JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
Meanwhile,
'Workhorse' becomes first F-35 to achieve 1,000 flight hours
6/18/2014 - EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- AF-2, the second production F-35 Lightning II for the U.S. Air Force, became the first F-35 to reach 1,000 flight hours.
"AF-2 is the 'Pull G's jet.' It was the first aircraft to hit plus-nine-G and negative-three-G and to roll at design-load factor. In addition, AF-2 is the first F-35A to intentionally fly in significant airframe buffet at all angles of attack," said Thompson.
Both AF-2 and AF-1 ferried to Edwards from the Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth, Texas, May 17, 2010.
_________________
1000 hours in 4 years flat. 250 hours/year.
'Workhorse' becomes first F-35 to achieve 1,000 flight hours
6/18/2014 - EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- AF-2, the second production F-35 Lightning II for the U.S. Air Force, became the first F-35 to reach 1,000 flight hours.
"AF-2 is the 'Pull G's jet.' It was the first aircraft to hit plus-nine-G and negative-three-G and to roll at design-load factor. In addition, AF-2 is the first F-35A to intentionally fly in significant airframe buffet at all angles of attack," said Thompson.
Both AF-2 and AF-1 ferried to Edwards from the Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth, Texas, May 17, 2010.
_________________
1000 hours in 4 years flat. 250 hours/year.
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
Seems its a bad time for 5th generation jets 
F-35 catches fire on runway

F-35 catches fire on runway
On the flip side, the first likely type A issue in 15,000+ hours of flying. That is much better compared to any other US fighter development program including the F-22, F-16 etcEGLIN AFB — An F-35 fighter jet caught on fire during takeoff on Monday morning.
The pilot noticed the fire in the back of the airplane about 9:15 a.m. and aborted the flight while still on the runway at Eglin Air Force Base.
The pilot was safely able to shut down the engine and get out of the plane and no one was injured, said Navy Lt. Hope Cronin, a spokeswoman for the 33rd Fighter Wing.
“He went through all the proper processes and procedures for a ground emergency,” Cronin said. “That’s something we go through in training and something we need to be prepared for in any aviation environment.”
Firefighters were able to put the fire out using fire suppressing foam.
The F-35 is the military’s newest fighter jet and is still under development.
The Air Force, Marines and Navy all have versions of the plane at Eglin.
An Air Force version currently costs $98 million, according to Lockheed Martin.
The extent of damage to the plane involved in Monday’s accident was still being assessed, but Cronin said the fire was significant.
All Air Force F-35 flights at Eglin have been suspended while the cause of the fire is investigated, she said.
The Air Force has a fleet of 26 F-35s at Eglin.
“We take all ground emergencies seriously,” said Navy Capt. Paul Haas, vice commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin in a statement released after the accident. “We have a robust and extensive training program in which every pilot and aircraft crew member is trained in order to respond quickly and correctly in the event emergencies occur.”
Cronin said more information will be released as it becomes available.
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
Fire Breaks Out on F-35 at Eglin Air Force Base, Pilot Safe
A Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was severely damaged — possibly destroyed — in a Monday morning fire on the runway at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., USNI News learned.
No injuries were reported and officials have begun an investigation into the incident, defense officials told USNI News on Monday.
“The aircraft was preparing to conduct a continuation training mission at the time of the incident, but aborted during takeoff at Eglin Air Force Base due to a fire in the back end of the aircraft,” according to a Monday statement provided to USNI News from the Air Force.
“Emergency responders extinguished the fire with foam.”
The aircraft was a F-35A — the Air Force variant of the fighter — assigned to the 33rd “Nomads” Fighter Wing. The wing is schoolhouse for all versions of the JSF and trains sailors, airmen and Marines.
“We have a robust and extensive training program in which every pilot and aircraft crew member is trained in order to respond quickly and correctly in the event emergencies occur,” said U.S. Navy Capt. Paul Haas, the 33rd Wing vice commander in the statement.
“In this case, the pilot followed the appropriate procedures which allowed for the safe abort of the mission, engine shutdown, and egress.”
The base had trained for a F-35 ground fire as recently as mid-May, according to a separate release from Eglin.
“We are aware of the event at Eglin AFB today involving an F-35A aircraft. The aircraft is in the very capable hands of the 33rd Fighter Wing,” a Lockheed Martin spokeswoman said in a statement to USNI News.
“Lockheed Martin informed the wing that we are available for assistance upon request.”
This is the first incident this severe for the JSF during the life of the tri-service program.
There are currently 104 Joint Strike Fighters in the U.S. inventory — split between U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps variants, according to information from Lockheed.
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
If one remembers some of my earlier posts,from the GAO/Congressional reports with Gen.Bogged-down ,the issue of spar failures and cracks that were increasing was a worrying issue and that if it happened during a sortie would be catastrophic.A structural failure could've been responsible as the catalyst for the fire,or the oil-flow issue in the report. A pity ,but par for the course with developing new aircraft.
Some time ago we had a report about how an LCA test pilot saved his aircraft which had a tech failure.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... -Eglin-AFB
F’d: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was meant to improve the U.S. air arsenal but has made it more vulnerable instead.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how ... 95d45f86a5
Xcpt reg. JSF engine,Bogdan:
Some time ago we had a report about how an LCA test pilot saved his aircraft which had a tech failure.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... -Eglin-AFB
Worth going through Axe's Aug 2013 article again on the entire issue.WASHINGTON — A US Air Force F-35 Joint Strike Fighter caught fire when attempting to take off from a Florida Air Force base Monday morning, Pentagon officials said.
The plane, which is assigned to the 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin Air Force Base, the unit that trains F-35 pilots for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and international militaries, experienced a fire in the aft end of the aircraft, according to an Air Force statement.
The pilot successfully shut down the plane and escaped unharmed, an F-35 program spokeswoman said. The fire was extinguished with foam by a ground crew.
Officials were assessing the damage and looking for the cause of the fire, the spokeswoman said.
“We take all ground emergencies seriously,” US Navy Capt. Paul Haas, 33rd Fighter Wing vice commander, said in a statement.
“In this case, the pilot followed the appropriate procedures which allowed for the safe abort of the mission, engine shutdown, and egress. We have a robust and extensive training program in which every pilot and aircraft crew member is trained, in order to respond quickly and correctly in the event emergencies occur.”
Mike Rein, a spokesman for aircraft-maker Lockheed Martin, said the company is “keenly aware” of the situation and is prepared to “assist in any way” requested by the Air Force. A spokesman for engine-maker Pratt & Whitney said: “We are aware of this incident at Eglin AFB. Pratt & Whitney stands ready to assist the 33rd Fighter Wing in its investigation.”
The fire is the second major incident experienced by the program in recent weeks. Test flights were temporarily halted on June 13 for inspections of an oil flow management valve fitting inside the engine.
No F-35s have been destroyed since production began in 2006. Lockheed has delivered more than 100 F-35s since then.
The aircraft are being used for operational testing and pilot training only. The Marine Corps is expected to declare its version of the aircraft battle-ready next year.
The F-35 cost between $98 million for an Air Force variant and $116 million for a Navy version, according to Lockheed data. A Marine Corps version cost $104 million.■
F’d: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was meant to improve the U.S. air arsenal but has made it more vulnerable instead.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how ... 95d45f86a5
Xcpt reg. JSF engine,Bogdan:
But more troubling to Bogdan was the $4.3 billion cost increase of the Pratt & Whitney-built F135 engine, which powers the jet.
