JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 02 May 2015 22:55

Back to kindergarten, r v?

Oh, yeah! Posting a photo of a Blue-Uniformed Entity makes any post VERY deep...

Reminds me of the JCOS with his pointer and his pomp and the rod up his a** explaining how the "Eyeranian F-14" had been brilliantly shot down by the Aegis cruiser Vincennes. With the pieces of 267 civilians mysteriously scattered all over the Pesian Gulf by the evil Eyeranians.

Trying to post something thoughtful on this thread is like trying to say prayers in the middle of a college football game. The postors here appear to consist of N-2 thoughtful ppl, one cheerleader and one beer-thrower.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 02 May 2015 22:59

Oh, yeah! Posting a photo of a Blue-Uniformed entity makes a post VERY deep...

Oh no it merely advances the discussion...But what exactly do things like converting the US acquisition cost into INR, dividing it by the number of Indian taxpayers and claiming some relevance actually does? While you are at it, do you want to convert the entire PAKFA acquisition price for the Russians, convert it into INR, and see how much an Indian taxpayer will pay for Russian aircraft? You can dig the auditor's report on the PAKFA for a price estimate. While you are at it, do it for every other fighters acquired by every other air-force in the world.

Your other claims have also been discussed. The F-35 was limited to 19 degrees AOA under software 2A because software 2b had not been released to the fleet. Once the flight restrictions were imposed on it (post 2b release and post the class A incident), they were gradually relaxed by the air-worthiness authorities and eventually lifted once the fix was installed. Subsequently, the entire flight envelope was opened up by the ITF team, in support of 2b testing. They needed to do this because once the jet IOC's, it needs that testing to be completed. It was completed and the rest of the 2b testing (weapons, sensors etc) is going to be completed soon and the software cleared for IOC by the end of next month or early June.

As mentioned, the F-35 deliveries are concurrent to DOT&E just like every other aircraft in the US DOD that goes into Low rate initial production. The developed the software in blocks. 1 a/b, 2a, 2b and 3i/F much like every other 4+ generation aircraft that gets its software. Flight envelope expansion is tied to software build testing and as the ITF opens up and certifies the software it is released to the fleet. This is common knowledge to all those even remotely familiar with the program.

It is also widely known, that the flight restrictions on the ITF birds are completely lifted post the fix installation and are going to be completed lifted on the squadron aircraft (should be ongoing at the moment) as the F-35B's IOC later in July. I have provided the report on their plans to complete this on all 100 aircraft by early next year. I can at best provide you with a link reporting the facts, its still up to you to open that link and go through it. You were given this 2 to 3 times, but you ignored it until you stumbled upon the same article on your own and posted it. When this was pointed out, you again ignored it and took the discussion to radars and how stealth is not going to last much despite of everyone in the world working on it for fighters, UAV's and bombers. Once that was pointed out to you, you again ignored the discussion and went towards the aircraft being single seater. I have pointed to you that all 5th generation aircraft designs at the moment are single seaters, and the IAF's decision to do a 2 seat version of the PAKFA was resisted by the russians because even their analysis showed that with modern sensor fusion you do not need a WSO. India has since backed down and it appears there would not be a two-seater PAKFA. The Chinese have come to the same conclusion with their J-20/J31 families. And the koreans as well. The F-35 does not have a 2-seater because none of the operators want it. Lockheed did present them with the option but all declined it. I have posted a graphic of what a Lockheed designed 2-seater would look like. It was presented a decade or so ago and mentioned in a Flight global publication (you can dig the picture up in this thread). No one wanted it then and no one wants it now!

Furthermore, you use cost figures without any context. First you say that the US will never procure 2440+ F-35s. However, you then go on throwing numbers like $600 Billion for some cost "metric" that is questionable and debatable at best. If they aren't going to buy 2400, why would they need the sustainment cost of 2400?? You also fail to provide context for further cost claims. When asked, what the cost would be to develop, acquire and sustain for 55 years a fleet of 2400 Dassault Rafales (Or add another advanced 4.5 generation fighter such as typhoon) to the French you fail to provide an answer and completely ignore the question. Without any context whatsoever, what exactly is the relevence of throwing out costing data?

Why is the $391 Billion Development and Acquisition cost important if :

A ) They won't ever buy 2400 as per your claims

B ) If there is no context provided for that cost

You claim that $40 Billion is a threshold for programs before they are cancelled. Using that as a Yardstick the US could only afford to buy 250 odd Dassault Rafale fighters (30 aircraft for $5 Billion going on the conservative side of what is being reported). Should the US restrict the size of its AF, Navy and MC to just around 250 aircraft? Does that not look ridiculously low to you? How much will the Indian Air Force end up paying for 126 Dassault Rafale's (Current 36 are going to cost between 4.5 to 6 Billion dollars), and around 150-180 Su-50's?? Can they afford that given the US cannot (as per your calculations) afford anything above $40 Billion? What is the size of the annual acquisition budget for the IAF compared to the USAF, USN and USMC? Yet I do not see these ridiculous back of the envelope calculations being conducted for other programs, in other threads where similar fleet acquisitions are being discussed.

Btw, in your $40 Billion estimate you completely IGNORED one very important fact. The USN (Just one service of the pentagon) is on the verge of completing the development and acquisition phase of a program that was LARGER than $40 Billion. It was called the Super Hornet and Growler program and the USN has procured more than 600 of them combined (and its still growing) - Yet that shouldn't have been possible. NO?? It doesn't fit into the COMANCHE business plan that you use as a yardstick for all programs whether those that are ongoing today or those that will begin 20 years from now.

For some reason the "conspiracy theories", Arm-Chair_RCA's, unique economic/financial conversions are restricted just to this aircraft and don't translate to others such as Rafale, and the PAKFA. I have been accused by others of actually favoring the F-35 over the rafale for the IAF, which has never been the case. I (along with others) for one have been doing the complete opposite and as of last year was actually calling the IAF to buy the rafale directly from France (which they are doing now) and concentrating on the LCA and MKI.

I would love to see the same analytical work, disregard for facts on the ground and conspiracy theories extended to other projects that we are discussing at the appropriate threads...It would make for some "FUN" times ahead. Perhaps you'd want to begin with the Rafale thread??

The postors here appear to consist of N-2 thoughtful ppl, one cheerleader and one beer-thrower.

I am sure all the "postors here" were eagerly awaiting a critique from you

.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 02 May 2015 23:28

"thoughtful"?

fanciful maybe.....

and only two of us?

Dearest Professor, please count again!

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 03 May 2015 06:43

Reminds me of the old saying:

Uncle, Look at me! Do I look like I am the old who stole the silver plate?

Common Sense in Canada - b4 the Suparis came by
Canada's F-35 purchase is a costly mistake

We conclude that the F-35 is ill-suited for Canada's needs and recommend a more cautious approach that mixes existing CF-18s with a smaller number of new non-stealth jet fighter aircraft as well as, increasingly, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

The use of UAVs will substantially increase the program's average IQ

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 03 May 2015 06:58

All this Vigilant Response and worldwide enthusiasm of LMC Sales reminds me of the haunting old Coke Commercial song:

I'd like to teach...
the World to fly
A shaking cacophonee

I'd like to sell..
The world F-35s
From LM Companee

Meanwhile: 7 things the Marines can do...

