F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC / Airsound - thanks for this. Interesting times ahead.
(Alternatively, you could pre-emptively go and stand on the naughty step ahead of JSFfan's arrival to tell you all how wrong this all is.
)
S41
(Alternatively, you could pre-emptively go and stand on the naughty step ahead of JSFfan's arrival to tell you all how wrong this all is.
)S41
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Ares: CPFH: The Next Big F-35 Debate?
Last year, one of the big JSF debates was over the “true” cost of sustaining the single-engine, stealthy F-35. Navy officials arrived at a $1 trillion figure to operate the aircraft for 50 years. To say it caused sticker shock in the Pentagon would be a massive understatement, and officials in militaries abroad eyeing F-35 purchases have spent countless hours since trying to get a better grip on the cost to operate this jet. Though there has been no definitive figure released to that point, the debate about F-35 sustainment has taken a new turn.
It seems now that the focus is all about the cost per flying hour (CPFH) of the aircraft. This is how the U.S. services account for the cost of operating their aircraft. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said last week that he has been briefed – not surprisingly – on two CPFH figures. One, from prime contractor Lockheed Martin, was lower that that provided by the Air Force, he said. Welsh says he directed the procurement corps to “put these numbers side by side and figure out exactly what the differences were between the number we had and the number [Lockheed Martin] had [and] to try and get at that problem.” These numbers have not been released...............
Last year, one of the big JSF debates was over the “true” cost of sustaining the single-engine, stealthy F-35. Navy officials arrived at a $1 trillion figure to operate the aircraft for 50 years. To say it caused sticker shock in the Pentagon would be a massive understatement, and officials in militaries abroad eyeing F-35 purchases have spent countless hours since trying to get a better grip on the cost to operate this jet. Though there has been no definitive figure released to that point, the debate about F-35 sustainment has taken a new turn.
It seems now that the focus is all about the cost per flying hour (CPFH) of the aircraft. This is how the U.S. services account for the cost of operating their aircraft. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said last week that he has been briefed – not surprisingly – on two CPFH figures. One, from prime contractor Lockheed Martin, was lower that that provided by the Air Force, he said. Welsh says he directed the procurement corps to “put these numbers side by side and figure out exactly what the differences were between the number we had and the number [Lockheed Martin] had [and] to try and get at that problem.” These numbers have not been released...............
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost are basically what it all comes down to.
The ludicrous estimates of both LM, the Dutch and canadian government are all directly contradicted long time ago by the Norwegian accounting office who did a rough calculation as to how much the total 30 years costs would be for 52 F35A's which lead norway's RAdm Arne Røksund to say that they where looking at 40 billion$ for 52 planes , or 800 million per copy.
The Dutch publically used the LM numbers ,claiming that they could therefor afford 86 copies, it was revealed as early as 2010 by a reputable news program , KRO reporter, that the government was deceiving the parliament and already knew back in 2009 ,and probably even much earlier , that the whole JSF project was going to be a lot more expensive , so much so that they where talking about reducing to 50+ copies and later on even as low as 38.
Uitzending gemist | KRO Reporter, JSF op Nederland 3
Even the USAF already said publically that the numbers used by LM and Canada are far from realistic.
Anybody who cannot come to terms with these realities should reflect on their abilities to distinct between fiction and reality.
The ludicrous estimates of both LM, the Dutch and canadian government are all directly contradicted long time ago by the Norwegian accounting office who did a rough calculation as to how much the total 30 years costs would be for 52 F35A's which lead norway's RAdm Arne Røksund to say that they where looking at 40 billion$ for 52 planes , or 800 million per copy.
The Dutch publically used the LM numbers ,claiming that they could therefor afford 86 copies, it was revealed as early as 2010 by a reputable news program , KRO reporter, that the government was deceiving the parliament and already knew back in 2009 ,and probably even much earlier , that the whole JSF project was going to be a lot more expensive , so much so that they where talking about reducing to 50+ copies and later on even as low as 38.
Uitzending gemist | KRO Reporter, JSF op Nederland 3
Even the USAF already said publically that the numbers used by LM and Canada are far from realistic.