“We had a price curve for the engine. We thought we knew how much it was going to cost to build each engine,” Bogdan said. “Pratt’s not meeting their commitment. It’s as simple as that.”
Bogdan said Pratt assured the Pentagon “years ago that the engine was going to come down at a certain rate in terms of price. And they haven’t met it.”
“Some of their business base has dried up and other programs, projects, engines, both commercially and militarily,” he said. “And what they’re doing is they’re spreading their overhead costs and they’re spreading them right where they can. And I don’t like that.”
F135 engine cost estimate have increased $9 billion over the last three years, according to DoD documents. DoD split the F-35 aircraft itself and the engine into separate program lines in its 2011 SAR.
“Contractors are slow to shed costs when their business base changes,” Bogdan said. “They just leave people on too long and they spread those costs elsewhere.”
Bogdan said he was not advocating for Pratt and Lockheed to fire employees, but said, “they ought to rationalize their business base, with their overhead.”
Pratt & Whitney, through a spokesman, said it is “committed to delivering an affordable F135 propulsion system” for the F-35.
“We have a very aggressive cost reduction program in place,” the spokesman said. “We have invested more than $65 million into ‘War on Cost’ activities and reduced the cost of the F135 engine by more than 40 percent. We are pursuing cost reductions in every aspect of the program, including supply chain, configuration changes, process improvements and overhead.
“The key factor in driving down cost, however, is to increase the ramp rate,” he continued. “Delays in procurement have an effect on costs. We need production program stability in order to meet the cost objectives on the program.”
The SAR projects the total cost of the F-35 program through 2065. That includes 32 years of production and 55 years of support.
“This is really a tricky business when you try to project costs out that far,” Bogdan said.
The total cost of the program — which is based on 2,443 US aircraft — is now pegged at $1.4 trillion. That number includes the combined acquisition and development cost of the aircraft, which is now estimated at $398.6 billion. The pure sustainment estimate is just over $1 trillion.
But Bogdan said his office has more recent testing data and projects the sustainment costs much lower, at $917 billion.
Last edited by Philip on 24 Jun 2014 10:52, edited 1 time in total.
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
There has been no reason found for the current incident. Its going to take some time to find it out. Issues occur in developmental aircraft. Its rather surprising that the F-35 from a safety point of view has been much ahead of most other development projects including the F-22 which it followed. If this indeed is a Class A incident its the first one of its kind for a program that has delivered more than 100 aircraft and has clocked more than 15,000 flight hours including pushing the aircraft in high AOA and high G testing as well as handing over the jet for training to operational pilots at the squadron levelIf one remembers some of my earlier posts,from the GAO/Congressional reports with Gen.Bogged-down ,the issue of spar failures and cracks that were increasing was a worrying issue and that if it happened during a sortie would be catastrophic.A structural failure could've been responsible as the catalyst for the fire. A pity ,but par for the course with developing new aircraft.
Some time ago we had a report about how an LCA test pilot saved his aircraft which had a tech failure.
There is no reason to go over this rubbish article which has been rebutted point by point on all fronts.Worth going through Axe's Aug 2013 article again on the entire issue
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
The "rubbish article" has quotes from individuals ,aviation experts,who are anything but rubbish.GAO,Pentagon reports support worries about development delays and costs.Proof of the pudding is in the product.
http://f35baddeal.com/recent-posts/page/5/
http://f35baddeal.com/recent-posts/page/5/
When the J.S.F. program formally got under way, in October 2001, the Department of Defense unveiled plans to buy 2,852 of the airplanes in a contract worth an estimated $233 billion. It promised that the first squadrons of high-tech fighters would be “combat-capable” by 2010. The aircraft is at least seven years behind schedule and plagued by a risky development strategy, shoddy management, laissez-faire oversight, countless design flaws, and skyrocketing costs. The Pentagon will now be spending 70 percent more money for 409 fewer fighters—and that’s just to buy the hardware, not to fly and maintain it, which is even more expensive. “You can understand why many people are very, very skeptical about the program,” Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, who has been in charge of it since last December, acknowledged when I caught up with him recently in Norway, one of 10 other nations that have committed to buy the fighter. “I can’t change where the program’s been. I can only change where it’s going.”
Last edited by Philip on 24 Jun 2014 11:10, edited 1 time in total.
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
For operational aircraft as well. An F-16 was lost this year due to an engine failure resulting in a fire. When you have more than 100 aircraft flying and more being added every month, you are bound to have statistics catch up to you even though your safety record has been stellar compared to previous efforts to develop a fighter, and this despite the fact that you are doing something that is many times more dangerous ( more than 500 STOVL vertical landings).A pity ,but par for the course with developing new aircraft.
Its not the content but the interpretation. As has been rebutted point by point all over the internet. GAO and DOTE reports reflect a transitional phase in the program. As has been demonstrated in the past, by the time these reports were published and by the time media picked these reports up to selectively quote certain things the program had long overcome the challenges being spoken off. As was the example of the Aim-120 AMRAAM launch ability. By the time the cry was presented in the media the F-35 had lauded the Aim-120 and had demonstrated targeting using its radar and other sensors to cue the Aim-120. Yet that aspect would continue to be selectively quoted years from now even. Same goes for the carrier landing aspect. It cannot trap based on a tail hook redesign which was partly the fault of the USN because they gave the wrong parameters to the F-35 program (this happened to the X-47 program as well)..Meanwhile while the bashers continue to bash the F-35C's ability to land on a carrier because it cannot do so because of a faulty hook the redesigned hook has demonstrated multiple landings on the ground and is well on its way to DT testing onboard a real carrier out at sea. I can go on and on about selectively quoting issues from transient testing reports and GAO publications which by there nature are TIME bound/limited and do not apply to the program forever.The "rubbish article" has quotes from individuals ,aviation experts,who are anything but rubbish.GAO,Pentagon reports support worries about development delays and costs.
Back to the same old same old. Taking an activism blog that by its title reeks of an agenda and selectively quoting what the program point man said "once". However the bottom line is at the macro level the F-35 is going to cost as per estimates 75-80 million per airframe (A) as per the same man selectively quoted by the article from the blog. That price compares quite favorable to designs that are half a generation older to the F-35.
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
Good that they didAustin wrote:The base had trained for a F-35 ground fire as recently as mid-May, according to a separate release from Eglin.

Some pictures from F-35 ground fire training




Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
http://news.usni.org/2014/06/24/eglin-f ... plane-fire“Flights for the F-35A CTOL [conventional takeoff and landing] aircraft are temporarily suspended today,” said 1st Lt. Hope Cronin, a public relations officer for the 33rd Fighter Wing. “The F-35Bs and F-35Cs are on a weather pause at this time as Florida weather is rather disagreeable at the moment.”
The rest of the F-35A fleet is flying however according to Joint Program Office spokesman Joe DellaVedova. “Experts are working root cause,” he said.
The fact that the F-35A fleet is still flying suggests that a design flaw is not suspected as a cause of the fire.
This is the first incident this severe for the JSF during the life of the tri-service program.
