission requirements through block model changes and thorough testing by the pilots in their respective military branches. I will agree that it is a costly way of doing it but that won't stop the process because the need is there. End of story.

"Baloney", yeah that explains everything - even your attempts to draw false corollaries to the A-4.

And what's this business with "you guys"? Are you incapable of handling a specific rebuttal without resorting to portraying the opposition as a mob?

Why are you bringing up mission requirements now when you brought up the A-4 and turning on a dime earlier? Same mission requirements for the two aircraft, are they? If the A-4 is why the F-35 can turn on a dime then the missing ingredient is magic.

I respect that you worked on the A-4. I would just leave the elevator pitch to the salesmen.

[Austin]

Outgoing Lockheed F-35 Chief Reflects on Program

WASHINGTON — With his retirement from Lockheed Martin looming at the end of the month, Tom Burbage, one of the leading figures of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program over the last decade, took some time to reflect on the fifth-generation fighter.

“The fundamental airplane is going to be there,” Burbage told a group of reporters Tuesday. “It’s going to be late, it’s going to be more expensive than we thought to do the development, but it’s still going to be there, which I think that’s the ultimate metric.”

“I don’t know what the timeline will be,” he continued. “I’m hoping that it will be on a reasonable timeline. I think we have a new leadership that’s gonna drive the program where it needs to be. It’s a new day going forward. I think it will happen. I think all three airplanes will be flying in the services, and it’s just a question of time, now.

“Running the F-35 enterprise by most measures is actually more complicated than running some of the business enterprises that are companies,” Burbage said, highlighting both the rapid growth of the program — roughly 180 employees in Fort Worth, Texas, in 2001 became about 4,000 in 2002 — and the fact that multiple companies and countries would be coming together to work jointly on the fighter.

“It wouldn’t fit into a Lockheed culture, it wouldn’t fit into a Northrop culture. We had to build a more inclusive culture because we were going to be bringing on a lot of other companies and countries.”

Burbage leaves as Lockheed’s executive vice president and general manager of program integration for the F-35, but he spent most of his time with the program interacting with the eight partner nations that support the program. He feels confident he is leaving the program’s international aspects at a high note.

“The program’s in a different point and time now” than when it started, Burbage said. “The partners are much more mature in both their industry participation and in their plans.”

Burbage reiterated that he did not expect another final assembly and check out (FACO) facility to be built aside from the facility in Italy and the proposed FACO in Japan, which he said would be operated by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

While he acknowledged the decision to develop the F-35 as a joint program with a number of partners led to complications, Burbage stood by the decision as the right one for the jet — but offered some advice on how to do things differently.

“If you’re thinking about doing a large sixth gen, or a large military project that involves multiple companies and maybe multiple countries, take a hard look at F-35 because there were some hard lessons that were learned there,” Burbage said.

“Whoever is on the primary team, you want to have them all on the same set of tools when you start,” he said. Numbers of systems, designed for a variety of companies trying to talk to each other in different languages, won’t work. A future project needs to make sure they are all using the same systems from the very start.

“It took us a while to get to that on the program,” he said.

He also said a joint program needs to fully understand what restrictions there are from an International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) perspective.

“Historically, we always built the airplane and sold it through FMS channels,” Burbage said. “On this program, up front, we had to figure out how do you involve industry early on and how does the system work.

“It’s hard to sustain a vision of a new order of things over a long period of time,” Burbage said, and noted that the program has been heavily impacted due to geopolitical events outside its control.

“Who would have predicted a Eurozone crisis for all the international partners in Europe? Who would have predicted the shift to the Middle East and the pivot to the Pacific?”

The focus on Asia has “actually had a pretty big effect” on the JSF program as a whole, leading to two new partners in Japan and, potentially, South Korea.

“Those countries, by the way, are bigger quantity buyers than almost every one of the European buyers, so as they do come online they can help on this production,” Burbage noted.

When asked how far behind schedule the program was, Burbage said it depended on what metric is used. If judged by initial operating capability (IOC), the program is five years behind where it was originally scheduled, with IOC on the Marine’s jump-jet F-35B model scheduled for 2015. If judged by the delivery of low-rate initial production lots, Burbage said, the program is about a year or two behind initial schedules.

However, he insisted that judging the program by the seven-year delay to full-rate production is a mistake because of the massive restructuring in the program that took place in 2010.

