F-35 fighter faces range shortfall -pentagon report

[Bevo]

The radar-evading aircraft's "A" model is currently estimated to have a combat mission radius of 584 nautical miles, just short of the required 590 nautical miles, a Dec. 31-dated report to Congress said.


Program officials originally estimated that the F-35A would be able to hit targets 690 nautical miles away, unrefueled, or 15 percent more than now, the Department of Defense's "Selected Acquisition Report" showed.
http://www.reuters.com/article (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/13/usa-fighter-range-idUSN1320161520110513?feedType=RSS&feedName=industrialsSector&rpc=43)

[TBM-Legend]

bring back the F-111:ok:

[D-IFF_ident]

Good job it's AAR capable then. But could you imagine if the fuel pipes behind the UARRSI were the same as those behind the probe? They'd never be off the tanker.

Then you'd need new tankers with more fuel available.

Oh dear.

[Buster Hyman]

bring back the F-111http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
Yes, indeed, new build F-111's with the unloved Seasprite avionics...we'll save a fortune! :p

[Lonewolf_50]

The radar-evading aircraft's "A" model is currently estimated to have a combat mission radius of 584 nautical miles, just short of the required 590 nautical miles, a Dec. 31-dated report to Congress said.

Estimated ... assuming no wind? :confused:

Also, I think I'd be able to live with that 1% "not quite there" unless the number is already a product of inflated performance accounting ... we don't have the whole story, thinks I. :cool:

[glad rag]

Good job it's AAR capable then. But could you imagine if the fuel pipes behind the UARRSI were the same as those behind the probe? They'd never be off the tanker.

Then you'd need new tankers with more fuel available.

Oh dear.

You mean like real BIG ones with oodles of fuel to offload?

[Graybeard]

Heard yesterday on the radio: the price of the new F-35 program is $1 Trillion! CONgress just reinstated the second source engine the USAF doesn't want, for a cool $35 Billion.

I thought the F-35 was supposed to be a lower cost replacement for the $350 Million each F-22, but #6 F-35 (flight test?) that CONgress is pushing on the AF will cost $380 Million.

I'm sure glad we don't have an enemy worthy of risking such expensive tools.

The Military-Industrial Complex, as warned by Pres. Eisenhower, is on steroids.
GB

[Lonewolf_50]

Graybeard:
Cost is going to be influenced by production run. Shorten it and cost keeps going up.

Also, F-35 is not a replacement for F-22. Multi role (think F/A-18) versus "Air Superiority" (think F-15C). It's a force mix thing, but neither is cheap. The High Low mix is now the High Insanely High mix. :p

I thought the F-35 was supposed to be a lower cost replacement for the $350 Million each F-22, but #6 F-35 (flight test?) that CONgress is pushing on the AF will cost $380 Million.

Not sure how you get 380 million per copy for the F-35. :confused:

[ICBM]

I thought the F-35 was supposed to be a lower cost replacement for the $350 Million each F-22, but #6 F-35 (flight test?) that CONgress is pushing on the AF will cost $380 Million

Early test models before production has reached full capacity/output are more expensive as per most, if not all, aircraft programs. Cost curves, and tracking to those curves, are the more important thing to monitor.

[glad rag]

Shorten it and cost keeps going up. Sure is going to be an very expensive, performance limited, technology eclipsed cold turkey at this rate!:p

Can someone remind me of the comparable ranges for the harrier?:cool:

[AR1]

Didn't do the Harrier any harm..

[Mr Grim]

Can someone remind me of the comparable ranges for the harrier?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cool.gif


Well that's reasonable as they will have the same capabilities, [desperately trying not to use the irritating rolling eyes smiley], but does anyone know the range for the Harrier with a bomb load and no external fuel tanks, not 584nm I would guess? I see the same article quotes Boeing saying that the Super Hornet does 500nm with 3 external tanks. Of course the UK is getting the C which carries more fuel than the A (and a lot more than the B) but is aerodynamically different so not sure what the net result is. TBH 584nm with no external tanks sounds pretty damn impressive. I assume something like 2 x 2000lb internally carried.

On costs the article quotes $382 billion for 2,443 aircraft which my calculator says is $156 million each. Not exactly cheap but much cheaper than a F22 but, dare I say it, more expensive than Typhoon (I use normal calculators, not a Lewis Page model).

[glad rag]

OMG! some people just cannot think out of the [sarcasm] box can we.

getitnow?

God it's GRIM in here etc,etc.:p