There are currently 104 Joint Strike Fighters in the U.S. inventory — split between U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy and U.S.
Marine Corps variants, according to information from Lockheed.
Eglin — located on the Florida panhandle — is the home the training centers for pilots and maintainers for all three U.S. variants of the JSF as well as international variants.
The 33rd was designated as the F-35 schoolhouse in 2009 and received its first F-35 in 2011. The wing is set to receive an estimated 59 aircraft by 2018.
The wing is part of the larger F-35 Integrated Training Center which plans to have annual output of 100 pilots and 2,100 by 2018.
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
Jun 23, 2014 :: Australia reveals interest in F-35B
Australian defence chiefs have told a hearing of the Senate’s Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation committee that Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s coalition government is considering whether to acquire a number of short take-off and vertical landing Lockheed Martin F-35Bs.
Canberra confirmed in April it will acquire 58 F-35A Lightning IIs for the Royal Australian Air Force under Project Air 6000 Phase 2A/2B, adding to the 14 already on order to replace the RAAF's Boeing F/A-18A/B "classic" Hornet fleet.
Australia has long-stated a requirement for 100 air combat aircraft. However, because it acquired 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets in 2009-2010 as a bridging capability between the retirement of the General Dynamics F-111C and the introduction of the F-35A, it has deferred a decision on Phase 2C of the project until the early- to mid-2020s.
The F-35B proposal is being pushed by Abbott’s office, and if acquired the aircraft would be fielded from the Royal Australian Navy’s two new LHD-class vessels – the first of which is to be commissioned as HMAS Canberra later this year.
“There has been a White Paper evolving for a while,” chief of the defence force Gen David Hurley said in response to opposition defence spokesman Senator Stephen Conroy. “The prime minister has a view about a capability that he thinks might be relevant to the ADF [Australian Defence Force]. He has asked us to look at that.
"We have a process in place at the moment that depending where we come out on that process, we would then go into all of those technical decisions about the nature of ship and force structure implications for the ADF.”
The two 27,000t LHDs currently under construction in Melbourne, Victoria are based on Spain’s King Juan Carlos 1 (L-61) vessel, built by Navantia. When ordered, the LHDs were intended for amphibious and regional humanitarian assistance missions. They have capacity for a battalion of troops, up to 100 vehicles, four large amphibious watercraft and a dozen or more helicopters to be embarked for such missions.
There has long been an intention to conduct operational ‘cross-decking’ operations with US Marine Corps and UK Royal Navy fixed and rotary-wing aircraft. However, in lieu of a planned Force Posture Review and new defence White Paper being finalised for release in early 2015, there are currently no guiding policy documents or stated strategic imperatives for Australia to pursue the option of acquiring F-35Bs and to operate these vessels as fixed wing aircraft carriers.
HMAS Canberra will be followed by HMAS Adelaide in 2016.
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
JSF Fire Looks Like ‘Isolated Event’; F-35Bs Should Fly Tomorrow
So lets do the entire CONCURRENCY MATH ONCE MORE. Total aircraft produced 300+ Concurrency cost 1.65 billion and coming down , per aircraft concurrency cost around 5.5 million dollars or between 2-3% of the cost of the early build jets. Concurrency cost for the last 3-4 LOTS is less then 1 million dollar per aircraft.
This data can be compared to concurrency data from the F-16 program and I am willing to bet that percentage wise the costs would be about the same. Only difference would be that around 350 aircraft are a part of the F-35 concurrency and most of these are minor concurrency changes especially in the LOT 7, 8, 9 and 10, while in the F-16 the first 1000 F-16's (+) required concurrency (eventually not all received it).
Those that would have to spend the money hate it (Frank Kendell) but the advantages of concurrency are well laid out. A lower acquisition cost, a faster ramp up in production and a better grip on the program cost as the jet matures into development and testing. Just go back and see the entire uproar that was created for so little expenditure (as a percentage of total expenditure). As things stand concurrency costs in the program represent .....* wait for it * ...0.4% of the total acquisition cost of the 2000+ F-35's
Lockheed F-35 Upgrades Cost $920 Million Less, U.S. SaysThe fire that struck an Air Force F-35A as it took of from Eglin Air Force Base should have limited operational effect on the Joint Strike Fighter program if initial conclusions by program officials are accurate..
The Air Force has paused its aircrafts’ flights. The Navy did not. The Marines also “paused” and are expected to get back into the air tomorrow.
“USMC leadership elected to exercise one day of operational pause at F-35B site locations; we expect F-35B flight ops to resume tomorrow,” a program official said. Air Force leadership is evaluating the issue. Air Combat Command will decide for the production aircraft; Air Education Training Command will decide for training aircraft. We’ve pinged ACC and will update when we hear from them.
The incident is almost certain to be declared a Class A mishap as any damage to the stealth coating is sure to be larger than $2 million. The act of putting out the fire will almost certainly have damaged the plane’s stealthy skin. The program does not yet have an initial damage assessment.
In the meantime, authorities are choosing subject matter experts who will make up the Safety Investigation (SIB) and Accident Investigation boards (AIB) to identify the accident’s causes and any measures need to protect the fleet and its pilots.
The SIB should convene “within days” and is expected to produce an assessment within 30 days.The AIB, said a program official, will begin “its investigation as soon as it can do so without interfering in the SIB investigation.” It should be done in 60 to 90 days. Unless there are classified or personnel issues most of the reports should be released.
“Initial indications from the field suggest that this is an isolated incident,” the program official said.
The projected cost to upgrade F-35 jets built by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) has declined by about $920 million, or 36 percent, in less than two years, according to the Pentagon’s latest analysis.
The estimate for improvements and corrections for aircraft already built or planned in the first 10 contracts to be awarded through 2016 has dropped to about $1.65 billion from a $2.57 billion estimate in September 2012, the Pentagon said in an annual assessment to Congress. The projection is $100 million less than the one made last year.
The need to retrofit the planes stems from the Defense Department’s decision to produce the F-35, the costliest weapons system, even as it’s still being developed. The Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer has criticized that approach, known as concurrency.
“Putting the F-35 into production years before the first flight test was acquisition malpractice,” Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, said in a 2012 industry presentation. “It should not have been done. But we did it.”
Kendall signed the latest report showing success in reducing the projected cost of upgrades.
Since the submission of the original report, Lockheed Martin (LM) has worked collaboratively with the F-35 JPO to implement a joint concurrency management system. This system reduces the length oftime required to implement a change into the production line, thereby reducing the number of aircraft needing future modification. An example of successful implementation ofthe concurrency management system can be seen in the Panoramic Cockpit Display- Electronic Unit change incorporation, where acceleration prevented the need to retrofit 62 U.S. aircraft after delivery. The system records meaningful information on the status and progression ofdiscovered technical issues and change requests. It includes monthly delivery of metrics to demonstrate change incorporation process improvement over the remainder of the program, and it tracks all change requests in both production incorporation and retrofit modification. ThejointJPO-LMConcurrencyManagementTeammeetsmonthlytoreview these metrics and assess additional improvements to the concurrency management system.
Contract actions are also in place to reduce concurrency costs to the Government. In addition to the LRIP 5 contract, the LRIP 6 and 7 contracts contain clauses that implement 50/50 cost sharing with no fee for concurrency changes known prior to contract award that will not be incorporated until after aircraft delivery. This cost-sharing approach is intended to motivate LM to incorporate concurrency changes as quickly as possible on the production line.