Once you set aside the constant flow of "it's always sunny in Fort Worth" (where Lockheed builds the F-35) manufacturer propaganda, the stark reality is that if the Joint Strike Fighter program had not been bogged down with the STOVL requirement, the Air Force and Navy, and the other nations that are now customers of the F-35, could have likely had a much better fighter.

Now that the DoD is so heavily invested in this flawed design philosophy, and presumably will not cancel the F-35 program as a whole at this point in its "evolution," the idea of not procuring the most strategically revolutionary model of the lot (F-35B), and the one that the other two more numerous sub-designs will pay a high performance and capability price throughout their design lives for, would be beyond stupid. The fact that some aviation experts and some Washington big-wigs say we could, or even should, cancel the B model alone is absurd, as we would end up with two compromised designs (the A and the C model) without the unique strategic "payoff" of the third design (the STOVL B model) that made these compromises exist in the first place! The whole situation is really an odd scenario where aerospace design, politics, metrics, conceptual force structure planning and opportunity cost converge, and not in a pretty or organized way.

So with all this in mind, my advice to the "gator navy" and the Marine Corps is to get behind the F-35B in a big way, and this goes far beyond fighting to see that the aircraft is not cancelled and rushing it past an erroneous "initial operational capability" goal line. The Marines need to immediately highlight to the public the strategic opportunity that the F-35B presents to the nation, and prioritize funding to an "ecosystem" of uniquely F-35B centered support infrastructure and force multiplying capabilities that will allow the jets to realize their full potential. In doing so, the F-35B force could positively revolutionize the Marine Expeditionary Strike Group's utility forever.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 May 2015 07:31

I look forward to Root Cause Analysis, and financial forecasting in the Rafale, and the PAKFA threads (unless it is just limited to this topic). Would love to know why Sukhoi seem to design fighters that catch fire, or Saturn engines that flame out..And why others aren't catching fire etc... We have covered the CONSPIRACY element, compared the status quo to the third reich, claimed that its AOA limited to 19 degrees and have also discussed that all reports to the contrary are false, "lifafa" etc (and of course if a spotter turned journalist with ZERO background or familiarity with anything military gives advise to them its LEGIT) . I think we have covered all that we could. It hardly matters since they'll stop production at 500, and soon thereafter most of them will head to the boneyards, of course given there is room there. But I think they'll manage to create room...It won't be tough to squeeze a few hundred aircraft that cost 600 Billion..You know just as "AFTER SPENDING $400 Billion" as was claimed earlier

I think the fate is sealed! End of discussion!

Salut!!

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 03 May 2015 08:04

brar_w wrote:I look forward to Root Cause Analysis, and financial forecasting in the Rafale, and the PAKFA threads (unless it is just limited to this topic). Would love to know why Sukhoi seem to design fighters that catch fire, or Saturn engines that flame out..And why others aren't catching fire etc... We have covered the CONSPIRACY element, compared the status quo to the third reich, claimed that its AOA limited to 19 degrees and have also discussed that all reports to the contrary are false, "lifafa" etc (and of course if a spotter turned journalist with ZERO background or familiarity with anything military gives advise to them its LEGIT) . I think we have covered all that we could. It hardly matters since they'll stop production at 500, and soon thereafter most of them will head to the boneyards, of course given there is room there. But I think they'll manage to create room...It won't be tough to squeeze a few hundred aircraft that cost 600 Billion..You know just as "AFTER SPENDING $400 Billion" as was claimed earlier

I think the fate is sealed! End of discussion!

Salut!!

About 500 for USAF versions sounds about right as AFMC only has the capacity to provide that much logistics and 2nd level engineering support. The F-35 alone, without the complicated munitions, has about 8 million lines of code, and with all the different variations, configuration management and development at AFMC F-35 system integration facilities will be a huge task. Beyond that, they'll contract out to LM and their subs. Pay attention to job announcement around Warner-Robbins and Hill AFBs. There's money to be made!

UB is right if the services are forced to buy too many F-35 and they'll be stored at Davis-Monthan AFB in AZ and will quickly gifted away to ISIS or better known as the PAF under FMS.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 May 2015 08:09

About 500 for USAF versions sounds about right as AFMC only has the capacity to provide that much logistics and 2nd level engineering support.

Be prepared to be wrong!! There is absolutely no way the USAF replaces its entire F-16 and A-10 and a portion of the F-15 fleet with just 500 new fighters (have you seen the fleet size?). What will the squadrons fly? Trainers? Look at the SAR, that would literally mean that they stop buying new aircraft in what 2022, 2023...ANd nothing after that at a time they loose between 70 and 80 F-16's and A-10s per year to retirement.

But lets leave it at that. You shall see in a few years...Anyhow, lets hope we get similar analysis in some other threads

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 03 May 2015 08:12

^^^The A-10s will be retired, but F-16s will stay until they are replaced with UAVs. After all one TFTA F-35 = 10 SDRE F-16s.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 May 2015 08:14

The A-10s will be retired, but F-16s will stay until they are replaced with UAVs

Stay exactly how? All three services have had their airframe life extended and have had greater utilization than planned, to a point where some (USMC) are having to bench 50% of the fleet for extended periods of times...The size of the USAF is determined by the COCOM requirements. The COCOM's demand has remained steady and is likely to remain so because the 1776 number is based on that. If you want to know the state of the modernization and the NEED for the modernization, try reading some of what the leadership in the USAF is saying, what the guys who do this for a living (logistics) are saying. The delay in the F-35 IOC and SDD phase has caused a major fatigue, and fleet management issue..They need frames fast, and need a lot of them to recapitalize the fleet. The F-16's were procured at a very high rate, and will be retiring at a similar rate as well. As I have said, they loose a SET AMOUNT starting 2020 or so..That number is largely fixed...The 80 per year demanded (as reflected in the SAR) is a function of the outgoing capability that needs to be replenished. But again, all we have to do is wait..We should hear more on the 150+ Block buy later this year, more on the 450+ Block buy later next year (possibly by end of 2016). All you have to do is wait for another 5 or so years for Full scale deliveries to show up (orders will be placed 2 years prior to delivery). Time will tell!!

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 03 May 2015 08:16

^^^The airframe life will be extended after an analysis just like the 30K hours on the F-35 engines. Will the F-35 be the last manned combat aircraft for the USAF? My guess is probably not. LM may not get the next contract nearly a decade from now.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 May 2015 08:25

The airframe life will be extended after an analysis just like the 30K hours on the F-35 engines.

You already have aircraft in SLEP..How many SLEP's are you going to do? The F-35 engine does not have 30,000 hours, the ENTIRE FLEET has 30,000 hours. Hope you know the difference.

Will the F-35 be the last manned combat aircraft for the USAF?

No

LM may not get the next contract nearly a decade from now.

