F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For several months the Canadian government have been EXTREMELY critical of the ongoing saga regarding all the well publicised issues surrounding the F-35 and this is just one of many, many stories that are continually being published.
Is the F-35 aircraft simply becoming far to expensive and most countries are now realising they might not be able to afford to buy the numbers required to have a viable air wing?
Is the F-35 aircraft simply becoming far to expensive and most countries are now realising they might not be able to afford to buy the numbers required to have a viable air wing?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I see it, it is not just the cost of the F35 that is the problem in this Austerity world that Governments are baulking at, it is the delay in availability of the F35 that is requiring some of the funds that where meant to be used to purchase F35s being used to keep the present fighter fleets flying, that may well reduce the final number of F35s purchased.
Glojo, i think you're right - not only is the absolute cost astronomical, but the relative cost is astonishing.
a single F-35B is going to buy you 130+ brand-spanking new Tommahawk Land Attack Missiles, and 30 F-35B's are going to buy, what, 45 - 50 top of the range F/A-18E SuperHornets with full weapons integration and immediate service.
its difficult to justify F-35 when a) its unlikely to be a mature airframe/weapon for another 12-15 years, b) the 'christ!' price tag covers a relatively small part of what most airforces are buying it for - which is everything, c) there are already doubts about its ability to do the first day of war task given the ever increasing capabilities of radar systems, and d) the observation that it would be far cheaper to 'stealthify' an air launched cruise missile and fire it from an F/A-18/Typhoon/Rafale to lop off the AD network that it would be to build a LO aircraft, fly it right into the LO network and drop Paveways onto it.
a single F-35B is going to buy you 130+ brand-spanking new Tommahawk Land Attack Missiles, and 30 F-35B's are going to buy, what, 45 - 50 top of the range F/A-18E SuperHornets with full weapons integration and immediate service.
its difficult to justify F-35 when a) its unlikely to be a mature airframe/weapon for another 12-15 years, b) the 'christ!' price tag covers a relatively small part of what most airforces are buying it for - which is everything, c) there are already doubts about its ability to do the first day of war task given the ever increasing capabilities of radar systems, and d) the observation that it would be far cheaper to 'stealthify' an air launched cruise missile and fire it from an F/A-18/Typhoon/Rafale to lop off the AD network that it would be to build a LO aircraft, fly it right into the LO network and drop Paveways onto it.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aussie Labour gov was publicly anti f-35 and had a "market analysis" too when they won power...guess what we are getting. If you use the real price of the f-35, you may come to the same conclusion as the italians and the f-35 is cheaper
Last edited by JSFfan; 29th Nov 2012 at 10:34.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that troubles me is that the F18E/F is now approximately a 20 odd year old design so the avionics etc will be in need of a refresh/update hence all this 'Silent Hornet' stuff which suprise suprise is going to cost additional money. So if you want an equivalent to the avionics packages in the F35 and the data linking and global maintenance network for which the r&d and testing of the software and firmware will be the main cost there will be an indeterminate development period while Boeing go and redevelop the wheel that LM has already expensively designed. Given how long software and firmware take to develop I can't say that I'm suprised that Boeing haven't self funded development and have been trying to flog the concept to a buyer for the past two years.
Beags - The F-35C's OEW is a piffling 5500 pounds more than that of the F-35A, which has a performance impact, and the giant wing is not going to do wonders for your transonic acceleration.
If someone forced me at gunpoint to buy an F-35 (which is pretty much the US marketing strategy anyway) I would ask for an A+ with probe-and-drogue and no internal gun. It would have nearly as much internal fuel as the C and weigh 6000+ pounds less.
And srsly, folks, if you get in a guns fight in a JSF you (a) have already
ed up and (b) deserve what is about to happen to you. And strafing in a single-engine, densely-packed jet, in an era of mini guided weapons? !
Funny thing is that they switched to the Gatling from the 27 mm Rheinmetall in 2003 because they thought that they had a big weight margin to play with.
If someone forced me at gunpoint to buy an F-35 (which is pretty much the US marketing strategy anyway) I would ask for an A+ with probe-and-drogue and no internal gun. It would have nearly as much internal fuel as the C and weigh 6000+ pounds less.
And srsly, folks, if you get in a guns fight in a JSF you (a) have already
ed up and (b) deserve what is about to happen to you. And strafing in a single-engine, densely-packed jet, in an era of mini guided weapons? !Funny thing is that they switched to the Gatling from the 27 mm Rheinmetall in 2003 because they thought that they had a big weight margin to play with.