Anybody who cannot come to terms with these realities should reflect on their abilities to distinct between fiction and reality.
Military aircraft are expensive, don't know how we are going to avoid that. War has bankrupted many a nation.
What was the cost of the Harrier, Tornado and Eurofighter using the UK's methods (everything included) presented to Parliament? £43k, £48K and £72K per hour wasn't it?
What was the cost of the Harrier, Tornado and Eurofighter using the UK's methods (everything included) presented to Parliament? £43k, £48K and £72K per hour wasn't it?
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
With attitudes like that we might as well give up and have no reasonable expectations at all, why not just give a supplier a blank sheet where they can fill in the price, delivery date and specifications and be done with it.
I don't know why people need to be reminded that this whole JSF adventure started out as a follow up for our legacy fighters which was not going to be more expensive (overall) to operate than the fighters it was supposed to replace, was going to be easy to maintain, was going to have a good survivability rate ,certainly those that where supposed to replace the Harriers and A10's, and would have a performance level at least as good as the F16/F18 while providing top of the line stealth characteristics.
It under performs massively on most of these promises while being ludicrously expensive and ridiculously over time.
The idea that this is just how things are in the defense industry is a non-answer, it is only so because too many people involved want it to be like that (re. the industry) or are just to inept to make reasonable decisions when it comes to projects like these (politicians, and even some in the DoD).
I don't know why people need to be reminded that this whole JSF adventure started out as a follow up for our legacy fighters which was not going to be more expensive (overall) to operate than the fighters it was supposed to replace, was going to be easy to maintain, was going to have a good survivability rate ,certainly those that where supposed to replace the Harriers and A10's, and would have a performance level at least as good as the F16/F18 while providing top of the line stealth characteristics.
It under performs massively on most of these promises while being ludicrously expensive and ridiculously over time.
The idea that this is just how things are in the defense industry is a non-answer, it is only so because too many people involved want it to be like that (re. the industry) or are just to inept to make reasonable decisions when it comes to projects like these (politicians, and even some in the DoD).
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London Town
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One quote from that article:
Might I suggest the Wasp has been modified to carry out tests of the F-35b. The ship is what I call an amphibious assault ship and to the best of my knowledge does not have arrester gear, nor steam catapults but perhaps the author knows differently?
early tailhooks failed to catch the wire when planes landed on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Wasp
Suspicion breeds confidence
That quote is complete crud. No ship based landings of an F35c have yet taken place, its all been land based testing. As is rightly pointed out, the (successful) test on Wasp were with the F35B
If USS Wasp (LHD-1) has arresting gear, it's news to me. 
What's interesting about that story is the degree to which the PR boat is pushed out for a former Grauniad architecture and design correspondent who knows as much about airplanes as most of us here know about post-modern decommissioned cathouses in Brussels ...
(srsly folks - Constructive criticism: the week in architecture | Art and design | guardian.co.uk)
...although I did like this line:
It’s what we call a South West policy,’ says Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed Martin’s fast-talking vice-president for F-35 business development, referring to America’s most popular budget airline, the inspiration behind EasyJet and Ryanair.
It made me think immediately of this (language gets NSFW about half way in):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAg0lUYHHFc
"
ity ity a**e" is probably a fair summary of what JSF customers will be saying by mid-year.
(srsly folks - Constructive criticism: the week in architecture | Art and design | guardian.co.uk)
...although I did like this line:
It’s what we call a South West policy,’ says Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed Martin’s fast-talking vice-president for F-35 business development, referring to America’s most popular budget airline, the inspiration behind EasyJet and Ryanair.
It made me think immediately of this (language gets NSFW about half way in):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAg0lUYHHFc
"
ity ity a**e" is probably a fair summary of what JSF customers will be saying by mid-year.
Loving the video, LO 
A good bit of cheer when things are looking VERY gloomy for the new wonder jet. To answer the OP's question again, Super Bug. Start finding a way to put the gear on the carrier. It'll still be cheaper in the long run.