The F-X fighters, that the US is pursuing at the moment (Under the Aerospace innovation Initiative) is an F-22A and F-15C replacement. It cannot replace the F-16 fleet because it is likely to be very expensive, technically advanced (Air dominance mission) and should take at least another 25 years to design at a bare minimum if everything goes as planned (which rarely does). An IOC of 2035 will be a very good achievement. 2037 will most likely be more probable. The USAF will begin retiring its F-16 fleet at an alarming rate by the early 2020's (70 or so aircraft) and the A-10 fleet will be completely gone by 2028 if not earlier (could be). Good luck going up against the Pacific, and European theater threat in F-16's built in the late 80's and early 90's. The USAF isn't stupid...They have placed the F-35 acquisition right at the top of their priority list, and have protected that 1776 number throughout sequester! The Congress supports them as does the entire USAF community...

Read some news emerging today..The USAF is mothballing F-16's to save the A-10 because the Congress won't let them mothball it.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 03 May 2015 08:27

brar_w wrote:
The A-10s will be retired, but F-16s will stay until they are replaced with UAVs
Stay exactly how? All three services have had their airframe life extended and have had greater utilization than planned, to a point where some (USMC) are having to bench 50% of the fleet for extended periods of times...The size of the USAF is determined by the COCOM requirements. The COCOM's demand has remained steady and is likely to remain so because the 1776 number is based on that. If you want to know the state of the modernization and the NEED for the modernization, try reading some of what the leadership in the USAF is saying, what the guys who do this for a living (logistics) are saying. The delay in the F-35 IOC and SDD phase has caused a major fatigue, and fleet management issue..They need frames fast, and need a lot of them to recapitalize the fleet. The F-16's were procured at a very high rate, and will be retiring at a similar rate as well. As I have said, they loose a SET AMOUNT starting 2020 or so..That number is largely fixed...The 80 per year demanded (as reflected in the SAR) is a function of the outgoing capability that needs to be replenished. But again, all we have to do is wait..We should hear more on the 150+ Block buy later this year, more on the 450+ Block buy later next year (possibly by end of 2016). All you have to do is wait for another 5 or so years for Full scale deliveries to show up (orders will be placed 2 years prior to delivery). Time will tell!!

What do you expect the AFMC commanders to say? They aren't going to bad mouth the F-35 and will say what ACC says, the JPO, and LM and their congressional cheerleaders say.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 03 May 2015 08:36

brar_w wrote: You already have aircraft in SLEP..How many SLEP's are you going to do? The F-35 engine does not have 30,000 hours, the ENTIRE FLEET has 30,000 hours. Hope you know the difference.

Several SLEPs just like the B707 airframe and the B-52 to Block H as USAF operates them today.
You quoted 30K hours for the F-35 engine which was very misleading.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 May 2015 08:39

What do you expect the AFMC commanders to say? They aren't going to bad mouth the F-35 and will say what ACC says, the JPO, and LM and their congressional cheerleaders say

Its the CSAF's job to make sure all stakeholders are prepared for the induction and operational tempo of the fleet modernization and recapitalization. As I said, there is no other aircraft out there for the USAF that can replace its vast aging fleet of F-16's and A-10's. The entire USAF has been totally fixed around its F-35A SAR acquisition so much so that they haven't cut a single aircraft despite of years of sequestration that is likely to be lifted by the time this aircraft gets into full rate of production. So yes, they will plan for the fleet and allocate appropriate resources. Its not like they are sleeping and not planning for years down the road as they go through the roadmap that they themselves created.

Like I said, its a wait and see. I don;t think any serious follower of the program either one who has a favorable opinion or a hate for it expects the USAF to scale back from 1770 to 500. The only real concern is with the F-35C total acquisition numbers as everyone expects the USAF and USMC to buy most of what they want. The only way the USAF buys less is if it is allowed to physically shrink its size. You can't procure a gazzilion aircraft in 2030 to replace aircrafts retiring between 2015 and 2030, and then also at the same time with the same aircraft replace aircrafts that begin retiring in the 2030-2045 time frame (F-22A and F-15E)

If you have time, start picking F-16, A-10 and early F-15 squadrons. Start seeing their strengths, what their contribution is to the COCOM's, and how old their F-16's are. You will need some time but you'll get a better understanding of the issue. Or, you could go to f-16.net, and ask current, ex USAF F-16, A-10, and F-15 pilots, maintainers, engine maintainers, ex Acquisition and evaluation folks on what the status of the fleet is and what trend lines are for the 2020's and how much capability will be outgoing.

That is of course just the pure capability in terms of aircraft to aircraft. The quality, and the combat capability that the USAF needs in the 2020-2050 timeframe is a different matter altogether. The F-16C can't get you that and the USAF has known this for many years now.

Several SLEPs just like the B707 airframe and the B-52 to Block H as USAF operates them today.

Multiple SLEP's on a fighter to add what 6-7K hours on an 8000 hour airframe ! Good Luck, especially when the current SLEP that adds a small fraction of that... hasn't yet been funded and looks like an uphill battle!! Bombers are different from fighters and are built for damn nearly half a century. Fighters are a different beast altogether especially when you have blasted past your estimates of expeditionary deployments and combat usage..Ask the USMC where they stand with depots and fleet size that is not available for either combat or training (the number stands @ 50% at the moment for the USMC). The USAF is slightly better off than the USMC but not by much. The USN is the best off, since it has 600 relatively new F-18E/F/G's but with it F/A-18, even it is struggling.

You quoted 30K hours for the F-35 engine which was very misleading.

No, I said the entire F-35 fleet has 30,000 hours accumulated and provided you multiple links to substantiate that. Because the engine is the same (with sub-models) it has also flown 30,000 cumulative flight hours. Again, the links were provided to you. These are FLEET CUMULATIVE flight hours. No one aircraft has flown that much (nor can it since its an 8000 hr airframe). The AF2 is the most used F-35, and it accomplished 1000 hours milestone late last year (iirc).

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6203&start=2120#p1835796

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 03 May 2015 08:46

brar_w wrote: The USAF isn't stupid...They have placed the F-35 acquisition right at the top of their priority list, and have protected that 1776 number throughout sequester! The Congress supports them as does the entire USAF community...

