F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one were to take the view that the UK cannot simply afford a 5th Generation LO fighter/bomber of whatever variety - F35 A, B or C and simply went for a 4th Generation proven ac like the F18 Super Hornet or the Rafale and accepted that the F35 is just too costly - are we in a position to make any cost savings by reverting to a cat & trap configuration for the new CVA's?
If not then we are committed to either having very small number and expensive F35's and are only left with the option of binning the idea of force projection using the new flat tops (when they eventually enter service).
What is the latest cost estimate for fitting EMAL and wires and how much would this delay commissioning of the first carrier? What through life cost difference would there be for between say 35 F35's and perhaps as many as 48 Super Hornets/Rafales? Would this then open the door to allow us such luxuries as fixed wing COD and AEW platforms?
Just my 2c.
If not then we are committed to either having very small number and expensive F35's and are only left with the option of binning the idea of force projection using the new flat tops (when they eventually enter service).
What is the latest cost estimate for fitting EMAL and wires and how much would this delay commissioning of the first carrier? What through life cost difference would there be for between say 35 F35's and perhaps as many as 48 Super Hornets/Rafales? Would this then open the door to allow us such luxuries as fixed wing COD and AEW platforms?
Just my 2c.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH
And the stream comes from where exactly?
All previous catapult carriers are steam ships. Our new ones are specifically designed to have the requisite electrical supply for emal, not the requisite steam production for cat launches.
EMAL may be new, but it has the backing and enormous funds of the US behind it. They have to make it work or their new carriers are dead. Better trust to the resourcefullness of uncle sam than a BAE steam bodge job any day.
And the stream comes from where exactly?
All previous catapult carriers are steam ships. Our new ones are specifically designed to have the requisite electrical supply for emal, not the requisite steam production for cat launches.
EMAL may be new, but it has the backing and enormous funds of the US behind it. They have to make it work or their new carriers are dead. Better trust to the resourcefullness of uncle sam than a BAE steam bodge job any day.
Last edited by Tourist; 13th Dec 2012 at 10:48.
"We" no longer know how to make steam work, other than in the context of NSRP.
EMALS is currently getting less and less unproven by the day. It has shot all of the a/c in the US inventory, many with stores.
None of which is relevant to the UK unless the F35B is canned.
EMALS is currently getting less and less unproven by the day. It has shot all of the a/c in the US inventory, many with stores.
None of which is relevant to the UK unless the F35B is canned.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"EMAL may be new, but it has the backing and enormous funds of the US behind it"
BBC News - Q&A: The US fiscal cliff
Q&A: The US fiscal cliff Falling off the fiscal cliff would have a global economic impact, analysts say
The US faces a deadline to agree new legislation that could make or break the global economic recovery.
The so-called "fiscal cliff" has been on the horizon for two years, but now the 31 December deadline is almost here.
Now that the presidential election is over it is hoped that policymakers will knuckle down to find a solution.
BBC News - Q&A: The US fiscal cliff
Q&A: The US fiscal cliff Falling off the fiscal cliff would have a global economic impact, analysts say
The US faces a deadline to agree new legislation that could make or break the global economic recovery.
The so-called "fiscal cliff" has been on the horizon for two years, but now the 31 December deadline is almost here.
Now that the presidential election is over it is hoped that policymakers will knuckle down to find a solution.
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
just to not be accused of only posting negative news about the F35....
NewsDaily: Pentagon cuts cost of F-35 fighters by 4 percent: sources
So, 32 planes in total for 3.8billion makes for an average of 118.75 per copy , 22x107 for the A = 2.35billion which means 144.6 on average for the 3B's and 7C's.
Now only the engines and they can go flying.
Also , what's up with these ever lasting LRIP series, it used to mean a short lead in time before full production speed, now it just is an excuse to keep production going ,while not fully tested, with a substantial higher unit price.