“I would argue the program post-2010 is not the program pre-2010, modified slightly. It’s really a new program,” Burbage said, and noted that since then milestones have “generally” been met. “The program is so big that a small bump in the road is a big bump in the road,” he said.

“It’s a tough program. It’s technically a very challenging program. This airplane is going to have the capabilities that can transform the joint coalition operational model, and it’s going to be effective for a long time.”

[Austin]

F-35A Cost Per Flying Hour Exceeds F-16 by 10%

Seems like Boeing is smelling blood and wants its own pound of flesh on JSF saga

Boeing touts fighter jet to rival F-35 — at half the price

[NRao]

F-35A Cost Per Flying Hour Exceeds F-16 by 10%

Seems like Boeing is smelling blood and wants its own pound of flesh on JSF saga

Boeing touts fighter jet to rival F-35 — at half the price

Did bump into a Canadian who said two things: 1) "Canadian"s prefer a twin engine plane ALL the time (but he would not get into a discussion on why JSF - I took it to mean that it is a political decision) (Twin engines are needed especially for the northern territories of Canada, a single engined plane is just too dangerous) and 2) That no non-US plane will do for the simple reason that a lot of components for US planes are made in Canada. A F-18 is natural, he said, just because a lot of the plane is made in Canada. Besides they do operate the older versions of the F-18 even now.

He was expecting the F-18 E/F/G to replace the JSF. This was some months ago.

[Philip]

The best thing that can happen for the US's enemies is for the US to go ahead and buy the JSF at ultra high cost,for the sake of it being a US product.At current estimates of it being $130+M,with the final costs yet unknown and elastic,the PLAAF would be able to field 2 Flankers or 6 JF-17s or 4 J-10/FC-20s for the same cost.For an aircraft that cannot carry underwing munitions and remain "stealthy",and that has the same or inferior close combat capability than an F-16,it is going to ,as the Chinese say "live in interesting times"!.Here is the OZ report/Carlo Kopp on the same:

....The reality is that the “threat environment” the Joint Strike Fighter will confront in the Asia-Pacific is very different to the environment expected and envisaged when the Joint Strike Fighter was conceived during the early 1990s. There have been significant technological advances in two metre band counter stealth radar, passive emitter locating systems, infrared sensors and high power-aperture X-band phased array radars. Moreover, DRFM jammers are proliferating, and Flankers now have the option of towed decoys like the KEDR, both diminishing the effectiveness of the AIM-120 AMRAAM which is to arm the Joint Strike Fighter. For all practical purposes, technological evolution has rendered the concept of the Joint Strike Fighter obsolete before it has even completed Flight Test or entered full rate production. This is a clear case of failed technological strategy on the part of the Joint Strike Fighter planning staff. It is now abundantly clear that the Joint Strike Fighter is not going to be viable in Beyond Visual Range air combat, just as it was clear from the outset that it would never be a serious player in Within Visual Range air combat. Improvements in the capability and number of internally carried missiles will not turn this problem around, since the opposing sensor and weapons capabilities will continue to evolve over time. The remarkable claims about Joint Strike Fighter air combat performance made recently by the program executives and manufacturer's public relations staff can be explained only if the cited simulations were conducted against 1980s Sukhoi variants, devoid of the capabilities of contemporary and future Flanker variants. As such these claims clearly lack analytical rigour and cannot be taken seriously.

The RAND presentation's observation that the Joint Strike Fighter is “double inferior” to the Flanker in close combat is an unavoidable reality of the Joint Strike Fighter's inferior speed, acceleration, combat thrust to weight ratio, and much higher effective wing (ie lifting area) loading.

At present time the only air to air missile payload planned for the Joint Strike Fighter before 2018 is a pair of internally carried AIM-120 AMRAAM Beyond Visual Range missiles. British Joint Strike Fighter's are to have the option of carrying the ASRAAM Within Visual Range missile instead.

In close combat the best the Joint Strike Fighter can achieve against any Flanker is parity, or a 1:1 exchange ratio – trading one Joint Strike Fighter for every Flanker killed. This is as generous an assessment as is possible, given what we know about the Joint Strike Fighter's aerodynamic performance inferiority relative to the Flanker.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-08.html
last updated 29/3/13

[NRao]

Shivering.

Heard the USAF is looking into the Su-35US. They come cheap and with Israeli gadgets should be able to grow some fangs too.