No one said they were stupid, but LM and congress have tied the hands of USAF and USN. No one is going to say anything in public. The F-35 program is reminiscent of the TFX program in 1961 under Robert McNamara. Here is a dated article, but very relevant to this discussion. Robert McNamara, TFX & the Total Procurement Package

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 03 May 2015 08:51

brar_w wrote:Like I said, its a wait and see. I don;t think any serious follower of the program either one who has a favorable opinion or a hate for it expects the USAF to scale back from 1770 to 500. The only real concern is with the F-35C total acquisition numbers as everyone expects the USAF and USMC to buy most of what they want. The only way the USAF buys less is if it is allowed to physically shrink its size. You can't procure a gazzilion aircraft in 2030 to replace aircrafts retiring between 2015 and 2030, and then also at the same time with the same aircraft replace aircrafts that begin retiring in the 2030-2045 time frame (F-22A and F-15E)

I said about 500 sounds about right for AFMC logistics and 2nd level engineering support. After that it will be contracted out to LM and its subs. All of this is out of the O&M budget which is subject to sequester.
AFMC is going to have to make some tough budget decisions if they have to support significant numbers of the F-35.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 May 2015 08:55

but LM and congress have tied the hands of USAF and USN

Have Lockheed or the Congress put pressure on the F-16 fleet? NO. The USAF knows how its fleet tracks and when the choke points are likely to appear. They grounded close to a couple of hundred aircraft due to fatigue very very recently and have to buff them up to have them reach their regular routine 8000 hour service life (nothing to say of a major SLEP to have them march along for another couple of decades). Air-forces need to replace aircraft as they retire..This is a part of what they do. Its just not the USAF, plenty of air-forces around the world are going to have to replace the F-16's and other aircraft shortly..They also do not need Congress, or the OEM to tell them when their aircrafts are getting old, how to preserve them and how to prepare to replace them when its time to "make that call"....the USAF doesn't need the Congress, or the OEM to tell them that. I think they may just be smart enough to figure that out on their own!!

I said about 500 sounds about right for AFMC logistics and 2nd level engineering support. After that it will be contracted out to LM and its subs. All of this is out of the O&M budget which is subject to sequester.

And to that I'll say that no one expects sequester to last more than a couple of years and definitely not till the 2020's and 2030's when the bulk of the F-35 fleet is likely to begin demanding a higher O&M cost. The F-15, and F-16 were 2-3 times more expensive to procure and more expensive to maintain then the previous generation of aircraft..The Rafale and Typhoon have a CPFH that is 3-4 times that of the 1980's F-16A. Yet air-forces around the world are upping their budgets to maintain that..Modern fighters demand that capability...You can go back to no radar, small light weight fighter with day time dogfighting missiles..You can do that but no one wants that anywhere in the world...Threats force you to seek capability and that comes at a cost. Its a decision that is taken every generation..and has been taken this time as we'll, just as it was taken when 4th generation aircraft were introduced to the fleet in large numbers.

AFMC is going to have to make some tough budget decisions if they have to support significant numbers of the F-35.

Or the USAF in general has to allocate more money for the flfth generation fleet, just as they did when they introduced the 4th generation fleet compared to 3rd generation fleet. You got lucky with the F-16A (Until you got the bigger F-16C's) in that it was a LWF with lower cost, yet no one wanted that aircraft back then and no one wants it now. Same with smaller european nations that have had the F-16A. They converted to the higher capability, higher cost (Buy and operate) F-16C and have either shifted to the F-35 or the Eurocanards..They too are going to be paying a lot lot more compared to the F-16A's they procured in the 70s or 80's. Its a reality that air-forces have to scale up to over time. What do you think the IAF is doing having made a HEAVY class Su-30 Super Flanker as its main combat aircraft? Or the Rafale being used to replace large numbers of much smaller single engined fighters???

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 03 May 2015 09:03

And to that I'll say that no one expects sequester to last more than a couple of years and definitely not till the 2020's and 2030's when the bulk of the F-35 fleet is likely to begin demanding a higher O&M cost.

Sequester is here to stay because its a political weapon. Both congress and the president will use it to threaten each other not just for DoD budgets, but for the entire US Gov. Granted it may be called something more benevolent such as the Balanced Budget Amendment or Deficit Reduction Act

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 03 May 2015 09:11

Or the USAF in general has to allocate more money for the flfth generation fleet, just as they did when they introduced the 4th generation fleet compared to 3rd generation fleet. You got lucky with the F-16A (Until you got the bigger F-16C's) in that it was a LWF with lower cost, yet no one wanted that aircraft back then and no one wants it now. Same with smaller european nations that have had the F-16A. They converted to the higher capability, higher cost (Buy and operate) F-16C and have either shifted to the F-35 or the Eurocanards..They too are going to be paying a lot lot more compared to the F-16A's they procured in the 70s or 80's. Its a reality that air-forces have to scale up to over time. What do you think the IAF is doing having made a HEAVY class Su-30 Super Flanker as its main combat aircraft? Or the Rafale being used to replace large numbers of much smaller single engined fighters???

And where is exactly will the USAF get that money to support a 5th gen. combat aircraft fleet? DoD and USAF budgets are increasing everywhere else (like LRS-B, UAVs, satellite surveillance, navigation, and expanded voice/data communication systems), entitlement spending is increasing, so where will you find the money when current account expenditure is significantly ahead of the revenue base? The fleet size will have to decrease.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 May 2015 09:16

Sequester is here to stay because its a political weapon. Both congress and the president will use it to threaten each other not just for DoD budgets, but for the entire US Gov. Granted it may be called something more benevolent such as the Balanced Budget Amendment or Deficit Reduction Act

No one in DC expects the pressure currently on to last beyond FY17, 18. That you will see in a matter of few years. But as I said, despite of sequester not a single A version jet has been shaved from the requirement. The USAF's top priorities is and will remain the replacement of its rapidly aging fighter fleet. They have had it right up on the priority list for many years. The bottom line is that the F-16 is on its way out..Not only is it not competitive in any mission vector (Air superiority or Air to Ground strike) but it rapidly aging and there is limited work you can do to add capability...The F-22A is no longer in production, so you need to allocate F-35A's into the AEF to support the F-22 because you didn't buy enough to cover all F-15C's. This is before the F-35 goes out and does what it does best (strike, ISR, EA/EW etc). There is no Mini_F--35 sitting in the wings...6th generation program is developing a very high end figther to replace the F-22 because that enterprise will require replacement in the 2035-2045 time period (they'll be 30-35 years old by then). There is NOTHING available to the USAF to replace everything that retires between 2015 and 2035 and that is the reason why the designed the JSF to make up the bulk of their fleet as it retires...

Read:

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... 5-Buy.aspx

And where is exactly will the USAF get that money to support a 5th gen. combat aircraft fleet?

The acquisition budget is different from the O&M budget. So the budget as far as from "where the money will come from" is given in the 5 year paper they have issued and future budgets will reflect that. As I have explained earlier, there has been no 5 year period where the O&M budget for the fighter fleet has not grown..with major spikes coming in transitions from one generation to another or major upgrades. The original LWF F-16 cost 5,000 CPFH..The current Blk 50.52 costs between 15,000-20000$ given how they utilize the fleet..Where did you think that money came from?? In between they developed the entire Predator Family, Global Hawk Family, procured the B-2 bomber, operated the Legacy B-52 fleet, planed space investments, developed and procured the F-22A and of course the JSF. Rafale, that is essentially a 4.5 generation F-16C category aircraft costs $18,000/ hours to operate....So in 2015 modern F-16C's cost around that much..Even within the same generation CPFH has increased by 3+ times because of added capability..These statistics, and realities are KNOWN to air-forces around the world and not just us lowly forum members. A hypothetical F-16 seriously upgraded to be remotely survivable in the 2030 timeframe would not cost as the current block 50 F-16 in 2015.