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
Quote"too big to fail, to big to succeed"
NY Time has a decent article about the past ,present and possible future of the whole JSF program;
In Federal Budget Cutting, F-35 Fighter Jet Is at Risk - NYTimes.com
Software, price, software, helmet , range (?) and software still seem to be the biggest hurdles.
iso 2443 they might be lucky to get 1200-1800, foreign orders more than ever needed to make the unit price low enough to be manageable .
Also the most competition the whole program will likely face will come from the future new stealth bomber (range, payload) for the USAF and the X47 which has started its first on board testing with the US NAVY and will be able to fly considerably further than the F35C.
etc... .
In Federal Budget Cutting, F-35 Fighter Jet Is at Risk - NYTimes.com
Software, price, software, helmet , range (?) and software still seem to be the biggest hurdles.
iso 2443 they might be lucky to get 1200-1800, foreign orders more than ever needed to make the unit price low enough to be manageable .
Also the most competition the whole program will likely face will come from the future new stealth bomber (range, payload) for the USAF and the X47 which has started its first on board testing with the US NAVY and will be able to fly considerably further than the F35C.
etc... .
And srsly, folks, if you get in a guns fight in a JSF you (a) have already ed up and (b) deserve what is about to happen to you. And strafing in a single-engine, densely-packed jet, in an era of mini guided weapons? !
The advent of widespread small PGW would logically seem to have changed the game, but can we be sure? The inventors of the Falcon and Sparrow were probably pretty sure themselves........
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
And srsly, folks, if you get in a guns fight in a JSF you (a) have already ed up and (b) deserve what is about to happen to you. And strafing in a single-engine, densely-packed jet, in an era of mini guided weapons? !
And srsly, folks, if you get in a guns fight in a JSF you (a) have already ed up and (b) deserve what is about to happen to you. And strafing in a single-engine, densely-packed jet, in an era of mini guided weapons? !
VID,
No missile has a PK of 1,
Afghanistan, number of strafing runs?
No idea what single engine has to do with it.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
I was around on the programme when the gun was switched. The reason given for the switch was that Mauser had not managed to demonstrate a working linkless feed system for the cannon, as well as blast issues.
They switched to the 25mm Gatling, citing better effectiveness and easier integration. However, in my view the real reason for the switch was a very strong and effective lobby from US gun makers that exploited the US user community's long standing preference for Gatling designs. The analysis that was offered by the F-35 team that led the change did not mention the increased volume, increased weight, reduced duration of fire and quite significantly reduced effectiveness, especially in the air to ground scenario, of going to a 25mm Gatling. (The 27mm round is really very good indeed - the 25mm isn't bad, but the 27 beats it all ends up).
The main problem at the time was that LM had taken their eye of the weight ball - big time. They didn't think they had a big weight margin, they just weren't really thinking about weight (of any of the variants) at all. Big mistake for a combat aircraft.
I'd respectfully disagree about strafing - modern gunsights are damn good and getting better with a good EOTS to help aim them. Guns offer a very effective 'low collateral' weapon, in my view. If it really is 'too dangerous' for jets, well, perhaps we had better get a few more attack helicopters to fill the close support gap.
Best Regards as ever to those working the programme,
Engines
I was around on the programme when the gun was switched. The reason given for the switch was that Mauser had not managed to demonstrate a working linkless feed system for the cannon, as well as blast issues.
They switched to the 25mm Gatling, citing better effectiveness and easier integration. However, in my view the real reason for the switch was a very strong and effective lobby from US gun makers that exploited the US user community's long standing preference for Gatling designs. The analysis that was offered by the F-35 team that led the change did not mention the increased volume, increased weight, reduced duration of fire and quite significantly reduced effectiveness, especially in the air to ground scenario, of going to a 25mm Gatling. (The 27mm round is really very good indeed - the 25mm isn't bad, but the 27 beats it all ends up).
The main problem at the time was that LM had taken their eye of the weight ball - big time. They didn't think they had a big weight margin, they just weren't really thinking about weight (of any of the variants) at all. Big mistake for a combat aircraft.
I'd respectfully disagree about strafing - modern gunsights are damn good and getting better with a good EOTS to help aim them. Guns offer a very effective 'low collateral' weapon, in my view. If it really is 'too dangerous' for jets, well, perhaps we had better get a few more attack helicopters to fill the close support gap.
Best Regards as ever to those working the programme,
Engines
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
The trouble with your favoured version of the F-35 is that LM aren't building it and no one else is saying they need it. Hence, you are making an already expensive aircraft even more expensive. As this would be just your requirement you would be expected to front up all the costs for design, development, test etc adding further to the cost. Bottom line is that none of the partner nations would be able to afford it.
If you want probe and drogue without the lift fan you have to buy the C, or an F-18/Rafale etc.
