F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
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
That's a pretty weak reply and a questionable way of using
dubious accounting tricks to skew the costs of the F35 compared with the F18.
He's basically using 'economy cost' to try to prove that the F35 is really no more expensive than the F18SH which is nonsense.
Economy cost is actually a tool one might use to compare the cost-weight of big programs spanning multiple decades, eg; comparing the cost of the MANHATTAN project in the 40's with the APOLLO project in the 60-70's and the SHUTTLE program in the 80-90's would be a good example for using economy costs (essentially the weight of these programs on the total economy as a percentage of nominal GDP).
Comparing the cost of the F18SH and the 5-10yr younger F35, 2 fighters that will operate for most of their lives side by side is just ludicrous when trying to use the 'economy cost'-tool.
Between 2001 and 2013 the nominal GDP rose from 10,226 billion US$ to 16,912 billion US$ which means + 65% (even with a severe shrink in 2008), this does not mean that therefore it is justified that the F35 can cost more just because the economy got so much bigger, fact remains that the SH's main development costs are already written of and it can be produced and upgraded at least as long as the F35 if the need and orders require it to be.
the F35 is at least 40% more expensive and will, at best, always remain
that more expensive versus the F18SH, (with the current unresolved issues it could even become much more but let's give it the benefit of the doubt for now).
The question(s) remains up until today,
-Is this extra cost justified, how long and to what degree will its STEALTH characteristics be a deciding factor?
-What is the added value of a limited internal weapons load contrary to a therefore much increased clean drag due to a very bulky body ?
-Is this a real successor for LWF's like the F16/18/M2000, the A2G specialist aka the A10 or a true air dominance fighter like the F15 ?
-Does the fused sensor package really makes this F35 so exceptional or can it be partially or in its entirety be used on other platforms even older ones)?
And last but not least, something this blogger conveniently passes over as if not important, how about operational cost difference, the F35 does not fair well in this regard with other current fighters like the SH, something which is maybe more important in the long-run than the initial acquisition costs.
dubious accounting tricks to skew the costs of the F35 compared with the F18.
He's basically using 'economy cost' to try to prove that the F35 is really no more expensive than the F18SH which is nonsense.
Economy cost is actually a tool one might use to compare the cost-weight of big programs spanning multiple decades, eg; comparing the cost of the MANHATTAN project in the 40's with the APOLLO project in the 60-70's and the SHUTTLE program in the 80-90's would be a good example for using economy costs (essentially the weight of these programs on the total economy as a percentage of nominal GDP).
Comparing the cost of the F18SH and the 5-10yr younger F35, 2 fighters that will operate for most of their lives side by side is just ludicrous when trying to use the 'economy cost'-tool.
Between 2001 and 2013 the nominal GDP rose from 10,226 billion US$ to 16,912 billion US$ which means + 65% (even with a severe shrink in 2008), this does not mean that therefore it is justified that the F35 can cost more just because the economy got so much bigger, fact remains that the SH's main development costs are already written of and it can be produced and upgraded at least as long as the F35 if the need and orders require it to be.
the F35 is at least 40% more expensive and will, at best, always remain
that more expensive versus the F18SH, (with the current unresolved issues it could even become much more but let's give it the benefit of the doubt for now).
The question(s) remains up until today,
-Is this extra cost justified, how long and to what degree will its STEALTH characteristics be a deciding factor?
-What is the added value of a limited internal weapons load contrary to a therefore much increased clean drag due to a very bulky body ?
-Is this a real successor for LWF's like the F16/18/M2000, the A2G specialist aka the A10 or a true air dominance fighter like the F15 ?
-Does the fused sensor package really makes this F35 so exceptional or can it be partially or in its entirety be used on other platforms even older ones)?
And last but not least, something this blogger conveniently passes over as if not important, how about operational cost difference, the F35 does not fair well in this regard with other current fighters like the SH, something which is maybe more important in the long-run than the initial acquisition costs.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kbrockman
And last but not least, something this blogger conveniently passes over as if not important...
From a quick blog overview it seems the author has serious misconceptions about the entire subject.
Posts are packed into an attractive eloquent package though.
Sarge Mac-and-Cheese is an online exemplar of the Dunning-Kruger effect...
Meanwhile, with bonus first-line link to the DOT&E....
Behind The Threatened F-35 Delays
Block 3 IOC in 2020, anyone?
Meanwhile, with bonus first-line link to the DOT&E....
Behind The Threatened F-35 Delays
Block 3 IOC in 2020, anyone?
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
Guys
Clearly there are a lot of people here trying to make points about the costs of this programme.
I would ask a couple of simple questions - and please before you answer imagine it is 2024 not 2014:
1 Could the US (and others) afford to have only today’s existing types and capabilities in service at that time?
2 Could the US (and others) afford to have no currency and ongoing R&D in the sort of technologies that are involved with this programme?