LRIP5 will bring the total already over 100 units, and LRIP6 is already in the pipeline.
edited,
For those who wonder why all this is being puched through so fast;
NewsDaily: Pentagon cuts cost of F-35 fighters by 4 percent: sources
WASHINGTON, Dec. 12, 2012 (Reuters) — The Pentagon will pay about 4 percent less for each new Lockheed Martin Corp F-35A fighter jet when it signs a deal worth $3.8 billion with the No. 1 U.S. defense contractor on Friday, according to sources familiar with the deal.
Each of the 22 conventional takeoff and landing jets in the fifth production contract will cost around $107 million, excluding the engine, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.
That compares to a price of $111.6 million for the F-35As to be used by the Air Force that were included in the fourth contract with Lockheed.
The contract for 32 jets also includes 3 B-models for the U.S. Marine Corps, which can land vertically, and seven C-models to be used on aircraft carriers for the U.S. Navy.
.....
The Defense Department is negotiating a separate contract with Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp , for the engines that will power the new warplanes. Pentagon officials hope to conclude that deal by year end.
Each of the 22 conventional takeoff and landing jets in the fifth production contract will cost around $107 million, excluding the engine, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.
That compares to a price of $111.6 million for the F-35As to be used by the Air Force that were included in the fourth contract with Lockheed.
The contract for 32 jets also includes 3 B-models for the U.S. Marine Corps, which can land vertically, and seven C-models to be used on aircraft carriers for the U.S. Navy.
.....
The Defense Department is negotiating a separate contract with Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp , for the engines that will power the new warplanes. Pentagon officials hope to conclude that deal by year end.
Now only the engines and they can go flying.
Also , what's up with these ever lasting LRIP series, it used to mean a short lead in time before full production speed, now it just is an excuse to keep production going ,while not fully tested, with a substantial higher unit price.
LRIP5 will bring the total already over 100 units, and LRIP6 is already in the pipeline.
edited,
For those who wonder why all this is being puched through so fast;
Signing the contract before year-end will safeguard funds for the F-35 from $52.3 billion in automatic budget cuts due to kick in on January 2 for fiscal 2013 unless Congress acts.
Last edited by kbrockman; 13th Dec 2012 at 12:18.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Also, what's up with these ever lasting LRIP series
There were always going to be a lot of LRIP batches and jets. The original schedule called for six batches with the last being 168 aircraft for US and UK (plus, in theory, a/c for the other partners). The idea was to ramp up gradually to the 200+/year production rate.
However, the risk was hedged... by the time you were fully funding LRIP 4, you were well into the testing of the USAF IOC capabilities under Block 2.
But what happened was that, as the SDD program slipped, nobody wanted to stop the line between the SDD and LRIP jets, so LRIP got started and more lots were added to the end, because you can't start full-rate (legally) until you've done IOT&E.
However, the risk was hedged... by the time you were fully funding LRIP 4, you were well into the testing of the USAF IOC capabilities under Block 2.
But what happened was that, as the SDD program slipped, nobody wanted to stop the line between the SDD and LRIP jets, so LRIP got started and more lots were added to the end, because you can't start full-rate (legally) until you've done IOT&E.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a feeling RAND did some studies back in the ?80's? and showed that buying any aircarft WITHOUT prototypes (or LRIP types these days) almost always led to a horrible, expensive, balls-up
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what degree of commonality is there between different LRIP batches?
In use will they have to be treated as discrete fleets, each with its own training and spares train, or will they be "common user" items?
In use will they have to be treated as discrete fleets, each with its own training and spares train, or will they be "common user" items?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if you take the Raptor f-22 for an example there are ~60 airframes that are not combat coded, i.e. they are of various marks and builds that would be near impossible to field in a high tempo war environment and are used almost exclusively for training.
So about a third of the production run on previous experience
So about a third of the production run on previous experience
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
This was certainly more surprising than the Canadians or Australians.