So lets do the entire CONCURRENCY MATH ONCE MORE. Total aircraft produced 300+ Concurrency cost 1.65 billion and coming down , per aircraft concurrency cost around 5.5 million dollars or between 2-3% of the cost of the early build jets. Concurrency cost for the last 3-4 LOTS is less then 1 million dollar per aircraft.
This data can be compared to concurrency data from the F-16 program and I am willing to bet that percentage wise the costs would be about the same. Only difference would be that around 350 aircraft are a part of the F-35 concurrency and most of these are minor concurrency changes especially in the LOT 7, 8, 9 and 10, while in the F-16 the first 1000 F-16's (+) required concurrency (eventually not all received it).
Those that would have to spend the money hate it (Frank Kendell) but the advantages of concurrency are well laid out. A lower acquisition cost, a faster ramp up in production and a better grip on the program cost as the jet matures into development and testing. Just go back and see the entire uproar that was created for so little expenditure (as a percentage of total expenditure). As things stand concurrency costs in the program represent .....* wait for it * ...0.4% of the total acquisition cost of the 2000+ F-35's
Last edited by brar_w on 25 Jun 2014 17:26, edited 1 time in total.
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
JSF fire update.No design flaw thought.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva= ... 5634dbb06c
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva= ... 5634dbb06c
Published: June 24,
Staff Sgt. Matthew Reed provides oversight for Staff Sgt. Mark Freeman, 33rd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, during hot pit refueling at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. US Air Force Photo
Staff Sgt. Matthew Reed provides oversight for Staff Sgt. Mark Freeman, 33rd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, during hot pit refueling at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. US Air Force Photo
Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighters at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, have temporarily suspended operations after a fire severely damaged an aircraft on take-off yesterday.
“Flights for the F-35A CTOL [conventional takeoff and landing] aircraft are temporarily suspended today,” said 1st Lt. Hope Cronin, a public relations officer for the 33rd Fighter Wing. “The F-35Bs and F-35Cs are on a weather pause at this time as Florida weather is rather disagreeable at the moment.”
The rest of the F-35A fleet is flying however according to Joint Program Office spokesman Joe DellaVedova. “Experts are working root cause,” he said.
The fact that the F-35A fleet is still flying suggests that a design flaw is not suspected as a cause of the fire.
This is the first incident this severe for the JSF during the life of the tri-service program.
There are currently 104 Joint Strike Fighters in the U.S. inventory — split between U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy and U.S.
Marine Corps variants, according to information from Lockheed.
Eglin — located on the Florida panhandle — is the home the training centers for pilots and maintainers for all three U.S. variants of the JSF as well as international variants.
The 33rd was designated as the F-35 schoolhouse in 2009 and received its first F-35 in 2011. The wing is set to receive an estimated 59 aircraft by 2018.
The wing is part of the larger F-35 Integrated Training Center which plans to have annual output of 100 pilots and 2,100 by 2018.
The JSF fleet was grounded earlier this month after a Marine variant of the aircraft suffered an engine oil leak in flight
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
Japan to deploy F-35 fighters at Misawa Air Base from FY 2017
Japan will be home to quite a bit 5th gen fighters. The USMC will deploy the F-35B to Japan starting Q 1 or Q2 2016, the USAF should also deploy to Japan in late 2016 or early 2017 while Japan IOC's its own f-35A's in 2017.Japan will begin deploying the next-generation F-35 fighter jets at its Misawa Air Base in Aomori Prefecture from fiscal 2017, Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera said Wednesday.
"We will coordinate with the U.S. side so local residents will not have to feel concerned," Onodera told Aomori Gov. Shingo Mimura, pledging efforts so that safety will be ensured, in a meeting in the city of Aomori.
Mimura requested Onodera take measures to prevent accidents or other incidents involving the aircraft that could endanger the public.
About 20 F-35 jets will be deployed at the Air Self-Defense Force'sMisawa base, the defense chief told reporters after the meeting.
The deployment plan for the stealth fighter aircraft was revealed following the launch of temporary operation in early June of U.S. Global Hawk surveillance drones at the U.S. Misawa base on the same site
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
Jun 18, 2014 :: Air Force Develops Threat Data Base for F-35
Joint Strike Fighter officials are developing a mission data system that can immediately tell pilots if they are flying against a MiG-29 or Su-27 or any other enemy fighter.
The system will serve as a computer library or data base of known threats and friendly aircraft in specific regions of the world, said Thomas Lawhead, operations lead for the JSF integration office.
The mission data packages, now being developed by the Air Force’s 53rd Wing are designed to accommodate new information as new threat data becomes available. The data base is loaded with a wide range of information to include commercial airliner information and specifics on Russian and Chinese fighter jets.
Without the mission data files and computer-driven sensor fusion of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, fighter pilots would have to simultaneously interpret and organize input from a range of different sensors including their radar warning receiver, Lawhead explained.
“You can think of the mission data as the memory that feeds the fusion engine to identify threats. It is the data which tells the aircraft whether something is a good guy or a bad guy,” said Col. Carl Schaefer, the Air Force’s top JSF integration official.
“A sensor receives input. Then, the aircraft’s fusion engine takes that input and fuses it with other input from other sensors. It then takes that information and balances it against the mission data. Based on that match it can tell you what the threat is,” he explained.
Sensors on the F-35 include the Active Electronically Scanned Array, or AESA, radar as well as a system called Distributed Aperture System, or DAS, which combines input from as many as six different electro-optical cameras on the aircraft.
The aircraft also draws upon a technology called Electro-optical Targeting System, or EOTS, which helps identify and pinpoint targets. EOTS, which does both air-to-air and air-to-ground targeting, is able to combine forward-looking infrared and infrared search and track technology.
Overall, information from all of the JSF sensors is “fused” through the aircraft’s computer, providing the pilot with clear, integrated information.
The Air Force is developing 12 different mission data files for 12 different geographic areas, Lawhead explained. The first four are slated to be ready by the time the service reaches its planned initial operating capability with the F-35A in August 2016.
“One of the ways we respond to emerging threats is through the mission data files. If we are going to a region of the world, we want to be able to understand what the threats are and make sure that all the data that we have on the bad guys of that area is fed into the mission data file,” Schaefer added.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 731
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
While the Rafale seems to be having $100 million+ unit cost , the $25-30 billion for 126 fighter mentioned recently seems to be more of entire life cycle cost.
Now the mention of F-35 being cheap does not seem to be correct
If i check the below link ,
http://defense-update.com/20140103_much ... 65sc_mSzZg
it mentions
For the Australian F-35 contract
http://www.smh.com.au/national/f35-join ... zs9po.html
Further going by the same yardstick as that used for Rafale (development cost + unit cost etc), then for F-35 we have
Source wiki
Now the mention of F-35 being cheap does not seem to be correct
If i check the below link ,
http://defense-update.com/20140103_much ... 65sc_mSzZg
it mentions
Also the mention of < $ 100 million price tag“The 2014 procurement cost for 19 F-35As will be $2.989 billion. However, we need to add to that the “long lead” money for the 2014 buy that was appropriated in 2013; that was $293 million, making a total of $3.282 billion for 19 aircraft in 2014. The math for unit cost comes to $172.7 million for each aircraft.