The LRS-B is funded and its RD&E even now competes with the F-35. the Five year RD spend on the LRS-B has been disclosed..Its R&D phase with the F-35 overlaps for 8 years (2011-2018) out of which 5 have already elapsed (no funding reduction).

This is a fairly comprehensive discussion on the O&S cost..a few people involved have done this for a living and have gone as far as actually designing operational tactics for some very notable aircraft including but not limited to the A-10, and future long range strike missions..If you so wish you can engage with a few of them and they can actually break down the entire O&S run for you for the new enterprise and what effect on the overall system reducing 3 to 4 types into 1 type does.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23789

One thing you have to keep in mind is that the 2400 aircraft fleet O&S cost (This fleet includes the STOVL and CV versions which are naturally more expensive to operate over their lifetime for obvious reasons) is projected in the CAPE in 2056 dollars and not in today's dollars.

The fleet size will have to decrease.

The F-35 SAR already reflects the reduced fleet size. They aren't replacing 4th to 5th one for one. Even if not a single aircraft is shaved from the F-35 procurement plan the USAF will still loose more aircraft in the 2000-2038 time-frame then it will procure. This has been known for a long time.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 03 May 2015 10:20

you 'yak' herder from the great mongolian slopes!! inspite of strict fatwas from whoever cares - to 'not' wander over the steppe with your yaks - especially on starlit nights, you have in your delirium taken the extreme step!!! not just that, you have stepped on the yak droppings too (which ofc you will never admit) which have led you to lose your bearings and made you rebellious which ofc would not have been an issue but for your 'revelations' of far too highly classified info about "yaks" which is unpardonable.

here is a prayer from a 'goat' herder (from the plains) to the yaks - to be kind to you, to forgive you for your blashphemous, mean streaks revealed over the last few pages.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 03 May 2015 10:50

pragnya,

WTH are you blathering about?

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 03 May 2015 16:23

Pay attention to job announcement around Warner-Robbins and Hill AFBs.

May be more true than anyone realizes.... This is where the $591B figure becomes to loom.

The idea of 'replacing' the entire F-16, A-10, F-102, F-105 etc fleets sounds very enticing, but the question that will be asked by US lawmakers with increasing dB is "HwaH?"
Those 'fleets' were developed for a massive 2- or 3-front war with the SU/Warsaw Pact. At a time when there were no UCAVs, no Space Assets that could guide weapons.
Today the emphasis is on lean/mean/ etc, and spending a trillion dollars on ONE look-alike contest does not seem defensible to me at least. The whole "one platform, sell a huge number" model is so WW2-Cold War.

Even attack helicopters and utility helicopters are being cut, though they are evidently in heavy use every day in Afg, Iraq, etc. and can double in an emergency as rescue/recon/ package delivery/extraction vehicles, which a fixed-wing cannot do. There are half a dozen completely different concepts for fast multipurpose rotorcraft, some of which will fly high-subsonic, 1000 mile range and still be able to do VTOL a lot better than the F-35 can: why won't those be the right solution to replace some of those aging fighter fleet? Do you really need to fly supersonic to take out the Boko Haram or bomb huts in FATA? Invade Haiti? Obliterate pirates in Somalia?

The F-35 started out as an ASTOVL/ VTOL with supersonic dash, in the flyoff competion. Now it seems to be only 10% STOVL (c above article) and 90% Lets-Sell-More-F22s-In-New-Boxes. Both the configuration and the ignored legacy problems are the same. The engine is certainly better, and you need only half as many.

I don't see why 2400 single-engined fighter planes of one type are needed to protect the CONUS and/or any other US interests. Fast-response interception (which requires many small units spread out all over the world and all US borders) is done much better with UCAVs.

Deep-penetration strike needs - what? 200 human-piloted units max? If the job is just to deliver massive waves and waves of repetitive sorties to fire missiles or drop bombs on pre-set targets, a combination of B-2s and UCAVs are the best bet, not (wo)manned fighters.

Yes, if I were a BlueUniform or a Black-Uniform (LM salesYak) I could certainly argue and jump up and down cheerleading that the world needs 100,000 F-35s to feel secure, but national lawmakers have to allot limited resources.

Also, by now the pressure is surely on, from Boeing and Northrop-Grumman in the US, from Eurofighter lobby in the EU, and from Russian entities all over, to sell their new, upcoming ideas. Why would the EU shut out all its bright engineers and destroy their indigenous defense design/job creation to go give all their Oiros to Les Stupeed Americains and become ever-underpaid assembly line workers? Already Dassault is teetering on the verge, Rolls-Royce ditto, SNECMA ditto, Saab ditto.. These are all national-pride and major sales advertisements for other things.

Which is why the current hype over this shiny airplane seems to be getting weirder by the day, and ever-more reminescent of the F-22, B2, French F-35/JSF (aka Maginot Line), ENRON, and all the other attempts to grab more than the national budget into one never-2b-used boondoggle. (oh, yes, the B2 did get used - it fired a few $1M cruise missiles and dropped a few thousand tons of bombs on $0.02 mud huts and $0.0000001 pakis.)

If the funding were all from private sources (like Apple and Google) maybe they could expand without limits, but fighter planes are not yet amenable to mass-market open sales.

What all this means is that the huge development cost is NOT going to be spread over 2400, but over some much-smaller number. Which makes the unit cost even more ludicrous. Ideal boondoggle for a New President / new House Majority Leader to cut and seem to be Fiscally Responsible. This may be the only war the F-35 fights - with huge losses.

1 F-35 downed ==
a) 10 rickety highway bridges saved.
b) Or 200 research projects of which 1 or 2 might lead to hundreds of billions in commercial innovation c) thousands of new jobs.
d) fewer cuts in Medicare
e) Bail out several renewable energy companies

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 03 May 2015 16:39

To understand some of the 'legacy' issues, consider the 'normal' environment for a pilot:

Data were collected during flight operations on 2 aircraft carriers for a total of 11 catapult launches (CATs), 9 touch-and-goes (TGs), and 4 arrested landings (TRAPs). Helmet pitch acceleration and displacement were estimated from the helmet translational acceleration data. Results: Of particular interest was the substantial low frequency seat and helmet vibration observed during the catapult launch. During the stroke period, seat and helmet vertical (Z) accelerations reached 6 and 8 g peak-to-peak, respectively, and occurred in the frequency range of 3–3.5 Hz. The associated helmet pitch reached peak-to-peak displacements ranging between 9° and 18°. Discussion: The large helmet rotations may be associated with helmet slippage that can cause partial or complete loss of the projected image on a helmet-mounted display (HMD) (vignetting). This is highly undesirable when using the HMD as the primary flight reference. The aircraft operational vibration can be regenerated in the laboratory for investigating this specific concern. The goal is to develop helmet-mounted equipment design guidelines that consider hostile vibratory environments.