(The real question is will the Chinese aircrafts even be able to take-off. The IAF just conducted a successful dual front exercise and were happy with it and the USAF + USN has to be scared of these yahoos - including that down under guy? Just asking.)

Is china done stealing yet?

[Viv S]

The best thing that can happen for the US's enemies is for the US to go ahead and buy the JSF at ultra high cost,for the sake of it being a US product.At current estimates of it being $130+M,with the final costs yet unknown and elastic,the PLAAF would be able to field 2 Flankers or 6 JF-17s or 4 J-10/FC-20s for the same cost.For an aircraft that cannot carry underwing munitions and remain "stealthy",and that has the same or inferior close combat capability than an F-16,it is going to ,as the Chinese say "live in interesting times"!.

A F-35 will beat 2 Flankers or 6 JF-17s or 4 J-10/FC-20s in air combat hands down. As for close combat, the F-16 is more agile in a clean configuration but the F-35 has taken the HMS + HOBS combination to an unprecedented level with the DAS and VSI-HMDS. The F-35 pilot unlike his counterpart in an F-16 or J-10, does not have to 'aim' his aircraft, regardless of orientation of the threat.

Here is the OZ report/Carlo Kopp on the same:

As usual Carlo Kopp's 'opinions' have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

With regard to the efficacy of the aircraft vis-a-vis new age sensors; it hasn't stopped Russian and Chinese fifth generation programs or scuttled the plans for the same in India, Japan or Turkey. Nor has it stopped Mr Kopp from harping on for the RAAF to acquire the F-22 (despite the fact that its neither in production nor available for export).

With regard to close combat, he is again either ignorant of, or deliberately overlooks the potency that the F-35's DAS and HMDS bring to the mix.

[Singha]

low key munnas like the denmark, dutch, norway who operate F-16 and do not expect to take a serious war head on will wait for the JSF, but their purchases will be very low.
UK will buy a few for the carriers and stop it there - very moderate nos
italy might buy a few to replace the harriers on cavour and LPD ships - small nos

korea could go for more F_15SK, singapore for more F_15SG .. korea is smart and has their own 5th gen proj

that leaves only 3 cash rich munnas to amortize this thing overseas - taiwan (whose F16 and M2K are getting old), japan (whose F1, F15 are way behind the leading edge and have apparently not been upgraded much) and saudi arabia(they just ordered 75 F-15E & N typhoons so will take a while)

[Aditya_V]

Singha-> Saudis might be cash rich but just one year back they ordered new F-15 E's and upgrading old ones under USD 30 Billion Contract. That leaves 232 AESA equipped F-15E's, Isreal has already warned its in danger. Doubt there will be any F-35 announcements to Saudi until 2018 or so

[Singha]

Exactly . Ksa has no room to make up the slack right now with a huge order to make up for the deserters.

So unit costs will rise and peoduction rate remain less than initial expectation.

Us will also work hard to sabotage the soko and japan 5th gen programs....these are big cash rich markets.

[Austin]

Gen. Bogdan's JSF Security Doubts

[Austin]

Gives a broad perspective on JSF Program from all sides and stake holders of the program

[Philip]

What price the "turkey" now? $150M a plate?

[Singha]

$150M will get you the boiled turkey but no spices, gravy, sides.

my expectation of a loaded "meal" plate remains around $250 mil. if you think about it a decade ago thats how much a 6000t DDG used to cost.

people will be buying orders like 20-30 of JSF based on their financial means.

[Austin]

Cost of JSF are variable quoted depending on which LOT one is talking about the cost is between $223 - $146 million

Check this article
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... $223m.html

I think eventually the cost of JSF will stabalise to ~ $150 million per aircraft looking at the huge numbers that are planned to be procured and over a period of time cost reduction measures put into the program. Export model appropriately downgraded will cost less compared to top end model in USAF which end up costing more.

Eventually the cost will keep rising as military inflation and electronics,engine,weapons starts getting expensive.

Ditto for PAK-FA/FGFA program eventually the cost would be around $150 - 180 million.

I think life cycle cost of JSF would end up being lower by virtue of being a single engine fighter requiring lower maintenance hours and fuel consumption.

Bang to Buck would be a debatable one as every side would praise the virtue of its aircraft , so lets leave that aside.