To be fully accurate, however, we should add the additional procurement money authorized for “modification of aircraft” for F-35As for 2014; that means $158 million more, bringing the total unit production cost to $181 million per copy.
For the Australian F-35 contract
http://www.smh.com.au/national/f35-join ... zs9po.html
So for 58 fighters the life cycle cost seems around $ 25 billion, so more than $ 430 million life cycle cost minimumadditional 58 F-35 Join Strike Fighter jets at a cost of $12.4 billion. It will cost another $12 billion to keep the fighters operational over their active lifetime. The 58 aircraft are an addition to the 14 F-35s Australia already had on order.
Further going by the same yardstick as that used for Rafale (development cost + unit cost etc), then for F-35 we have
Source wiki
Doesn't the Rafale seems cheaper than F-35 by a fair margin ?The United States is projected to spend an estimated $323 billion for development and procurement on the program, making it the most expensive defense program ever.[96] Testifying before a Canadian parliamentary committee in 2011, Rear Admiral Arne Røksund of Norway estimated that his country's 52 F-35 fighter jets will cost $769 million each over their operational lifetime.[97] The total life-cycle cost for the entire American fleet is estimated to be US$1.51 trillion over its 50-year life, or $618 million per plane.[98]
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
'Unit cost' doesn't mean anything. You have to distinguish between the flyaway cost, procurement cost, program cost and life-cycle cost.dhiraj wrote:While the Rafale seems to be having $100 million+ unit cost , the $25-30 billion for 126 fighter mentioned recently seems to be more of entire life cycle cost.
Now the mention of F-35 being cheap does not seem to be correct
If i check the below link ,
http://defense-update.com/20140103_much ... 65sc_mSzZg
FLYAWAY COST
The Rafale's unit flyaway cost is around $80-85 million (this is the cost to the French MoD).
The F-35's unit flyaway cost is currently around $115 million.
*But the F-35 is still in the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase. Production is currently around 35 aircraft per year. At full rate production that will jump to 125-150 aircraft per year. That'll be around 2018-19.*
At full production unit flyaway cost will be $75 million.
PROCUREMENT COST
F-35: Procurement cost will fall from $170M currently to about $120M at FRP.
Which again is competitive with the Rafale - €101M (or $120M minus VAT). 2010 figures. Refer here (look for 'Unit Production Cost').
That $12.4 billion figure is for a entire package including base refurbishment and weapons costs.Also the mention of < $ 100 million price tag
For the Australian F-35 contract
http://www.smh.com.au/national/f35-join ... zs9po.html
The current estimate for the life cycle cost of the F-35 is about $415 million each, exclusive of R&D costs (perhaps lower for the 'A' variant).Further going by the same yardstick as that used for Rafale (development cost + unit cost etc), then for F-35 we have
Source wikiDoesn't the Rafale seems cheaper than F-35 by a fair margin ?The United States is projected to spend an estimated $323 billion for development and procurement on the program, making it the most expensive defense program ever.[96] Testifying before a Canadian parliamentary committee in 2011, Rear Admiral Arne Røksund of Norway estimated that his country's 52 F-35 fighter jets will cost $769 million each over their operational lifetime.[97] The total life-cycle cost for the entire American fleet is estimated to be US$1.51 trillion over its 50-year life, or $618 million per plane.[98]
1.02 trillion over 2,443 aircraft. (link)
Last edited by Viv S on 28 Jun 2014 17:52, edited 1 time in total.
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
To Add to what Viv has said, the Life cycle cost figure is attempting to do something that has never been realistically done before (EVER). They are trying to calculate the cost to operate and sustain a fleet of nearly 2500 F-35's (3 different variants with the B variant skewing the cost slightly) over a 50+ year period while calculating everything from inflation in the defence industry, rise in wages at the military, defence contractor level and fuel costs per gallon from now to 2050 and beyond. T That the number has fallen consistently since the CAPE was first carried out and that it fell by as much by 9% just recently goes to show that there is massive over-estimation of the life cycle cost which is slowly being taken down as the testing matures and the models are updated on the cost front.
Concurrency costs are not added because they are different, and those are tiny compared to the overall cost to procure the jet. As mentioned above, they are 0.4% of the total F-35 procurement costs and they are only relevant to the first 10 LRIP blocks with very little concurrency work in the last 4 blocks.
As far as overall acquisition costs of the jet for air forces that went through the FMS route and that want everything that is normally associated with induction of a new type of fighter we have the South Korean deal to go by. South Korea is going to be paying approximately 160 million per F-35A (6.7 billion $ for 40 aircraft). That price includes training on the jet carried out by the USAF (standard for all FMS deals), Simulators, Spares, logistics, depot setup by industry and all costs associated with hardware and training that a new system induction comes with. South Korea begins to get delivery within the LRIP stage of the program.
The recurring flyaway cost of the F-35 in 2020 as per the SAR report published by the US Department of defense is roughly 76 million dollars per A variant.

Concurrency costs are not added because they are different, and those are tiny compared to the overall cost to procure the jet. As mentioned above, they are 0.4% of the total F-35 procurement costs and they are only relevant to the first 10 LRIP blocks with very little concurrency work in the last 4 blocks.
As far as overall acquisition costs of the jet for air forces that went through the FMS route and that want everything that is normally associated with induction of a new type of fighter we have the South Korean deal to go by. South Korea is going to be paying approximately 160 million per F-35A (6.7 billion $ for 40 aircraft). That price includes training on the jet carried out by the USAF (standard for all FMS deals), Simulators, Spares, logistics, depot setup by industry and all costs associated with hardware and training that a new system induction comes with. South Korea begins to get delivery within the LRIP stage of the program.
The recurring flyaway cost of the F-35 in 2020 as per the SAR report published by the US Department of defense is roughly 76 million dollars per A variant.

-
- BRFite
- Posts: 731
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
fine agreed and accepted all the F-35 numbers.
Now the question
If India plans to sign a 126 F-35 deal with US what will be the probable cost (like for ex for Australian AF it is around $ 25 billion for 58 F-35 as mentioned in the link provided in my previous post [12 for purchase and another $12 billion to keep the fighters operational over their active lifetime ]. Definitely we will not be getting any TOT so no point mentioning its cost.
How much of a price difference is observed in such a deal for Rafale vis-a-vis F-35.
Now the question

If India plans to sign a 126 F-35 deal with US what will be the probable cost (like for ex for Australian AF it is around $ 25 billion for 58 F-35 as mentioned in the link provided in my previous post [12 for purchase and another $12 billion to keep the fighters operational over their active lifetime ]. Definitely we will not be getting any TOT so no point mentioning its cost.
How much of a price difference is observed in such a deal for Rafale vis-a-vis F-35.
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
Do you know this for a fact? I would think it is the 'acquisition' cost.dhiraj wrote:While the Rafale seems to be having $100 million+ unit cost , the $25-30 billion for 126 fighter mentioned recently seems to be more of entire life cycle cost.
...