A good bit of cheer when things are looking VERY gloomy for the new wonder jet. To answer the OP's question again, Super Bug. Start finding a way to put the gear on the carrier. It'll still be cheaper in the long run.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Super Bug's arguably the more future-proof option anyway, if one considers to advent of UAVs/UCAVs.
It's ironic that even a puff piece such as the Telegraph's mentions that the F-35 is already on the way to being an anachronism.
It's ironic that even a puff piece such as the Telegraph's mentions that the F-35 is already on the way to being an anachronism.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those that suggest 4.5 gen as a f-35 replacement really are in a world of their own.
nothing's changed, most of this has already been disclosed. The f-35 isn't as fast as a 'clean' f-16 in transonic. I guess they will have to settle with faster trans accel with weapons and fuel. For those that think speed is everything, M1.20 to M1.25 supercruise with weapons and large fuel load isn't too bad either, Is it?
Peter, thats a tad bit too much reality for here, what ever fast jet you fly is going to be dear.
Australia has costed the f-35a as about the same as a super hornet and cheaper than our hornet/F111 fleet was to run.
(Alternatively, you could pre-emptively go and stand on the naughty step ahead of JSFfan's arrival to tell you all how wrong this all is. )
)
What was the cost of the Harrier, Tornado and Eurofighter using the UK's methods (everything included) presented to Parliament? £43k, £48K and £72K per hour wasn't it?
Australia has costed the f-35a as about the same as a super hornet and cheaper than our hornet/F111 fleet was to run.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
which one?
the only new point I made is that no one with any idea thinks a 4.5 gen is a 5th gen replacement.
Transonic speed, Jan 2012
F-35 May Miss Acceleration Goal | Defense News | defensenews.com
M1.2 dry Nov 2012
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...112fighter.pdf
aussie cost.
Janes and ADF reports to gov
the only new point I made is that no one with any idea thinks a 4.5 gen is a 5th gen replacement.
Transonic speed, Jan 2012
F-35 May Miss Acceleration Goal | Defense News | defensenews.com
M1.2 dry Nov 2012
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...112fighter.pdf
aussie cost.
Janes and ADF reports to gov
Last edited by JSFfan; 17th Jan 2013 at 07:54.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I understand things is that if the F-35B for one reason or another fails to become operational it would mean the end of fixed wing flying for the Fleet Air Arm? (question, not statement)
No doubt this was considered by this government and the previous one as I would ask what is the alternative? Is the flag nailed to the mast and are our eggs all in this one basket? (future of fixed wing flying and the carrier programme) it has to work, the more bad publicity we read the more nervous our politicians will become.
It has to succeed or have I got this wrong?
Unless we buy some low mileage, refurbished Harriers 
Soory folks I jst could not resist it.
No doubt this was considered by this government and the previous one as I would ask what is the alternative? Is the flag nailed to the mast and are our eggs all in this one basket? (future of fixed wing flying and the carrier programme) it has to work, the more bad publicity we read the more nervous our politicians will become.
It has to succeed or have I got this wrong?
Unless we buy some low mileage, refurbished Harriers Soory folks I jst could not resist it.
Please don't take the fantasist seriously. The 'not technically super-cruising' bit of the article refers to LM spin that having accelerated to high mach (using lots and lots of burner with all the negatives that comes with it), flying a set profile and without opening a weapons door the ac can take up to 150 track miles to decelerate to sub-sonic (averaged over the track miles covered) once max dry is selected.
This fact has been explained to fantasist a number of times but he lives in la-la land.
This fact has been explained to fantasist a number of times but he lives in la-la land.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that is going to take a link, even Sweetman and Co hasn't made that one.
The F-22 has a M1.5+ 100 mile dash and the f-35 has a M1.2+ 150 mile dash. I assume the dash distance is based on a given combat mission radius
The F-22 has a M1.5+ 100 mile dash and the f-35 has a M1.2+ 150 mile dash. I assume the dash distance is based on a given combat mission radius
I cannot believe you are suggesting that the JSF has superior performance to the F22.
Then again, I cannot believe any of us (including me) are trading posts with you.
Go on, just how many types have you flown supersonic?
Then again, I cannot believe any of us (including me) are trading posts with you.
Go on, just how many types have you flown supersonic?