F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember when a young James Schofield asked for advice on tackling his ETPS application.
Great when the good guys win in the end.
Great when the good guys win in the end.
Assuming the F-4 is the bigger circle there, I note it is now in a very good firing position against the other aircraft there. A nice lag Fox 1. F-4 wins again! QED.
IIRC, cornering velocity for F-4 was 450 kt and 6.5 G, but I also seem to recall that q would bleed like a stuck pig.
The F-4S with the leading edge slats would, per an old Phantom jockey pal of mine, given you a good turn at 450/7.5 ... one last look at a sweet shot before you broke it of/unloaded, or departed ... hehe.
Speed and altitude is where Phantoms had an advantage for a while, but the Eagle (and its better wing loading and thrust to weight) took it to the next level. Likewise the Viper. ORAC: you beat me to the Boyd reference, it's a good one.
Then Clinton/Aspin/Perry emerged, waved their wands and shouted JOINTERIUS LOWCOSTICUS! which drove improved air-to-air farther to the back of the bus than before.
(ad infinitum)
Next, the Professor-General Nordens of industry pulled out their wands and yelled EODAS INVINCIBILITAS! to convince more people that "maneuvering is irrelevant."
Some good stuff, and a shame F-22 production run was so short.
(yet again)
450 KCAS it was, Wolf. 450 KCAS and 19 units and listen to her rattle. Ah, happy days. Strangely enough, on my first trip in the Eagle at RTU I did some high aoa manoeuvring and the new girl rattled exactly the same as the old girl. Same MacAir stable, I guess.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Much Does an F-35 Fighter Really Cost?
Time magazine has started a five part series on the cost of the F-35. This is from part 1 and the series should be an interesting read.
How Much Does an F-35 Fighter Really Cost? | TIME.com
There’s been a rash of recent reports that the U.S. military has wrestled the F-35’s cost growth to the mat. They come from some heavy hitters: Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Air Force Lieut. General Christopher Bogdan, the F-35′s program manager, and the Pentagon’s latest Selected Acquisition Report. ………………………………….
In fact, Wheeler — a longtime military-cost analyst on Capitol Hill (where he toiled on both sides of the aisle) and the Government Accountability Office — says the plane’s $159 million purported per copy price in that latest Pentagon SAR — continues to rise, and is actually well north of that sum.
He promises to walk us as gently as he can through a forest of Pentagon data searching for the truth each day this week. We invite you to tag along.
In fact, Wheeler — a longtime military-cost analyst on Capitol Hill (where he toiled on both sides of the aisle) and the Government Accountability Office — says the plane’s $159 million purported per copy price in that latest Pentagon SAR — continues to rise, and is actually well north of that sum.
He promises to walk us as gently as he can through a forest of Pentagon data searching for the truth each day this week. We invite you to tag along.
) would it?
Units are an arbitrary measure of aoa. 19 units, or 19.2 depanding on K or M and in what situation, represented CL max. So best turn and best lift/drag on approach. Beyond 19 units there be dragons.
F-15 was different. It was 'naturally' spin resistant and you take it pretty much to whatever aoa it could give you. I don't know what it was in degrees, but we were taught and used to teach a last ditch, quick reversal manoeuvre called a pirouette. See some of the other high aoa stuff for an explanation. Or come back to me.
F-15 was different. It was 'naturally' spin resistant and you take it pretty much to whatever aoa it could give you. I don't know what it was in degrees, but we were taught and used to teach a last ditch, quick reversal manoeuvre called a pirouette. See some of the other high aoa stuff for an explanation. Or come back to me.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 4th Jun 2013 at 20:23.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM,
Please pardon lame banter, twas nothing more. More than happy with high AoA stuff cheers Courtney - current steed likes it at the higher end - so to speak, in fact, some would say it's the only part of our flight envelope where we can compete!
We also practice the pirouette - almost as if the F-15 and F-18E have some lineage in common! (If you look closely enough).
Cheers and regards.
Please pardon lame banter, twas nothing more. More than happy with high AoA stuff cheers Courtney - current steed likes it at the higher end - so to speak, in fact, some would say it's the only part of our flight envelope where we can compete!
We also practice the pirouette - almost as if the F-15 and F-18E have some lineage in common! (If you look closely enough).
Cheers and regards.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as the original question goes, F35 cancelled, then what?
For Canada, the possibility of a return to the F35 has increased with the Gripen NG leaving the evaluation.
http://nosint.********.be/2013/06/ad...NTelligence%29
For Canada, the possibility of a return to the F35 has increased with the Gripen NG leaving the evaluation.
http://nosint.********.be/2013/06/ad...NTelligence%29
“Saab followed the discussions in Canada with interest [but] at this time and stage of the evaluation process, Saab has decided not to take part,” the company said in a June 3 e-mail to select media outlets.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35 - Alphabet Soup: PAUCs, APUCs, URFs, Cost Variances and Other Pricing Dodges
Part 2 of the "Times" F-35 cost series.
Alphabet Soup: PAUCs, APUCs, URFs, Cost Variances and Other Pricing Dodges | TIME.com
The cost of an F-35 is currently increasing, more than likely to remain high, and very unlikely to even approach the low levels being articulated by Pentagon managers and documents.