My answer is no to both and I suspect those actually in charge of defence feel the same otherwise they would have binned the programme way back.
Older people (and there are few older than me) have seen these issues crop up several times over the years.
Clearly there are a lot of people here trying to make points about the costs of this programme.
I would ask a couple of simple questions - and please before you answer imagine it is 2024 not 2014:
1 Could the US (and others) afford to have only today’s existing types and capabilities in service at that time?
2 Could the US (and others) afford to have no currency and ongoing R&D in the sort of technologies that are involved with this programme?
My answer is no to both and I suspect those actually in charge of defence feel the same otherwise they would have binned the programme way back.
Older people (and there are few older than me) have seen these issues crop up several times over the years.
John,
I agree to both 1 and 2. Operators need to spend money on new technology.
However, the F-35 brings two unique capabilities to the party: STOVL, and a degree of stealth that (I think most sources agree) is between that of a Rafale or Advanced Super Hornet and an F-22.
I will even cede that (probably not in Block 3 but possibly in Block 5 by 2024) it will have better sensor-fusion and networking smarts that anything in service today. However, that's something that is retrofittable.
The question "are STOVL and F-35 stealth worth the money?" was never supposed to be relevant, because the F-35 was promised to be cheaper to buy and operate than anything else. Costs are now crucial, because the price of F-35 is cutting force numbers.
So as an operator, I ask "do I want STOVL and how much is it worth?" and "I probably want to exploit stealth - but am I better off with F-35, or with Rafale/ASH levels + good EW + a few very stealthy UCAVs?"
I agree to both 1 and 2. Operators need to spend money on new technology.
However, the F-35 brings two unique capabilities to the party: STOVL, and a degree of stealth that (I think most sources agree) is between that of a Rafale or Advanced Super Hornet and an F-22.
I will even cede that (probably not in Block 3 but possibly in Block 5 by 2024) it will have better sensor-fusion and networking smarts that anything in service today. However, that's something that is retrofittable.
The question "are STOVL and F-35 stealth worth the money?" was never supposed to be relevant, because the F-35 was promised to be cheaper to buy and operate than anything else. Costs are now crucial, because the price of F-35 is cutting force numbers.
So as an operator, I ask "do I want STOVL and how much is it worth?" and "I probably want to exploit stealth - but am I better off with F-35, or with Rafale/ASH levels + good EW + a few very stealthy UCAVs?"
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
Lo.
I take your points but I believe that the USMC genuinely want to be an all STOVL force and have done so for a very long time (and whether they are right or wrong does not matter in this context). Therefore they are prepared to do/pay whatever is necessary to that end.
Personally I don't think they need stealth and supersonics for their STOVL ops and I suspect some of them would agree but having been gifted the UK aircraft
they are now able to see their way to 2027 without serious 35B availability.
Lucky them as it turned out.
I take your points but I believe that the USMC genuinely want to be an all STOVL force and have done so for a very long time (and whether they are right or wrong does not matter in this context). Therefore they are prepared to do/pay whatever is necessary to that end.
Personally I don't think they need stealth and supersonics for their STOVL ops and I suspect some of them would agree but having been gifted the UK aircraft
they are now able to see their way to 2027 without serious 35B availability.
Lucky them as it turned out.
However, the F-35 brings two unique capabilities to the party: STOVL, and a degree of stealth that (I think most sources agree) is between that of a Rafale or Advanced Super Hornet and an F-22.
Dassault completes first test flights of new 'heavily armed' Rafale
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So as an operator, I ask "do I want STOVL and how much is it worth?" and "I probably want to exploit stealth - but am I better off with F-35, or with Rafale/ASH levels + good EW + a few very stealthy UCAVs?"
I think that's two great questions LO but isn't the problem twofold
1. We are where are
2. That would depend on the advances in enemy AD systems over the next couple of decades
On the STOVL question, surely it comes down to the degree of flexibility you want for the price you are willing to pay for it and the true answer to that flexibility appetite is going to manifest itself infrequently
We can point to a number of instances ourselves where STOVL flexibility was in the 'more than nice to have' column so for the UK, a mix of Typhoon and F35B, plus a longer term goal of the mythical UCAV, seems like a pretty sensible option
I think that's two great questions LO but isn't the problem twofold
1. We are where are
2. That would depend on the advances in enemy AD systems over the next couple of decades
On the STOVL question, surely it comes down to the degree of flexibility you want for the price you are willing to pay for it and the true answer to that flexibility appetite is going to manifest itself infrequently
We can point to a number of instances ourselves where STOVL flexibility was in the 'more than nice to have' column so for the UK, a mix of Typhoon and F35B, plus a longer term goal of the mythical UCAV, seems like a pretty sensible option
...seems a pretty sensible option, as you say, as long as the trade-off for temporary, part-time stealth against range and payload et al is what you decide to choose. Not because it's all we have, because it's what you choose having weighed-up exactly what you requirement is and what you think it might be.