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
For any nation looking to jump on the F-35 program a simple FMS multiplication results in a price close to 20 Billion$ for a 120 aircraft deal. This is an FMS cost @ par with what South Korea paid, and this would include the aircraft, training (Pilot training in the US) logistics, simulators, spares etc. The basic stuff that follows every FMS sale and that ensures that not only is the aircraft procured but everything that is required from the vendor to induct and operate the jet is provided (barring any construction cost, or any infrastructure upgrade required at the host air force)If India plans to sign a 126 F-35 deal with US what will be the probable cost
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ea-384180/
This is obviously for a 'confidence level' bid that was presented years ago and upgraded in 2013. Any new deal (lets say with Singapore) would be adjusted based on the current projected cost figures for the F-35, which are looking much better then what they were when lockheed bid for the Korean competition. Another point to keep in mind is that under an FMS deal the US government buys the F-35 or whatever system and pays lockheed for it. The delivery is by the government and the government is also responsible for training etc. Therefore if the JPO negotiated cost per aircraft comes down, the value of the deal also comes down. This will hold true for the south Korean deal as well. Lockheed were only required to bid with what they could offer as a "BID" by definition means that this is the lowest lockheed would go. Lockheed could not sell the F-35's at a loss for they under FMS conditions cannot charge a price that is different from what the JPO pays for the F-35. Knowing that it is quite likely that the SAR estimated price of the jet may infect be "beaten" in reality at a notional future date, lockheed could not bid with that lower cost in mind. Of course if the cost actually does beat the SAR estimates the JPO would transfer the savings over to the government that ordered the jet.
Deliveries out into the future would realize a similar cost reduction as is indicated by the SAR chart I have posted above. Move closer to the larger production blocks and the cost would be lower.
This is not the case. Life cycle cost is borne by the operator. The IAF is not going to be paying Dassault for things like fuel. The reason why the Rafale deal is getting more and more expensive is (as per what is known in the media) due to technology transfer. Buying Rafales right off the production lines would cost around 100 million per aircraft or 12 billion for 120 aircraft plus whatever it costs to buy simulators, spares, logistics, and other hardware that has to be bought to induct a new fighter type into the air force.Do you know this for a fact? I would think it is the 'acquisition' cost
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 731
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
Is the $ 1 trillion cost of F 35 program also include the fuel cost.Quote:
Do you know this for a fact? I would think it is the 'acquisition' cost
This is not the case. Life cycle cost is borne by the operator. The IAF is not going to be paying Dassault for things like fuel.

On a lighter note the F 35 pilot needs to really plan speed , distance and fuel consumption to maintain the planned cost.

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
$12 billion is not the acquisition cost for the RAAF's F-35s. The figure includes base refurbishment and weapons costs.dhiraj wrote:fine agreed and accepted all the F-35 numbers.
Now the question
If India plans to sign a 126 F-35 deal with US what will be the probable cost (like for ex for Australian AF it is around $ 25 billion for 58 F-35 as mentioned in the link provided in my previous post [12 for purchase and another $12 billion to keep the fighters operational over their active lifetime ]. Definitely we will not be getting any TOT so no point mentioning its cost.
How much of a price difference is observed in such a deal for Rafale vis-a-vis F-35.
Also, the $25-30 billion mentioned for the Rafale is not the life-cycle, its just the acquisition package including weapons and long term support.
Coming to your question, you could get 126 F-35s for maybe $17-18 billion. But since this cost doesn't include ToT or license production, its probably not fair to compare it to the Rafale figure.
A fairer comparison would be with the same number of Rafales delivered off-the-shelf by the Dassault. Which would cost about the same, maybe marginally less. From most sources, the F-35 appears to cost about 50% more to operate than the Rafale (approx. $30K to $20K). Over 8,000 flight hours that extrapolates to a difference of $80 million (over 35 years). But since US munitions usually cost half of what their French equivalents do that'll be recouped by a cheaper weapons package (and possibly cheaper upgrades). Overall... their cost is comparable.
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
YesIs the $ 1 trillion cost of F 35 program also include the fuel cost.
Fuel cost, based on cost/gallon projections for the next 50 years (Based on 250 hours/year operations by the USAF, 280 odd hours by the MC and 314 hrs/year by the USN) are factored in. Most of the operating cost fluctuations over the year are fuel cost dependent. As the cost rises the cost to operate a particular jet rises as well.
Someone needs to keep those auditors employedOn a lighter note the F 35 pilot needs to really plan speed , distance and fuel consumption to maintain the planned cost.

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
Those numbers are contested by the services which claim that they are inflated and likely to come down just as they have come down by 9% just this year. The JPO is targeting a 30% reduction in operating cost once testing is mature to a point where these costs can be positively calculated. The same auditing calculates the per hour F-16 blk 50/52 cost at 24,000 per hour while most of the world air forces that operate the jet will dispute that. The Marines were quick to point out that the cost estimated per hour including unnecessary vertical landings which is not how they operate the STOVL jets during peacetime. There was massive overestimation's in Vertical landings when in fact most of its life the STOVL jet will be doing Rolling vertical landings. Expect the cost of the F-35 to be around 20-25K for the A version compared to 16-17K for the rafale. A difference yes, but then the F-35 is 5th gen with internal weapon bays, RAM, fiber mat and all the stuff that makes it more advanced.A fairer comparison would be with the same number of Rafales delivered off-the-shelf by the Dassault. Which would cost about the same, maybe marginally less. From most sources, the F-35 appears to cost about 50% more to operate than the Rafale (approx. $30K to $20K)
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
The South Korean price is just for the first 40 units. The cost of follow-on orders for another 80 aircraft would be much lower (non-recurring elements would already be available). The training would happen mostly in-house and the pooling of support infrastructure would mean aircraft could be delivered at price closer to the procurement cost for the US DoD. Plus the cost would have dropped further as production increases.brar_w wrote:For any nation looking to jump on the F-35 program a simple FMS multiplication results in a price close to 20 Billion$ for a 120 aircraft deal. This is an FMS cost @ par with what South Korea paid, and this would include the aircraft, training (Pilot training in the US) logistics, simulators, spares etc. The basic stuff that follows every FMS sale and that ensures that not only is the aircraft procured but everything that is required from the vendor to induct and operate the jet is provided (barring any construction cost, or any infrastructure upgrade required at the host air force)If India plans to sign a 126 F-35 deal with US what will be the probable cost
Precisely.Knowing that it is quite likely that the SAR estimated price of the jet may infect be "beaten" in reality at a notional future date, lockheed could not bid with that lower cost in mind. Of course if the cost actually does beat the SAR estimates the JPO would transfer the savings over to the government that ordered the jet.
Deliveries out into the future would realize a similar cost reduction as is indicated by the SAR chart I have posted above. Move closer to the larger production blocks and the cost would be lower.
Yeah its bound to drop. But for the moment I'm sticking with a more conservative figure (for both aircraft).brar_w wrote:Those numbers are contested by the services which claim that they are inflated and likely to come down just as they have come down by 9% just this year. The JPO is targeting a 30% reduction in operating cost once testing is mature to a point where these costs can be positively calculated.
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
It is quite clear that South Korea and Japan would make considerable purchases of the F-35A (perhaps theThe South Korean price is just for the first 40 units. The cost of follow-on orders for another 80 aircraft would be much lower (non-recurring elements would already be available). The training would happen mostly in-house and the pooling of support infrastructure would mean aircraft could be delivered at price closer to the procurement cost for the US DoD. Plus the cost would have dropped further as production increases.