Canada to consider other planes besides F-35 | Nation & World | The Seattle Times
and a direct quote from the Japanese Defence Minister, Yasuo Ichikawa
Japan warns it will cancel F-35 fighter purchase if price rises | The Manufacturer
Canada to consider other planes besides F-35 | Nation & World | The Seattle Times
Japan has said it may cancel its plans to buy dozens of the F-35s
Japan warns it will cancel F-35 fighter purchase if price rises | The Manufacturer
the Pentagon this month postponed orders for 179 F-35s over the next five years to save $15.1 billion, a move that a Lockheed executive said would increase the price of the radar-evading warplane for other purchasers.
“As for the first four planes, I expect an official contract to be concluded by this summer. If it turns out they cannot meet what they have proposed by that time, that would raise concerns about our defence capability,” Tanaka told parliament.
“I believe we would need to consider as a potential option matters like cancelling our orders and starting a new selection process if that is the case.”
....
Lockheed Martin has said it is committed to providing F-35s that meet the cost, schedule and industrial requirements of the Japanese government, but added that F-35 pricing is determined by talks between the Japanese and U.S. governments.
Japan’s defence budget has been under pressure with the country saddled by a public debt twice the size of its economy.
“As for the first four planes, I expect an official contract to be concluded by this summer. If it turns out they cannot meet what they have proposed by that time, that would raise concerns about our defence capability,” Tanaka told parliament.
“I believe we would need to consider as a potential option matters like cancelling our orders and starting a new selection process if that is the case.”
....
Lockheed Martin has said it is committed to providing F-35s that meet the cost, schedule and industrial requirements of the Japanese government, but added that F-35 pricing is determined by talks between the Japanese and U.S. governments.
Japan’s defence budget has been under pressure with the country saddled by a public debt twice the size of its economy.
Last edited by kbrockman; 13th Dec 2012 at 23:14.
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
So Japan is paying approximately $125M per aircraft for its first batch of four to be delivered in 2017.
More expensive contracts for the Japanese will almost certainly lead to a reconsideration of their F35 plans.
I wouldn't be surprised if they change their emphasis towards more effort in the A2A part of their Air Force tasks, which could possibly mean something else iso the F35, something more like a modernised F15, EF (very unlikely because not American) or maybe even more money for their indigenous stealth program.
In Canada they talk about the Super Hornet, the Rafale, the EuroFighter and possibly another aircraft as possible replacement for our older F-18s.
So not being an expert on these aircrafts, how much less stealthy are they when compared to the F-35?
Also if the Super Hornet is a candidate for the job, what about the latest version of the F-15? How much do those that aircraft cost?
I always thought the F-15 was the aircraft Canada really wanted back in the 80s but it could not afford it and settled on the F-18.
After all the F-15 is faster than both the F-18 and F-35, it’s probably got some of the latest electronics, it’s got two engines and is probably a better interceptor than both aircrafts.
So if today we are ready to spend money on the F-35, wouldn't a newer more modern version of the F-15 work for Canada?
So not being an expert on these aircrafts, how much less stealthy are they when compared to the F-35?
Also if the Super Hornet is a candidate for the job, what about the latest version of the F-15? How much do those that aircraft cost?
I always thought the F-15 was the aircraft Canada really wanted back in the 80s but it could not afford it and settled on the F-18.
After all the F-15 is faster than both the F-18 and F-35, it’s probably got some of the latest electronics, it’s got two engines and is probably a better interceptor than both aircrafts.
So if today we are ready to spend money on the F-35, wouldn't a newer more modern version of the F-15 work for Canada?
Last edited by Jet Jockey A4; 14th Dec 2012 at 01:12.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the aircraft the Canadians really wanted at the time was a locally built variant of the F-18L but Northrop were priced out of the market by McDonnells offering their version of the F-18A/B at subsidised rates......
JJA4 - The Eagle is still pretty expensive and burns a lot of gas. For the most recent users, it's pretty much in the medium-bomber class.
Also, Boeing really really really wants some more SH sales, because the Saudis are going to keep the Eagle line warm for quite a few years.
Also, Boeing really really really wants some more SH sales, because the Saudis are going to keep the Eagle line warm for quite a few years.