On the point of single engined jets strafing targets, GR7 and 9 did it quite successfully in Afghan for a fair while, all be it with rockets rather than a gun. The number of engines was not an issue.
The trouble with your favoured version of the F-35 is that LM aren't building it and no one else is saying they need it. Hence, you are making an already expensive aircraft even more expensive. As this would be just your requirement you would be expected to front up all the costs for design, development, test etc adding further to the cost. Bottom line is that none of the partner nations would be able to afford it.
If you want probe and drogue without the lift fan you have to buy the C, or an F-18/Rafale etc.
On the point of single engined jets strafing targets, GR7 and 9 did it quite successfully in Afghan for a fair while, all be it with rockets rather than a gun. The number of engines was not an issue.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WhiteOvies
If you want probe and drogue without the lift fan you have to buy the C, or an F-18/Rafale etc.
A: O’Bryan: “We anticipated a number of the operators would want probe-and-drogue refueling in the F-35A and we kept that space empty on the F-35A to accommodate probe and drogue refueling. We‘ve done a number of studies – funded studies, not projects – funded studies to evaluate that, paid for by the countries who want that to happen. It’s a relatively easy … doable change.”
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 30th Nov 2012 at 05:58.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Quote:
Quote:
This is the F-35 equivalent of having left the space on the QE2 carriers to fit catapult equipment, which could be then be fitted at reasonable cost when required, right? 
and we kept that space empty on the F-35A to accommodate probe and drogue refueling
Does anyone have a cost comparison for F-35x probe-and-drogue fit
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
F-35A has space for fitting drogue & probe air refuel bits
Check this link for Canadian concerns about whatever concerns them for whatever reason about refuelling their F-35 bits:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7504156
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7504156
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the F-35 equivalent of having left the space on the QE2 carriers to fit catapult equipment, which could be then be fitted at reasonable cost when required, right? 
The carriers were designed big enough to take catapults and traps without having to rebuild an entirely new vessel, doesn't mean that it wouldn't be an invasive and long process. However when the carriers were designed EMAL's wasn't a known locked down design which we (the UK) would have had access to. So any 'reserved' space would be based on assumptions and previous experience my understanding is that the original design reserved the spaces needed for steam cats and traps so it's not totally suprising that the possibility of fitting an unknown design with a totally different footprint and form factor (EMALS is only going in new build US carriers, AAG will though) into the ships has resulted in a big design replan hence massive costs and risks and through life support costs which I'll bet that big figure bandied about includes, not just the cost of the 'parts'.
IF it had been a properly serious goer when the true number of design changes needed for EMALS appeared then they would have gone for steam cats and traps but if you read through freedom of information requests relating to that perfectly reasonable question the MOD were dead set against installing steam boilers in the ships thus steam cats and traps was always a non starter.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
eaglemmoomin,
The point here being, how much do you think LM will charge for the design work, software changes for CoG envelope and installation? Cheap? I think not.
The point here being, how much do you think LM will charge for the design work, software changes for CoG envelope and installation? Cheap? I think not.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh I imagine for the physical parts and connectivity quite a bit of design and recertification work. But I'd expect the software that controls the refuelling to not change too much the aircraft S/W package already supports probe and drogue refuelling so I'd expect the boom control module s/w for the boom on the A to be replaced with the probe and drogue control module s/w used for the B. So the esting and integration regime should be somewhat less as it should be able to take the work already done for the B and C.
Eaglem...
you may well be technically correct - however isn't the lesson that leaps out from JSF (and everthing else we've ever built/bought), that 'a little modification, nothing serious', soon becomes 'fcuking how much!'?
my cynicism is driven by the fact that when i was a kid, JSF was going to be a 60-80% parts commonality airframe, it would be more manouverable than an F-16, it was going to cost $60m apiece, and it was going to be in service in 2006 or so.
this is a platform that burns £50 notes to such an extent that no one is looking at developing something as simple as an external fuel tank to hang off it because of the cost that seems to develop when anything, regardless of how simple a process it should be, goes near an F-35.
you may well be technically correct - however isn't the lesson that leaps out from JSF (and everthing else we've ever built/bought), that 'a little modification, nothing serious', soon becomes 'fcuking how much!'?
my cynicism is driven by the fact that when i was a kid, JSF was going to be a 60-80% parts commonality airframe, it would be more manouverable than an F-16, it was going to cost $60m apiece, and it was going to be in service in 2006 or so.
this is a platform that burns £50 notes to such an extent that no one is looking at developing something as simple as an external fuel tank to hang off it because of the cost that seems to develop when anything, regardless of how simple a process it should be, goes near an F-35.