Yet AFAIK, no one has cited this as even a problem to consider working on - for the airplane-improving community. These poor folks just live with this (or consider it a great thrill..). So you can imagine the scale when something IS considered to be a real problem.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 May 2015 16:52

Good luck with the $5 Million interceptor supersonic UAV that can replace a fighter. Lets visit that topic when there is actually one in development ! Even the Cold war SU/Warsaw threat_ fleet replacement argument is factually wrong (the Those 'fleets' were developed for a massive 2- or 3-front war with the SU/Warsaw Pact. bit). One can easily google up the USAF squadron strength from the Gulf war and see where it is now, and where it is projected to be once their desired number of F-35's are acquired. It is no where near the gulf war levels let alone peak_Cold war levels..2 front or 3 front or 20 front doesn't matter you have to provide each and every asset that the USAF has and match it to the COCOM demand be it fighters, strike aircraft, ISR aircraft, unmanned, CAS, AEW aircraft..Thats how they base their calculations even though visiting certain forums would be much easier and perhaps less time-consuming.. The argument that the F-35 somehow, is maintaining legacy fleet strengths that existed at some random time-frame referenced to the cold-war squadron strength era is not only factually incorrect but something that they never intended to do in the first place. The F-35 was never meant to replace a cold war fleet size 1 for 1, because they did not want as many squadrons in 2030 as an example because of both affordability and the fact that a modern fighter can do a lot more than a legacy per mission (As the Bomber community will say we went from sorties per target to targets per sorties. The current number is the lowest it has ever been and there is a hard stop at 49 because below that they can't meet the COCOM requirements without compromising mission sets. The current projections with the F-16 mothballing will actually take them below the 49 limit and they'll be at that until the F-35 ramp takes them back up to around 49 or 50 which they will maintain if they keep on their production plans. The only area where they need to UP squadron strength is unmanned ISR and this is where there are speculations that they already have a secret UAV in Low Rate Production (a rumor that was confirmed by a 3 star last year - Existence of the RQ 180 that is).

USAF Fighter-Squadron strength (1992 and beyond) -

By the time F-35 production/acquisition US DOD reaches its peak rate the Youngest F-16 that the USAF operates (the very last F-16C they procured) would be close to 22-25 years of age, and well into its last couple of thousand airframe hours. This is the youngest 4th generation aircraft we are talking about - you can actually do some research on google to see how the fleet numbers are looking at as far as both airframe_fatigue and raw airframe hours. While the latter can be addressed through SLEP's (the ones no one wants to fund because the investment is too large when compared to what they get in return) the former cannot since you have overshot your model due to excessive combat and expeditionary deployments and wear and tear on your fleet. The USMC is getting eaten alive with aircraft fatigue, down times and depot_capacity because of their aging Harriers and F/A-18's. The USAF although better off, isn't far behind. Only the F-15E with its 16,000 hour air-frame can survive that.

Edit: The link on the RQ180 doesn't work so use this - http://globalaviationreport.com/2014/06 ... confirmed/

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 03 May 2015 19:11

Only the F-15E with its 16,000 hour air-frame can survive that.

Very interesting comment. Do you by any chance know the reality of how that is working out? I mean, how many airframe patch-ups needed to get to say, 1000, 8000, 16000 hours? If you check into this (I mean discreetly ask someone who knows the reality, which you need not / should not / must not post anywhere), you may understand the genesis of concerns that people have about the way LMC is charging ahead on the (shall we say) later incarnations. c above re: WRALC or whatever it is called these days.
Again, *****Reality********.
Not the smart blue-suit-PPT:

V R @ 400% Combat-Readiness, SSSIRRRRRR!

Not that anyone ever tells me any reality, of course, or every yak in Mongolia would be bleating it next day.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 May 2015 19:19

Very interesting comment. Do you by any chance know the reality of how that is working out?

Better off compared to the F-16 and F/A-18 fleet. It was designed to last that much so its SLEP's would be more affordable (from the stand point that the investment will last longer) and farther out into the future. Of course the CFPH is also higher but I was concentrating purely on airframe design life. The F-15E (not the C) extensions are more affordable because they give you longer fleet_time then your F-16 that is essentially a LWF that you have been using as a medium sized strike fighter for the last 25 or so years (same with the F/A-18). The F-15E, K, SA, and SG are 16,000 hour airframe designs. The F/A-18 is the worst of the bunch and with very high fleet utilization the F-16 will be at the same point (where the F/A-18 is) in another 5 to 10 years. These are the realities unfortunately..Your fleet replenishment models assume X number of combat sorties, expeditionary deployments, and annual sorties/flying hours and engine cycles. If your utilization is higher you have to either buy more aircraft or retire them off early (adjust your models). The F/A-18 was hit hard with this, and as a result the USMC has a big depot clog up with 50% of the fleet not available for even training at any given time (USMC Commandant and the next JCS) and the USN is having similar problems and having to make up for that by increasing the planned utilization of the F-18E/F fighters...This as a result means that the F-18E/F SLEP's, overhauls and depot runs will be quicker and more intense so the USN now expects significantly reduced fighter availability in the mid 2020's which it is trying to mitigate by buying a couple of squadrons more of Super Hornet (The 40+ Billion program that fails the COMANCHE test ) and counting on their 40 aircraft procurement for the JSF starting FRP1.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 03 May 2015 19:34

Let me try repeating that: the weather has turned too warm for blizzards.
Referring to the F-15E with claimed 16,000 hour airframe (I assume that is flight hours, not hangar shelf life?)
Q1: Do you by any chance know the reality of how that is working out?
Q2: I mean, how many airframe patch-ups needed to get to say, 1000, 8000, 16000 hours?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 May 2015 19:43

Referring to the F-15E with claimed 16,000 hour airframe (I assume that is flight hours, not hangar shelf life?)
Q1: Do you by any chance know the reality of how that is working out?
Q2: I mean, how many airframe patch-ups needed to get to say, 1000, 8000, 16000 hours?

UB, I have answered the question in the best way possible I can based on stuff that i can provide readily available references to (I don't want to get into I heard from XYZ, or know so and so person who does this for a living). However, if you do want to know more about the matter there are F-16 and F-15 pilots out on the internet, and maintainers who have done this for their entire life that can give you more information.

All i am going to say is that the F-16XL and F-15E had 16,000 airframe hour design requirements with the former having lost to the F-15E. In terms of number of patches to get from 1000 to 2000 to 8000 to 10000 etc...From my interactions the airframe fatigue is about normal for both types with the Strike Eagle being more costly to keep flying for some very obvious reasons (it is heavier, carries more fuels, has some older sub-systems, has a larger payload/range etc etc - Basically the same reason why an Su-30 costs more to operate in the fleet than the LCA) but when it comes to looking at upgrades a similar amount of investment gets you more "bang for the buck" when it comes to the Strike Eagle, because you have much higher service_life left in them. So if you spend 15 Million per jet to get the EW upgrades and the Apg-82 radar it pays off because the type will be in service till nearly 2040..The F-16 fleet as a result has a very small amount of life left and its SLEP's are not pushing it radically into very high airframe hours...Neither the F-16 nor the F-15E will be cheap to operate towards the end of their service life (and beyond through SLEP's) and nor will they offer world class Mission availability rates, but the USAF has done the math and as of now, they are going to invest in far greater upgrades to the F-15E because they last longer. The F-16 SLEP's have fallen and the revised number isn't getting a lot of funding (in fact NONE) because as I said it offers questionable utility when compared to what time-frame it extends the capability (and the capability itself).

