F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-18G should have been purchased for the FAA and then palmed off to the the RAF after 15 years once F-35 is mature or F/A-XX is available.
Hand over the F-18s to the RAF when they get replaced, reduces cost, reduces risk and gives a proven combat capability now as well as some post GR4 a/c for the RAF.
Also keeps the carrier future proof by proving AAR/AWACS compatibility for when we can afford it, and a platform for future UCAVs which I'm sure will be catapult launched.
What's so difficult about that MoD Muppets FFS !!!
Hand over the F-18s to the RAF when they get replaced, reduces cost, reduces risk and gives a proven combat capability now as well as some post GR4 a/c for the RAF.
Also keeps the carrier future proof by proving AAR/AWACS compatibility for when we can afford it, and a platform for future UCAVs which I'm sure will be catapult launched.
What's so difficult about that MoD Muppets FFS !!!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
What's so difficult about that MoD Muppets FFS !!!
Labour picked the F-35B in the first place and got a lot of political capital in the Tories changing to the F-35C and then having to change back again.
The Tories lost enough face flip-flopping once, they can't afford to do so again.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we totally sure that we can lay F-35B procurement at the feet of a political party or should we perhaps look at the military leadership who probably favoured STOVL as a direct Harrier replacement which also allowed us to think about a further procurement to replace the Tornado?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Are we totally sure that we can lay F-35B procurement at the feet of a political party
Any change, as in Canada, is now so bound up in the politics, and in some cases careers, that it becomes the overwhelming factor, as in the Canadian EH101 order.
Last edited by ORAC; 14th Dec 2012 at 17:05.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus... you should know that aircraft get more expensive to maintain as they get older... and even new-build Super Hornets will be maintenance pigs in another 20 years... while the F-35s, having newer systems, should theoretically be cheaper to keep flying.
Compare the F-14D, old design, even the ones new-built in the early 1990s were low-time-between-failure maintenance hogs vs the early F/A-18E/Fs, despite being new they flew far longer between "breaking" and took less time & money to fix.
Compare the F-14D, old design, even the ones new-built in the early 1990s were low-time-between-failure maintenance hogs vs the early F/A-18E/Fs, despite being new they flew far longer between "breaking" and took less time & money to fix.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 14th Dec 2012 at 18:11.
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
Biggus... you should know that aircraft get more expensive to maintain as they get older... and even new-build Super Hornets will be maintenance pigs in another 20 years... while the F-35s, having newer systems, should theoretically be cheaper to keep flying.
Planes at age are older to maintain, that has basically always been true, the idea that the F35 differs from that is substantiated by exactly nothing, certainly not by what has been claimed about it theoretically.
One of the main arguments it had going for it at its conception was that it was going to be no more expensive than the planes, like the F16 F18 and Harrier, it was to replace.
A promise which it broke on almost all accounts, maintenance will be no more different IMHO.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, because it's politically impossible?
Labour picked the F-35B in the first place and got a lot of political capital in the Tories changing to the F-35C and then having to change back again.
The Tories lost enough face flip-flopping once, they can't afford to do so again.
Labour picked the F-35B in the first place and got a lot of political capital in the Tories changing to the F-35C and then having to change back again.
The Tories lost enough face flip-flopping once, they can't afford to do so again.
I honestly believe it's just down to sheer incompetence, I doubt 2% of politicians could tell you the difference between the A, B and C versions let alone decide which one is required if at all.
The people that make the decisions haven't got a clue, politicians, MoD, whoever. They've got a bee in their bonnet about 'stealth' and it's something we can't afford, but to compound the issue, they decide to buy the version that is less capable and hamstrings the rest of the show.
Last edited by Thelma Viaduct; 14th Dec 2012 at 19:27.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd agree with PP's assessment; I doubt the politicos had any real clue what they were doing when they switched from B to C (and back again). If I was to hazard a guess I'd say they were bounced into the switch to C by lobbying, possibly from the Navy, and then bounced back to B once someone did the maths on both Carrier conversion costs and more importantly through life and currency costs.
B is obviously a compromise solution driven by economic factors. If money was no issue we'd likely have some A, some C and maybe some B as well
B is obviously a compromise solution driven by economic factors. If money was no issue we'd likely have some A, some C and maybe some B as well
Leave us not forget the industrial lobbyand associated political considerations at a tactical level (jobs) and strategically (retaining an aircraft design capability). Rolls Royce and BAe both have big interests in the B model and would not have had such a good foothold had there only been CTOL versions.
N
N
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rulebreaker
I wonder how much an f18 will cost to operate/ upgrade to remain relavent 30/40 years from now?
Janes said that australia costed the F-18 at $24k per hour and the f-35 at $22k per hour, this is also consistant what the ADF has said.
Upgrades are going to be every 2 years for software and 4 years for hardware.
UK, Canada and Australia also have their own software recoding partnership
I wonder how much an f18 will cost to operate/ upgrade to remain relavent 30/40 years from now?