But F-35 costs are clouded by the calculating ways that the Pentagon reports them.
The applicable empirical data – the most informative — have been obscured. They also call into question the long-range projection just made by the Defense Department in its new Selected Acquisition Report that total program costs for the F-35 will come down by $4.5 billion. The detailed F-35 SAR, made available by the Project on Government Oversight last week, is widely viewed as the gold standard of a weapon program’s cost. ……………………………..
– The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) divides the total acquisition expense, including research and development (R&D), procurement and military construction funds, by the total number of planned test and operational aircraft (2,457)………………………………….
The SAR also lists something called Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) costs. The URF does not include the support and training equipment, technical data, initial spare parts or even the gas and lubricants to make an F-35 useable. It also does not include the upgrades and fixes that testing and other flying experience reveals to be needed.
Bottom line: the unit recurring flyaway cost will not get you an F-35 you can fly away, not for combat, not for training, not even for the delivery hop.
A favorite of F-35 lobbyists and marketers, the URF for the F-35 aircraft is $65.9 million. Want an engine? Make it $76.8 million; that’s in base year dollars; the SAR doesn’t do the calculation in the slightly higher then-year dollars. Moreover, that ridiculously understated $76.8 million is only for the Air Force’s A version; the pricier C model for the Navy has a URF (with engine) of $88.7 million, and the Marines’ B model (with engine and lift fan) is $103.6 million.
In fact, the average F-35 unit cost will be more than the $135.7 million then-year APUC, and it will even be more than the $159.2 million then-year PAUC. Those numbers are grounded in analytical quicksand.
But F-35 costs are clouded by the calculating ways that the Pentagon reports them.
The applicable empirical data – the most informative — have been obscured. They also call into question the long-range projection just made by the Defense Department in its new Selected Acquisition Report that total program costs for the F-35 will come down by $4.5 billion. The detailed F-35 SAR, made available by the Project on Government Oversight last week, is widely viewed as the gold standard of a weapon program’s cost. ……………………………..
– The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) divides the total acquisition expense, including research and development (R&D), procurement and military construction funds, by the total number of planned test and operational aircraft (2,457)………………………………….
The SAR also lists something called Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) costs. The URF does not include the support and training equipment, technical data, initial spare parts or even the gas and lubricants to make an F-35 useable. It also does not include the upgrades and fixes that testing and other flying experience reveals to be needed.
Bottom line: the unit recurring flyaway cost will not get you an F-35 you can fly away, not for combat, not for training, not even for the delivery hop.
A favorite of F-35 lobbyists and marketers, the URF for the F-35 aircraft is $65.9 million. Want an engine? Make it $76.8 million; that’s in base year dollars; the SAR doesn’t do the calculation in the slightly higher then-year dollars. Moreover, that ridiculously understated $76.8 million is only for the Air Force’s A version; the pricier C model for the Navy has a URF (with engine) of $88.7 million, and the Marines’ B model (with engine and lift fan) is $103.6 million.
In fact, the average F-35 unit cost will be more than the $135.7 million then-year APUC, and it will even be more than the $159.2 million then-year PAUC. Those numbers are grounded in analytical quicksand.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35 - The Deadly Empirical Data
Part 3 of the "Times" F-35 cost series.
The Deadly Empirical Data | TIME.com
– First, contemporary F-35 unit costs are today in excess of $200 million, well above the Average Procurement Unit Costs (APUCs) and Program Acquisition Unit Costs (PAUCs) that the military’s Selected Acquisition Reports report to be unit costs for the complete F-35 program. It should also be noted that contemporary unit costs are literally a multiple of the commonly cited Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) cost ($78.7 million—for the F-35A) or of the $85 million envisioned in the future by the program manager, General Bogdan. (See my second post for a discussion of these acronyms and the flawed cost calculations they represent.) The program has a very, very long way to go to even begin to approach the learning curve reductions that the official documentation for the program predicts.
– Second, by the end of 2014, the F-35 will have been produced in significant annual amounts for seven years. The statement of Vice Admiral David Dunaway of the Naval Air Systems Command that the F-35 is now a “fairly mature air vehicle” is accurate—regarding production. There has been ample opportunity for the learning curve to have demonstrated some level of decreasing unit cost—for Lockheed and its major subcontractors to have worked out the kinks associated with manufacturing any new complex piece of hardware.
– Third, there is a discernible trend in F-35 fabrication costs: they are increasing. As figure 3 clearly shows, they have been rising since 2011 (or since 2012, if the comptroller’s reports are wrong and the 2011 unit cost was $218.5 million, not $199.8 million).
– Second, by the end of 2014, the F-35 will have been produced in significant annual amounts for seven years. The statement of Vice Admiral David Dunaway of the Naval Air Systems Command that the F-35 is now a “fairly mature air vehicle” is accurate—regarding production. There has been ample opportunity for the learning curve to have demonstrated some level of decreasing unit cost—for Lockheed and its major subcontractors to have worked out the kinks associated with manufacturing any new complex piece of hardware.