The 16,000 hour is airframe flying life (not shelf life).

The Strike eagle information can be found here -

http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/technology ... in-general

or here - http://www.amazon.com/F-15E-Strike-Comb ... +1991-2005

Or you can reach out to the folks on f-16.net that have flown both types, or have expereince with the fleets. I am going to restrict myself to things I can readily share from open sources on the net or published..

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 03 May 2015 20:43

I am now convinced that the F-35 is the best-in-class modern combat fighter aircraft at $85 million/each. All the problems have been addressed by LM and P&W. Maintenance costs will be less than a Cessna Skyhawk.

The MMRCA contract needs to be re-done as a strategic purpose where the MoD and IAF order 126 F-35 for $11 billion + $3 billion support, spares, and logistics + $1 billion LM kickbacks = $15 billion total. It will be a bargain and the PLAAF and PAF have no capabilities to detect the F-35 (butterflies).

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 03 May 2015 20:58

I am going to restrict myself to things I can readily share from open sources on the net or published..

Ah! Hajaar hajaar salaam onlee. Though I would suggest with all due respect that you have a very long way to go in figuring out what has been published. Everyone does... the trick is to figure it out.

And to put it as bluntly as possible, open-literature papers, presentations, reports etc etc. suggest with 399% certainty that the same problems on the F-15/F-4/F105/P051/Wright Flyer have carried over to the two succeeding generations, and the Air Force entities have allowed the vendors to get away with ignoring the problems. Which opens up the line of thinking that says: these ppl are happier to sell the gizmo, and get the nation so deep into the commitment that no one can say:

Ur contract is cancelled

So they make the $$$$$$$$$ on the endless 'refits' and spare parts. Used-car 101.

And for reasons that I have gone into b4, the SPO and the vendor are all in it together - OK, not deliberately, but once they reason out which side of their bread is buttered and which side has the Supari written on it.

Which is y... thinking on downstream (and in the unlikely event that anyone actually wakes up and does the sensible thing) a partial solution from the pov of an incorruptible, patriotic SecDef is to have at least one competitor back into the picture. That does not fix everything, since both/all megaCorps operate on the same habits. Refined since the days of Chris Colombo.

Or.. A blunt threat, carried out, to purchase phoren systems that cost 5% of these. One "net-centric" etc etc Super Stealth gizmo is enough to act as Pathfinder, take out the air defenses, and guide a whole squadron into the Deep Penetration Strike, accompanied by several cheap well-proven airframes carrying new missiles. More aerobatic. Faster.

So! Think Ell Cee Yay with F-135/136 injuns as F-16 Replacement and F-35 Alternative for USAF. Time to go graze on the Steppe now. Beat out the Thundaar and the War-Malt F-350 Peopre's PhotoSop Hypelsonic with a good swap deal.

Or maybe a few squadrons of desi-assembled Su-30MKI airframes with US-installed F-136 engines and some nifty US electronics. Plus the mandatory i-Phone6 for Net-Centric Warfare. One of every 4 planes will carry the MacStadium Mac Cloud Serve and another will carry a Karma Go! Internet Hub so the pilots can check Google Maps for directions. The third plane will have a Samsung Galaxy which gives the most screen for the buck, and the fourth will have a Nokia N-97 for Autonomous GPS With Spoken Directions in 37 languages.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 03 May 2015 21:58

Oblique references and wild tangents aside, the jsf program will replace the f-16's and 18's over the years. the US military needs a new plane and the jsf is it. India is not going to buy it, they will stick with what the Russians (and ultimately the Chinese) have until India can build its own gear to its satisfaction. Rejoice in your belief that the pakfa and its Chinese offshoot can kick the jsf's butt.
No worries, right?

Anyway, the jsf is not the only iron in the fire, there are other planes waiting to be developed for the US military. Any how, if you have some technical aspect of the jsf you want to discuss, lay it out. But crypto-qutoes and tangents pointing out past Pluto can only be guessed at.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 03 May 2015 22:58

How the mighty have fallen. From pontificating to the dutty yindoos about the ohsosuperior JSF to "not the only iron in the fire". LOLWA only from dehatis.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 May 2015 00:04

Mort Walker wrote:I am now convinced that the F-35 is the best-in-class modern combat fighter aircraft at $85 million/each. All the problems have been addressed by LM and P&W. Maintenance costs will be less than a Cessna Skyhawk.

The MMRCA contract needs to be re-done as a strategic purpose where the MoD and IAF order 126 F-35 for $11 billion + $3 billion support, spares, and logistics + $1 billion LM kickbacks = $15 billion total. It will be a bargain and the PLAAF and PAF have no capabilities to detect the F-35 (butterflies).

The F-35 is not an option for the IAF. The IAF is not interested in acquiring a US system for frontline combat aircraft, this is we'll known despite of the fact the OEM's may wish to market it. Its something known in strategic circles. Geopolitical realities are not going to make it happen and the IAF may never (most likely) operate a front line US aircaraft.

Ever since I have been here, I have constantly said the Rafale is the right choice, and the F-35 is in no way a substitute for it. You can check out my posts from a year ago on the matter. The one thing that I have constantly tried to drive home along the way has also been that the Rafale is always going to (TOT, or no TOT, made in India, Made in france or made in Cairo...) be an advanced 4+ generation fighter at 5th generation prices (F-35, Su-50, KF-X, F-3 etc). Not many took me seriously back then but now that we are seeing the first "export" sales coming through we have a number to compare the "total-package" to what the FMS customers (non development partners) have paid for the F-35 (FMS notifications for Japan, South Korea and Israel). That is a reality that the rafale cannot escape and it does come with that cost. Is it worth it? In limited amounts, to develop squadron strength I believe that it is if the TOT cost can be excluded which would only add to the generic 5 Billion- 6 Billion for 36 odd aircraft package. Its a good fighter, but it is not a cheap fighter (nor is the L2 in the Typhoon for that matter). Unlike other claims of masterfully converting what the US will pay in $ for development and acquisition of 2400 F-35's into INR and dividing it by the total indian taxpayers - the $ cost of the Rafale will very much be borne by the Indian taxpayer and it won't be cheap. So good aircraft but at a cost that is similar to what customers are paying for the F-35 as is seen in the FMS deal that has already been signed.

Coming around to the $85 Million URF argument, again I have said it a few times that that target doesn't matter. The SAR does not reflect that target. SAR cost is 108 Million URF for the F-35A in LRIP 8 (40 odd aircraft per batch) and you are well within your rights to believe that despite of moving from 40 to 170-180 aircraft production per year, there would be ZERO cost reduction to scale even though this would be unprecedented( even though cost has come down batch to batch despite of having marginal addition to ramp rates between LRIP 5 and LRIP 8 (Nothing like what is coming in the next 3-4 years)).