IIRC when we first procured Su-30 in late 90's the cost of each aircraft was around Rs 150 crores ...today more than a decade later it costs around 500-600 crore ....gives you an idea how military inflation cost and procurement cost rises over period of time even when you end up building them locally with locally sourced raw material.

[wig]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... chine.html

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: simply a phenomenal flying machine - Last week Con Coughlin became the first British journalist to see a British pilot conduct a perfect test landing of Britain's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Here he describes an aircraft that is set to become one of Britain’s leading strike fighters for the next generation

excerpts

“This aircraft is light years ahead of the Harrier in terms of what it can do,” said Peter Wilson, 47, the British test pilot who conducted the landing. A veteran Harrier pilot who has flown combat missions in Iraq, Bosnia and Sierra Leone, Mr Wilson, who is now one of Britain’s leading test pilots, said the Harrier was a difficult plane to fly, and required immense skill on the part of the pilot to conduct vertical landings. “We have learnt our lessons and the F-35 has all the Harriers faults designed out of it,” said Mr Wilson, from Whalley, Lancs.

A key element in the versatility of the Harriers, which played a vital role in the campaign to liberate the Falkland Islands and more recently saw action in Iraq and Afghanistan, was their ability to make vertical landings in the most challenging conditions, whether on the deck of an aircraft carrier in a driving gale or at a remote desert airstrip.

[Austin]

IN FOCUS: Lockheed claims F-35 kinematics ‘better than or equal to’ Typhoon or Super Hornet

[Singha]

they should prove this claim in two modes at the paris airshow - internal carriage, some external weapons.

[Austin]

USAF estimates F-35 will cost $32,000 per hour to operate

The US Air Force estimates that the Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighter will cost about $32,000 per flying hour to operate, the service's top uniformed official says.

"I think we've normalised to a couple of numbers now, about $25,000 per flying hour for the [Lockheed] F-16 C/D model and about $32,000 roughly for the F-35," says USAF chief of staff Gen Mark Welsh. "That number may continue to adjust itself slightly as we decide what factors are in or not, but that gives us an idea now."

The cost numbers have come down from original estimates, Welsh says, and as the USAF gains more experience in operating the F-35 it will glean a better understanding of the type's long-term operating costs.

Welsh cautions, however, that the aircraft is not yet flying operationally-representative sorties. "We're not flying in a fully operational mode yet, it's still in test," he says. "We're just starting our training programmes, so that data has to mature. Just like every airplane programme that has a projected cost for support and sustainment, we don't really know until we support and sustain it for a while."

There remains some maintenance equipment that needs to complete development, such the F-35's autonomic logistics information system.

"Some of the equipment that will help with that process is still being developed, and once we get more fidelity on that over the next couple of years I think we'll have a much better feel for what the airplane's going to cost," Welsh says.

[Philip]

Any idea Austin of operating costs of other competitive aircraft like the Rafale and the Flanker?

[Brando]

^^ All you answers can be found here: http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operati ... ters-janes and http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.in/2012/ ... o-fly.html

According to Jane's estimates : Typhoon~$18,000 ; Rafale ~$16,500.

Su-30MK estimated to be ~$30,000 ish, so the MKI will be higher than that number.

[ramana]

Too heavy and too slow

The Pentagon's pursuit of the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter jet has been a heartbreaking one. If you're a taxpayer, the program's estimated $1 trillion price tag probably breaks your heart a little bit. If you're an aviation enthusiast, the constant whittling away of the do-it-all aircraft's features, which in many cases actually amounts to adding weight and taking away maneuverability, must hurt a little bit too.

If you're just an everyday American, though, you should be downright shattered that after a decade and a fortune spent, the F-35 will actually be more vulnerable than the aircraft it's replacing. At this point, the Pentagon is literally rewriting its rule book so that the dumbed-down superjet will pass muster.

The Defense Department's annual weapons-testing report reveals that the military actually adjusted the performance specifications for the consistently underperforming line of F-35 fighter jets. In other words, they couldn't get the jets to do what they were supposed to do, so they just changed what they were supposed to do.

"The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by eight seconds," reads the report drafted under J. Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation. (The F-35A is the standard model, so to speak, that the Air Force will use. The line also includes the F-35B, the Harrier-like vertical-landing version built for the Marines, and the F-35C, a Navy version that's optimized for aircraft-carrier takeoffs and landings.)