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
With Mr PM working like a CEO we will have enough money to buy new toys (fingers crossed)
so who is up for
F35C for (4 LHD + new vikrant class + INS vishal) mix of fighters off course
4X 12 + 12 + 20= 80 F35 for IN
never been a fan of F35 but use of LHD as light AC could increase the power of IN by a lot . views.........
so who is up for
F35C for (4 LHD + new vikrant class + INS vishal) mix of fighters off course
4X 12 + 12 + 20= 80 F35 for IN
never been a fan of F35 but use of LHD as light AC could increase the power of IN by a lot . views.........
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
We aren't going to be getting the F-35 and the F-35C cannot operate from an LHD.
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarawa_cla ... sault_ship
study for skyjump for a new class similar to tarawa class was done for use of F35 , others i don't know abt.
also if we are acquiring 4 LHD can't we design it to use F35's . design of any LHD has internal space for helos we just need to design a sky jump(+ check for temperature of surface)
study for skyjump for a new class similar to tarawa class was done for use of F35 , others i don't know abt.
also if we are acquiring 4 LHD can't we design it to use F35's . design of any LHD has internal space for helos we just need to design a sky jump(+ check for temperature of surface)
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
LHD's take F-35B's and not C's and the B's do not necessarily require a ski jump to launch from an LHD.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 731
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
Sorry back again with the F-35 life cycle cost figure.
Got a link below and the author seems very much a critic of Canada acquiring F 35 , but as a matter of fact the Government their had to ultimately cancel the deal , so there must be validity in the criticism (apart from lack of competition)
The Plane That Ate the Canadian Military
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites ... litary.pdf
The article quotes government and independent auditor figures and the value of 65 F-35 operated over a period of 30 years cost anywhere between $ 45-55 billion and this seems to be the best case scenario.
Further based on the past experience of such hyped program like the F 22 and B 2, there is also a serious possibility of history repeating itself.
The below two link provides some info about the F-22 and F-35 projects and the way LM has handled it with the government and congress to sustain it
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-a ... story.html
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-0 ... story.html
Got a link below and the author seems very much a critic of Canada acquiring F 35 , but as a matter of fact the Government their had to ultimately cancel the deal , so there must be validity in the criticism (apart from lack of competition)
The Plane That Ate the Canadian Military
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites ... litary.pdf
The article quotes government and independent auditor figures and the value of 65 F-35 operated over a period of 30 years cost anywhere between $ 45-55 billion and this seems to be the best case scenario.
Further based on the past experience of such hyped program like the F 22 and B 2, there is also a serious possibility of history repeating itself.
The below two link provides some info about the F-22 and F-35 projects and the way LM has handled it with the government and congress to sustain it
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-a ... story.html
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-0 ... story.html
The government's track record is clear: The more a plane costs, the fewer it buys.
Two decades ago, officials wanted 648 F-22 fighter jets for $149 million per plane. Eventually, the military ended up with only 188 at a price tag of $412 million each. Before that, the Pentagon wanted 132 new B-2 stealth bombers at about $500 million per plane. It ultimately bought 21 at $2.1 billion each.
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
Canada has not cancelled the deal. As a partner they paid the costs (R&D) that they were obligated to. They have received industrial partnership in the program based on their level of participation and will continue to receive that business if they stay on. Canada has not cancelled the deal, they are going to decide whether to stick to the original plans of acquiring the F-35 as planned or to hold a formal competition for the same.Got a link below and the author seems very much a critic of Canada acquiring F 35 , but as a matter of fact the Government their had to ultimately cancel the deal , so there must be validity in the criticism (apart from lack of competition)
Even the Nation that designed the F-35 fighter, that has full access to its performance specification grossly over-estimated the operation and sustenance cost for the F-35. How much? The earlier figures were 1.5 Trillion then reduced again. Just recently the estimates were slashed by 9% to 1.02 Trillion over 55 years for a fleet of 2500 odd F-35's. This fleet includes the B and C versions which cost more, operate more (more hours per annum) etc. The Program manager has said that his target is a 30% reduction of the OS costs by the time the jet matures. Out of this 9% has already been considered achieved. The point is that OS costs are highly unpredictable and are almost impossible to calculate in DT phase of the program where close to 50% of the testing is yet to be complete. The number is almost always overestimated (historically) and even with the F-35, it has come down consistantly since the program began testing the jet.The article quotes government and independent auditor figures and the value of 65 F-35 operated over a period of 30 years cost anywhere between $ 45-55 billion and this seems to be the best case scenario.
F-22's cost rise came from the fact that orders were culled from 700 originally planned to less then 200 ultimately acquired. B-2 had a similar fate, the orders expected were 300+ but eventually around 2 dozen were acquired. The F-35 is a post-cold war product and as such has been designed with economy in mind. Its also the only jet fighter that will be in long term production in the US so unless they decide to shrink the physical size of the air force its numbers will not be significantly cut.Further based on the past experience of such hyped program like the F 22 and B 2, there is also a serious possibility of history repeating itself.
And that is why the graph of the F-35 costs from LRIP 1 to LRIP 7 is extremely important. Costs have nearly halved and there is strong reason to believe that this will continue as the program matures and as the target rate of production gets closer to the intended full rate of production. LRIP 1 F-35's cost 214 million per jet (Recurring Fly away), while LRIP 7 jets (this money has been paid in a fixed price/cost contract) cost around 112 million recurring flyaway.The government's track record is clear: The more a plane costs, the fewer it buys
The 648-700 Number was a cold war number. The F-22 was in development when the Cold war ended post Soviet Union collapse. This lead to a re-look at the F-22 program not once but at multiple times by the various governments in the US. As a result the number got cut from that to around 300, and some of the capability was also relaxed to save cost. Then came the normal program delays that plague all cutting edge military hardware and with those the numbers got cut further because no one else was arming themselves as fast as the USAF. Ultimately the USAF spent R&D for a cutting edge 5th gen fighter that would IOC at the turn of the millennium and would replace the F-15C fleet. The original plan was to divide the R&D over 700 jets. Ultimately the R&D cost got spread out over just 188 jets. Lets assume a 30 Billion dollar development budget. Spread over 700 jet fleet that comes to a 43 million per jet cost that must be added to the total flyaway cost to obtain overall program cost (Cost of production + Cost of development). Divide the same cost over 188 jets and the overall cost balloons to around 160 million + fly away cost of the jet. Therefore the rise. The F-22 also was a product which had requirements that were extremely challenging in the 90's. Its original "COLD WAR" IOC was expected to be 1999-2000 time frame (which ultimately got relaxed to 2005 given cost cuts and political reshuffle of the program). That is challenging and radical for the timeframe point of view. That adds risk, and risk adds cost. If the USAF had a choice to go back in time they would not have made the F-22 the way they did considering that they knew the cold war would come to an end. For a 150-280 odd fleet a F-15NG would have been better, one with stealthy pods, F-15ACTIVE like 3D TVC and the latest avionics (Apg-82 etc).Two decades ago, officials wanted 648 F-22 fighter jets for $149 million per plane. Eventually, the military ended up with only 188 at a price tag of $412 million each
The B-2 was never mass produced. Had it been the cost would have been lot different.Before that, the Pentagon wanted 132 new B-2 stealth bombers at about $500 million per plane. It ultimately bought 21 at $2.1 billion each
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
Want to kill time, eh? 20 mins for the next world cup game ot start.