As far as technicalities, as has been shown there is lot of stuff flying around that makes zero sense, like the cost being converted to INR and being divided...Saying that the F-35 acquisition replaces the COLD WAR squadron strength when even a 10 minute search on google will show that the USAF had 188 fighter squadrons in 1992 (still not the peak cold war fighter squadron strength but still high) and is currently at 54, and is on its way to 47 before stabilizing close to 49 that it regards as the hard stop...SO NO the F-35 does not magically bring back the cold-war fleet. It retains the heavily reduced fighter fleet that is a nearly a 1/4 th of what it was at the peak in the cold war...

Other points have been explained to you. I do not regard it having SOLVED ALL ISSUES..I make it a point to list the issues that still require work on the way to IOC and more importantly in winding the SDD phase in 2018 (December). Yet regurgitating issues that have been known for some time, have had satisfactory solutions design (and in some cases even implemented) and are considered not really "big deals" by those that fly this thing day in and day out because they are understood and fixes are on the way to being implemented etc....-

------------

Obviously we disagree, but this is my list which they need to overcome between now and end of 2018 (Fully developed fighter program). It will be done in phases as was the plan. So far we have one OT on the Wasp (beginning 18th of this month) scheduled for the F-35B, 2 DT's for the Charlie (One later this year in August) and both the F-35B IOC (July 2015) and F-35A IOC (July-Dec 2016). Also expect two major orders , one for 150+ F-35's (Proposal sent to the JPO and is under negotiation) that will be SIGNED later this year and one for 477 aircraft that will be submitted next year and will be signed sometime in Q42016 or Q1 2017. This is the relative short term i.e. one-one and a half years. We can re-visit this discussion every year and see whether my predictions (or yours) are coming true or not.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6203&start=2040#p1835372

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 04 May 2015 00:22

Karan M wrote:From pontificating to the dutty yindoos about the ohsosuperior JSF to "not the only iron in the fire".

Shhhh!

I love this:

if you have some technical aspect of the jsf you want to discuss, lay it out.

ooooo, nooo, ah ain't go noo tick-nickels

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 04 May 2015 02:06

UlanBatori wrote:
Karan M wrote:From pontificating to the dutty yindoos about the ohsosuperior JSF to "not the only iron in the fire".
Shhhh!
I love this:
if you have some technical aspect of the jsf you want to discuss, lay it out.
ooooo, nooo massa, ah ain't go noo tick-nickels

Obviously.

vasu raya · Post by **vasu raya** » 04 May 2015 02:40

Not sure about US electronics on the MKI, though it may have to face them

Advanced situational awareness – the next step for AIDEWS

Already in 2012, ITT Exelis has awarded a contract for AIDEWS jamming pods for integration into the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) fleet of F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter jets as part of a deal worth $54m. This was followed in July by another FMS contract - ultimately worth more than $50m - to supply 12 electronic warfare suites to the Royal Air Force of Oman (RAFO). Without revealing specifics, Altman hints at further procurement deals in the pipeline.
"If a country is looking to buy new production F-16 aircraft that are still in full production at Lockheed Martin, then we always try to be part of that install," he says. "There are a lot of legacy F-16s around the world that are now being upgraded to be frontline fighters, and that's exactly what we built this capability for. There's a huge market there that we are on top of."

Suite escape: AIDEWS technology explained

AIDEWS has advanced off-the-shelf warning and jamming technology by an order of magnitude. The system architecture incorporates a channelised digital radar warning receiver (RWR) that operates in high-density environments; a lightweight, high-performance digital RF memory (DRFM)-based jammer designed to defeat pulse, pulse Doppler and continuous wave threats; and leading-edge electronic warfare control capability.
"ITT Exelis is currently providing more than 180 AIDEWS suites for six nations."
"The AIDEWS system has radar warning receiver capability as well as jamming capability, and searches the environment for anticipated radar threats," explains Altman. "These could simply be acquisition-type radars that are looking for the plane as it enters a dangerous area, or they could be radars that are guiding weapons.
"One of the best things about AIDEWS is that we can identify these threats well in advance of them even knowing we are there. This gives the pilot the advantage of being able to take evasive manoeuvres, while at the same time knowing he is protected by state-of-the-art DRFM-based jamming algorithms.
"AIDEWS can also be reprogrammed for any mission, defining which threats to look for, how to look for them and which type of jamming to perform when that threat is identified," he adds.
The system's modular design also supports the substitution of both line replaceable units (LRUs) and shop replaceable units (SRUs) in the field without returning the entire system or pod.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 04 May 2015 02:45

Mort Walker wrote:... + $1 billion LM kickbacks = $15 billion total.

Are kickbacks that high? I thought they would be in the range of a couple of hundreds of millions tops if not in tens of millions. This is highly depressing.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 May 2015 03:02

vayu tuvan wrote:
Mort Walker wrote:... + $1 billion LM kickbacks = $15 billion total.
Are kickbacks that high? I thought they would be in the range of a couple of hundreds of millions tops if not in tens of millions. This is highly depressing.

In all FMS deals the order is placed with the OEM by the US Government that does the cost-negotiations. In such cases if the OEM wishes to sell the jet at undisclosed prices (to preserve the line for example) they cannot because they have to charge what they charge the US government. That is why when they need to undercut the competition (as in Boeing did with the South Koreans because it wanted to extend its F-15SE line and have better chances in other competitions) they offer to sell their hardware at a much lower cost through a DCS and keep some component in the FMS route. Boeing did that when it bid for the Korean competition. While the Koreans asked the JPO to supply it cost information for the F-35, Boeing agreed to offer an "undisclosed" DCS (Direct Commercial Sale) deal with the weapons component being through FMS. There was no training component since it was an extension of the F-15K contract for training.

In the case of the F-35 all sales till date have happened through the JPO, and all non-partner nation sales through FMS. The developmental partner nations, and the FMS customers (Israel, Japan and South Korea so far) all have given the right to negotiate the price to the JPO and a single contract is signed with the two parties (LMA and UT) on an annual basis (soon going to be bulk purchase) for all the jets ordered in that lot. There doesn't seem to be a customer for the DCS route on the F-35 yet but obviously one cannot rule this out in the future. Any user specific change, or component is negotiated between the user and the JPO before the final FMS deal (has happened only once so far for FMS customers with the unique IDF requirements. For Partner nations this has happened with the UK - Unique/Specific weapons integration, and Norway special weapons integration and the Drag shoot integration) is signed and they work that in through a different contract.

Users pick delivery slots (production blocks) and communicate that to the JPO. The JPO sends a letter of needs to the OEM's (2 in this case since the airframe and all electronics, avionics etc are negotiated under LMA and the engine under UT) and the OEM's respond with a proposal usually in the first two months of the year. They then begin negotiations on the entire block (which includes aircraft for different users) and come to a price agreement and then sign the deal. Each year, the deal is different because the mix of aircraft (A,B and C) is different in each lot and the price is reduced. In case of the last Lot ordered (LRIP 8 ) it came down by 3.5% URF without any significant ramp in production.

But since you asked I'd also like to ask MW_ji, what the kickbacks are for Sukhoi, Mig, Boeing, Airbus and Dassault products?..