– Third, there is a discernible trend in F-35 fabrication costs: they are increasing. As figure 3 clearly shows, they have been rising since 2011 (or since 2012, if the comptroller’s reports are wrong and the 2011 unit cost was $218.5 million, not $199.8 million).
And did anyone really ever think for a moment that the most expensive mil procurement ever could really come in at a comparable price to gen 4/4.5 platforms? But I doubt any of the governments that are in the JSF market were taken in by the public spin any more than the US gov have been. This is only 'news' to those of us that weren't on the inside of keeping the programme alive. I doubt this will be a killer, shocking though it may seem.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
first he complains about a cost system that's been used for every project
then he uses a short time period, where there is a lot of infrastructure spending which is a component of the average PAUC and claims some extreme price
sounds like the usual stuff from Wheeler, we really need a good term for an internet shock jock
meanwhile in the real world
UK set to procure first F-35 Lightning II squadron
The UK is expected to obtain authority to procure its first squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)/Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) before the end of 2013, IHS Jane's was told on 18 April.
Speaking at BAE Systems' Warton production facility in Lancashire, Craig Smith, the head of F-35 Sustainment Programme Development UK/EU, said that military officials with industry support are working on the Main Gate 4 approval process for the procurement of an additional 14 F-35Bs to stand up the UK's first squadron in 2016.
and another nonpartner, Korea looks like making their choice this month, with the f-35 preferred, does anyone want to say it wont be the f-35?
South Korea Nears F-X Phase 3 Decision
then he uses a short time period, where there is a lot of infrastructure spending which is a component of the average PAUC and claims some extreme price
sounds like the usual stuff from Wheeler, we really need a good term for an internet shock jock
meanwhile in the real world
UK set to procure first F-35 Lightning II squadron
The UK is expected to obtain authority to procure its first squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)/Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) before the end of 2013, IHS Jane's was told on 18 April.
Speaking at BAE Systems' Warton production facility in Lancashire, Craig Smith, the head of F-35 Sustainment Programme Development UK/EU, said that military officials with industry support are working on the Main Gate 4 approval process for the procurement of an additional 14 F-35Bs to stand up the UK's first squadron in 2016.
and another nonpartner, Korea looks like making their choice this month, with the f-35 preferred, does anyone want to say it wont be the f-35?
South Korea Nears F-X Phase 3 Decision
Last edited by JSFfan; 5th Jun 2013 at 23:37.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the Koreans might need their aircraft sooner rather than at some indefinite time in the far future I'd suggest they buy F-15's......................... they have to buy 'merican
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
LM No Problems to Deliver F-35s South Korean 2016 Deadline Quote
Delivery schedule to affect fighter buy 21 Apr 2013 Kim Tae-gyu
Delivery schedule to affect fighter buy
"...The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said Sunday that it will ask the three bidders whether they will be able to meet the delivery date of between 2016 and 2020....
...According to another military source, there are fears that the actual delivery time may be delayed to between 2017 and 2021 because the purchase decision was delayed by more than half a year....
...Representatives from Lockheed Martin and EADS said they have no problem meeting the 2016 deadline if they win the bid...."
Delivery schedule to affect fighter buy
"...The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said Sunday that it will ask the three bidders whether they will be able to meet the delivery date of between 2016 and 2020....
...According to another military source, there are fears that the actual delivery time may be delayed to between 2017 and 2021 because the purchase decision was delayed by more than half a year....
...Representatives from Lockheed Martin and EADS said they have no problem meeting the 2016 deadline if they win the bid...."
The price thing isn't really that surprising, is it? Let's face it, if the true, final price were revealed at the start of a program, none of them would ever get off the drawing board. That said, this is the time when governments really do need to know the full price, with everything included. How else are defence budgets going to accommodate them?
As for the Lockheed Martin/EADS quote.
What else could they have said? DAPA say the ability to deliver is crucial to their decision to buy, LM are hardly going to rule themselves out of the competition by saying they can't meet the deadline. Better to say they certainly can even if they have doubts. It'll be too late once they get to the delivery phase and they're late.
As for the Lockheed Martin/EADS quote.
Representatives from Lockheed Martin and EADS said they have no problem meeting the 2016 deadline if they win the bid.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I doubt any of the governments that are in the JSF market were taken in
by the public spin any more than the US gov have been.
by the public spin any more than the US gov have been.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no doubt they can deliver a block 3i in 2016 and 3f by 2020, if they are happy with that. 3f is said to be 2018 and this gives a 2 year slip
"The 2001 Australian Government most certainly was."
do you think this is our first BBQ? we bought the f-111 and the fa-18ab, if you have spare time have a read of the history, cost more and late is standard stuff and to a large extent this was taken into account.
we are still within our original budget, but 2 years behind delivery
"The 2001 Australian Government most certainly was."
do you think this is our first BBQ? we bought the f-111 and the fa-18ab, if you have spare time have a read of the history, cost more and late is standard stuff and to a large extent this was taken into account.
we are still within our original budget, but 2 years behind delivery
Last edited by JSFfan; 6th Jun 2013 at 09:21.