A lot of decisions can't be taken back. The UK is committed (see the story about the pig and the hen).
John, the only point I would raise - even though Spaz will have a Spaz - is that the Marines don't pay for anything. F-35B is on the Navy budget, but more important, I am not aware of anything the Marines have had to give up to get it. They still have their CH-53Ks and MV-22s and the large-deck amphib fleet is still aimed at 11 ships.
John, the only point I would raise - even though Spaz will have a Spaz - is that the Marines don't pay for anything. F-35B is on the Navy budget, but more important, I am not aware of anything the Marines have had to give up to get it. They still have their CH-53Ks and MV-22s and the large-deck amphib fleet is still aimed at 11 ships.
It occurs to me that what the Marines need is a close air support aircraft. The A-10 is arguably the best close air support aircraft ever built, and it has neither speed nor stealth. The ability to go supersonic is of minimal value when the task is attacking ground targets, and stealth isn't all that helpful when the guys shooting at you have a visual lock.
Worse, the F-35 design makes it excessively vulnerable to ground fire (big, single engine, not a lot of redundancy). In short, the only feature the F-35 brings to the table that is of much value to the Marine mission is VSTOL (and that is a highly questionable need in the real world).
Perhaps what we really needed was to add VSTOL capability to the A-10
I have several friends who worked on the Boeing JSF entry. Fourteen years ago - shortly after the Lockheed entry won out and effectively cancelled the Boeing entry - they all predicted that Lockheed wouldn't be able to build the F-35 for twice what they were quoting. What they claimed was that the features of the Lockheed entry that made it so appealing to the military types would also make it unaffordable.
So far, what I pretty much dismissed at the time as 'sour grapes,' is sounding pretty prophetic.
Worse, the F-35 design makes it excessively vulnerable to ground fire (big, single engine, not a lot of redundancy). In short, the only feature the F-35 brings to the table that is of much value to the Marine mission is VSTOL (and that is a highly questionable need in the real world).
Perhaps what we really needed was to add VSTOL capability to the A-10
I have several friends who worked on the Boeing JSF entry. Fourteen years ago - shortly after the Lockheed entry won out and effectively cancelled the Boeing entry - they all predicted that Lockheed wouldn't be able to build the F-35 for twice what they were quoting. What they claimed was that the features of the Lockheed entry that made it so appealing to the military types would also make it unaffordable.
So far, what I pretty much dismissed at the time as 'sour grapes,' is sounding pretty prophetic.
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 LowObservable
F-35B is on the Navy budget, but more important, I am not aware of anything the Marines have had to give up to get it. They still have their CH-53Ks and MV-22s and the large-deck amphib fleet is still aimed at 11 ships.
01 January 2012: USMC = 202,000 personnel.
Pre-sequestration plan: 182,100 by 2016. That's a 10% reduction. The plan will reduce the number of infantry battalions to 23 from 27 to take account of the smaller size of the force. Aircraft squadrons would be reduced to 58 from the current 70. Three headquarters units also would be cut.
Marines to cut four battalions, 12 air squadrons | Reuters
Possible new total = 174,000 by 2016. That's a 14% reduction.
Commandant: USMC Should Shrink to 174,000 Under Sequestration | USNI News
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To compare the numbers above, the USMC force size when I enlisted in July 1980 (pre-Reagan buildup) was 186,000 personnel - and 212,000 when I left active duty in June 1989.
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
Lo
Yep I do realise that the USMC aircraft come out of the USN budget but they still have to 'pay' for wot they get - ie argue with the USN. With the original first year's buy of the AV-8A the USMC were so keen to have it when the USN said no they gave up a batch of F4s (24 if my memory serves) already agreed in their part of the USN budget.
Yep I do realise that the USMC aircraft come out of the USN budget but they still have to 'pay' for wot they get - ie argue with the USN. With the original first year's buy of the AV-8A the USMC were so keen to have it when the USN said no they gave up a batch of F4s (24 if my memory serves) already agreed in their part of the USN budget.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
And the cuts everywhere else to pay for it continue to leak out, drip by drip.....
F-16 Upgrade Dropped From US Budget Proposal, Sources Say
F-16 Upgrade Dropped From US Budget Proposal, Sources Say
Not surprising. The problem is that everyone and his aunt will be able to jam the bejeesus out of APG-66/68 in the next few years.
Some time ago I started comparing the JSF to a fledgling cuckoo - in order to thrive, it has to toss all the other birdies out of the nest. And so it begins...
Some time ago I started comparing the JSF to a fledgling cuckoo - in order to thrive, it has to toss all the other birdies out of the nest. And so it begins...
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
Of course another perspective would be that it is nice to see that one of the insurance programs devised to cater for a failure of the F-35 development programme is now not considered necessary.