1. "LHD", the H stands for ....................
So, if you want to force a F-35 into that picture a few things have to happen:
* The ship has to be modified - big time (it better carry means to change engines, etc) (and typically one would expect another plane to deliver such engines and cart away those engines that are deemed useless - another story)
* Then, you better have a nice story to tell on who is going to use this "LHD". Helos users are one type of guys, when you intro a "F-35" that set changes - dramatically
* In which case the use that such a ship will be put to will also change - dramatically. To make a longer story short, IN better change a good deal of her thinking with the intro of F-35B on her LHDs
Nice idea, but ................... plenty of re-thinking
2. I prefer larger Aircraft Carriers - each hosting somewhere in the range of 75 planes (helos, etc would be in addition). Yeah, big real estate. I am not in favor of the size of the Vicky (trainer) and Vikrant (good enough for a first try? Wish they had gone bigger)
Why? The "Indian" Ocean is too small.
3. I am inclined to support this arg.
some thoughts:
* I think each AF has a definition of what a "5th Gen" plane is and for that reason I am not happy with comparisons (even an IAF Rafale vs. a IAF F-35 comparison is a no-no to me).
* So, I feel (from what I have read so far) that the IAF will not be a happy puppy with the FGFA.
* Will the IN accept it? Dunno. But I doubt they will. And, I am fairly confident that the Russians will not be able to slide the N-FGFA past the IN (like they were able to do with the MiG-29K)
* Cannot say - since I do not know too much - but I do no think a MiG-35/29K is a replacement for a "stealth" air craft.
* I also do not like the idea of taking a "LCA" and applying stuff to make it a stealth plane. does not work (assuming it is one AF)
Well .............tushar_m wrote:1st . considering F35 is the only fighter with capability to launch from LHD type ships with no alternative.
2nd two AC can't hold more than 80+ F35 so if any i have overestimated .
3rd i don't know the progress of FGFA (don't think Naval version work has started or even proposed) , AMCA in its basic form is still in drawing boards , if IN wants a 5th Gen fighter in next few years F35 is the only option.
Sorry to post in wrong thread , Nrao let us discuss further in JSF thread only
1. "LHD", the H stands for ....................
So, if you want to force a F-35 into that picture a few things have to happen:
* The ship has to be modified - big time (it better carry means to change engines, etc) (and typically one would expect another plane to deliver such engines and cart away those engines that are deemed useless - another story)
* Then, you better have a nice story to tell on who is going to use this "LHD". Helos users are one type of guys, when you intro a "F-35" that set changes - dramatically
* In which case the use that such a ship will be put to will also change - dramatically. To make a longer story short, IN better change a good deal of her thinking with the intro of F-35B on her LHDs
Nice idea, but ................... plenty of re-thinking
2. I prefer larger Aircraft Carriers - each hosting somewhere in the range of 75 planes (helos, etc would be in addition). Yeah, big real estate. I am not in favor of the size of the Vicky (trainer) and Vikrant (good enough for a first try? Wish they had gone bigger)
Why? The "Indian" Ocean is too small.
3. I am inclined to support this arg.
some thoughts:
* I think each AF has a definition of what a "5th Gen" plane is and for that reason I am not happy with comparisons (even an IAF Rafale vs. a IAF F-35 comparison is a no-no to me).
* So, I feel (from what I have read so far) that the IAF will not be a happy puppy with the FGFA.
* Will the IN accept it? Dunno. But I doubt they will. And, I am fairly confident that the Russians will not be able to slide the N-FGFA past the IN (like they were able to do with the MiG-29K)
* Cannot say - since I do not know too much - but I do no think a MiG-35/29K is a replacement for a "stealth" air craft.
* I also do not like the idea of taking a "LCA" and applying stuff to make it a stealth plane. does not work (assuming it is one AF)
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
we can't afford 6 AC but can go for 2 AC & 4 LHD with limited capability(8-10-12 whatever amt of F35's).
Julan carlos in future will have F35 capability + if we are buying ships that will be major part of IN we can afford to do some changes.
As you said N-FGFA might not be our cup of tea , so all we are left with is JSF .
LCA in its normal form(MK1) is taking a lot of time LCA Mk2 has not flown yet , thinking about Stealth LCA would be ***** so i agree with you.
If you have knowledge about any other 5th Gen fighter that can fulfill Indian Navy's 5th Gen requirements please do tell.
Regarding Large carrier i agree with you but can you realistically thinking of large carrier design in India when INS Vikrant is still not operational is !!!!!!!!!! ?????? . Vishal is still in drawing boards but i can confidently say that IN will not go for a Flat-top USN style with ability to carry your 75 planes.It would be somewhere around 65k+ region.
also there was a ship with H attached to its name & now it is called AC , guess which ship ????
Julan carlos in future will have F35 capability + if we are buying ships that will be major part of IN we can afford to do some changes.
As you said N-FGFA might not be our cup of tea , so all we are left with is JSF .
LCA in its normal form(MK1) is taking a lot of time LCA Mk2 has not flown yet , thinking about Stealth LCA would be ***** so i agree with you.
If you have knowledge about any other 5th Gen fighter that can fulfill Indian Navy's 5th Gen requirements please do tell.
Regarding Large carrier i agree with you but can you realistically thinking of large carrier design in India when INS Vikrant is still not operational is !!!!!!!!!! ?????? . Vishal is still in drawing boards but i can confidently say that IN will not go for a Flat-top USN style with ability to carry your 75 planes.It would be somewhere around 65k+ region.
also there was a ship with H attached to its name & now it is called AC , guess which ship ????
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
LHD's are not going to operate as Mini carriers. If they are required to do so, they are going to function extremely inefficiently in that role. The fighters one has on board these ships is to help in the force projections these ships provide in the littorals such as offloading land forces etc. Want a mini carrier, build a mini carrier.
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, Program Director, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program
The Defense Department is shaking up the $380 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. Yesterday, Lt. Gen. Christopher Bodgan, the program director, explained how the Pentagon was asking major contractors to put skin in the game and invest in cost- reduction measures. In the second part of his interview with Tom Temin and Emily Kopp on the Federal Drive, Bogdan takes a long-term view on the Pentagon's sometimes rocky relationship with Lockheed Martin and other key players
Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?
Italy Seeks Bigger JSF Workshare
Very interesting. They barely have money to buy the F-35, with the Purse side of the government asking for a 50% reduction due to the state of the economy, but they have no qualms about asking for more work

Anyways , Some pilot interviews, presentations worth a watch :
1) Is by Lt. Col. Berke interview by the former Secretary of the USAF. Berke is the only active duty pilot to have flown both the F-22 raptor and the F-35. He is a USMC pilot but was previously instructor at Top Gun.
http://vimeo.com/73913274
2) Another video on LT col burke
http://vimeo.com/48204156
Some more :
http://vimeo.com/88810233
An Aussie perspective on the F-35 by squadron leader Matthew Harper RAAF
http://vimeo.com/89696137
Explaining 5th Generation Aircraft: An Aussie F-22 Pilot Weighs In
http://vimeo.com/89836885
Aussie F-22 Pilot Describes Shift to 5th Generation
http://vimeo.com/89836612