Janes said that australia costed the F-18 at $24k per hour and the f-35 at $22k per hour, this is also consistant what the ADF has said.
Upgrades are going to be every 2 years for software and 4 years for hardware.
UK, Canada and Australia also have their own software recoding partnership
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
The maintenance burden for modern aircraft is in the upkeep of those modern systems. The mechanical systems are a lot more reliable, but there will already be microprocessors flying on the F-35 that are stockpiled by the supplier because they are obsolescent, or about to be obsolescent. At the same time, the price for "cracking the box" to modify software will start high and rise throughout the lifecycle. Despite processors being designed and installed with "X% spare capacity", the inevitability as systems and capabilities are added or modified is they will hit a processing ceiling and need to be replaced, with the associated integration and certification costs of complex software.
So just because there won't be a pool of leaking oil under each aging F-35, or a plethora of creaking systems with a 1 hour MTBF, don't assume anything got "cheaper". The costs just moved somewhere else.
So just because there won't be a pool of leaking oil under each aging F-35, or a plethora of creaking systems with a 1 hour MTBF, don't assume anything got "cheaper". The costs just moved somewhere else.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why would we use that NAVAIR costings (which is in dispute anyway) perhaps you should do more research as to what the SH and hornet costs are in the aussie fleet, you should also be aware we are not buying the f-35 B or C. Next I'll expect an APA chart or a quote from Sweetman
Two's in, your comment on microprocessors is relevant to 3/4th gen and even the f-22, it's not relevant to the f-35 and I also hear the SH block ll. You are spot on as I see it, that the costs are avionics, processors and software driven and not the oil leak, as you said.
Two's in, your comment on microprocessors is relevant to 3/4th gen and even the f-22, it's not relevant to the f-35 and I also hear the SH block ll. You are spot on as I see it, that the costs are avionics, processors and software driven and not the oil leak, as you said.
Last edited by JSFfan; 15th Dec 2012 at 17:35.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"it's not relevant to the f-35"
don't talk tripe
Moore's law still applies, and is unlikely to fail anytime soon. Indeed, with rapidly changing data technology current microprocessors are likely to be superceded even more quickly
Consider the difference between a PC cpu now, and one from 20 years ago.
An 80386 running at 16MHz then, a multi-core I7 or similar running at 3GHz now. Future improvements are going to be at the same rate, and military grade chips won't develop any less slowly. Do you really think the current range of microprocessors are going to be available during the lifetime of this aircraft? Theres no chance
Its not like a 1950's technology aircraft where if you ran out of valves a skilled glass blower could knock up some more.........nowadays you need the correct silicon wafers, the correct machinery production lines and the correct clean rooms. All of that will be superceded in three years, let alone 20 years - or 30, or 40...........
Seems to me its coming to a point where it may be more sensible to regard military aircraft as throwaways, made to a lower life expectancy aqnd lower cost, chucking them away after three years, to be replaced with newer variants with newer integrated electronics. The airframe design may be frozen, but each iteration of the electronics would be the latest available. Don't retrofit, just replace. That would in itself increase the build numbers and reduce the unit price (OK I realise the total cost may well be similar)
don't talk tripe
Moore's law still applies, and is unlikely to fail anytime soon. Indeed, with rapidly changing data technology current microprocessors are likely to be superceded even more quickly
Consider the difference between a PC cpu now, and one from 20 years ago.
An 80386 running at 16MHz then, a multi-core I7 or similar running at 3GHz now. Future improvements are going to be at the same rate, and military grade chips won't develop any less slowly. Do you really think the current range of microprocessors are going to be available during the lifetime of this aircraft? Theres no chance
Its not like a 1950's technology aircraft where if you ran out of valves a skilled glass blower could knock up some more.........nowadays you need the correct silicon wafers, the correct machinery production lines and the correct clean rooms. All of that will be superceded in three years, let alone 20 years - or 30, or 40...........
Seems to me its coming to a point where it may be more sensible to regard military aircraft as throwaways, made to a lower life expectancy aqnd lower cost, chucking them away after three years, to be replaced with newer variants with newer integrated electronics. The airframe design may be frozen, but each iteration of the electronics would be the latest available. Don't retrofit, just replace. That would in itself increase the build numbers and reduce the unit price (OK I realise the total cost may well be similar)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting comments I asked because I've heard it mentioned a number of times that f18 is so much cheaper (australian buy suggest otherwise mind) yet from what I've seen/read a similar exercise to the f35 kpmg 42 year costing has never been publicly done for f18. I don't see the us navy operating f18 for as long as Canada intends its next fighter to last and that must be a consideration in thru life cost also where the jets are in there development life cycle.
If they wanted a twin engine jet for homeland air policing with decent alround capability typhoon would be a better fit it will be around for some time cant see them buying European though.
If they wanted a twin engine jet for homeland air policing with decent alround capability typhoon would be a better fit it will be around for some time cant see them buying European though.