F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
So, here are the Marines, sorting out how they can and will use the F-35 and we get
Is It Worth The Cost?
Well, it has to be, since all of the chances in the last 14 years to cancel it have not been taken.
The eggs are in the basket, sort out how to make it work.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The latest available price for the F-35B, according to the Senate Appropriations Committee (see table below), is $251 million per aircraft"
How many F/A-18E/F/Gs does that buy you? 3 at least i reckon.
More importantly, I believe through life costs for fighter aircraft is ~ 10 x purchase price. I'm sure stealthy aircraft are probably a bit more than x10.
How many F/A-18E/F/Gs does that buy you? 3 at least i reckon.
More importantly, I believe through life costs for fighter aircraft is ~ 10 x purchase price. I'm sure stealthy aircraft are probably a bit more than x10.
Actually, there are more rotten eggs to be paid for - another $30 billion in procurement for a couple-hundred-more F-35Bs, maybe twice that in through-life support.
And it's hardly axe-grinding to observe that we knew almost six years ago that the F-35B was no Harrier, and knew what its exhaust would do to any surface. The Marines and Lockheed Martin responded then by lying.
The current Marine "doctrine" (the Marines define "doctrine" as "fictional processes that justify major defense programs") calls for the F-35B force to hop from one M-FARP to another every 72 hours or so, to avoid SRBM attacks. Not so easy to do when it takes 17 days of
s-out effort to build a simple landing pad.
And it's hardly axe-grinding to observe that we knew almost six years ago that the F-35B was no Harrier, and knew what its exhaust would do to any surface. The Marines and Lockheed Martin responded then by lying.
The current Marine "doctrine" (the Marines define "doctrine" as "fictional processes that justify major defense programs") calls for the F-35B force to hop from one M-FARP to another every 72 hours or so, to avoid SRBM attacks. Not so easy to do when it takes 17 days of
s-out effort to build a simple landing pad.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO, remember page 405? How is that f-35 reduced and 72 f-15/16 working out for you? I told you you shouldn't listen to sweetman
and he just posted this
Opinion: Why Does U.S. Air Force Want New F-15s Or F-16s? | Defense content from Aviation Week
The first step is admitting there is a problem
I agree I think it's time he accepted he has a problem, The air force has already called BS on it from his first article. That wasn't enough, he has to rewrite the same article
as well as today, I saw that not only aren't they cutting production back, they are ordering an extra 11
The Air Force, Marines and Navy will get 11 more Lockheed Martin F-35 joint-strike fighters than asked for under the spending deal reached by congressional negotiators Tuesday night that would fund the government through September 2016 and avoid a shutdown.
The $1.1 trillion agreed-upon spending package would provide $111 billion for defense upgrades and new supplies, including 68 F-35s. The Pentagon this year had asked for fiscal-2016 funding to acquire 57 F-35s.
Six of the aircraft would go to the Marines, three would go to the Air Force and two would go to the Navy, according to Politico. In total, the extra planes amount to around $1.3 billion in extra funding, Politico said.
The bill is expected to pass in the House and Senate this week. That would follow a vote, set for Wednesday, to approve a stopgap measure that would extend the government's spending authority through Dec. 22, the Washington Post reported.
and he just posted this
Opinion: Why Does U.S. Air Force Want New F-15s Or F-16s? | Defense content from Aviation Week
The first step is admitting there is a problem
I agree I think it's time he accepted he has a problem, The air force has already called BS on it from his first article. That wasn't enough, he has to rewrite the same article
as well as today, I saw that not only aren't they cutting production back, they are ordering an extra 11
The Air Force, Marines and Navy will get 11 more Lockheed Martin F-35 joint-strike fighters than asked for under the spending deal reached by congressional negotiators Tuesday night that would fund the government through September 2016 and avoid a shutdown.
The $1.1 trillion agreed-upon spending package would provide $111 billion for defense upgrades and new supplies, including 68 F-35s. The Pentagon this year had asked for fiscal-2016 funding to acquire 57 F-35s.
Six of the aircraft would go to the Marines, three would go to the Air Force and two would go to the Navy, according to Politico. In total, the extra planes amount to around $1.3 billion in extra funding, Politico said.
The bill is expected to pass in the House and Senate this week. That would follow a vote, set for Wednesday, to approve a stopgap measure that would extend the government's spending authority through Dec. 22, the Washington Post reported.
Last edited by a1bill; 17th Dec 2015 at 05:02.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The military haven't ordered more, the politicians have added more to help out LM, there's a difference.
The reluctance of the military is that they know all the early airframes will, inevitably, have to go back for extensive modifications as further changes are made to the design as testing continues. More probably they'll end up at AMARC wrapped in preservative. Which is why they've been fighting off the ramp-up to full production.
The reluctance of the military is that they know all the early airframes will, inevitably, have to go back for extensive modifications as further changes are made to the design as testing continues. More probably they'll end up at AMARC wrapped in preservative. Which is why they've been fighting off the ramp-up to full production.
You need to send that strongly worded letter, a1bill, since it seems that AW&ST's editors are not hearing your excellently founded views.
The plus-up is interesting, and I think ORAC has it. LM was planning a year ago to book 64 partner/FMS sales in FY2015-16.
They were two sales short in 2015, but the FY16 goal in 2014 was 41. Now, they need only 28 partner/FMS sales in FY16 to meet the total production plan.
The plus-up is interesting, and I think ORAC has it. LM was planning a year ago to book 64 partner/FMS sales in FY2015-16.
They were two sales short in 2015, but the FY16 goal in 2014 was 41. Now, they need only 28 partner/FMS sales in FY16 to meet the total production plan.
Last edited by LowObservable; 17th Dec 2015 at 13:03.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO, the point may be that not only are the forces aren't cutting the f-35, the government is also adding 11 units
where are the US air forces cuts coming from, that was said by sweetman?
now you are throwing in a red herring and suggesting it's not the US, it's the other partners and FMS that are reducing their order. The US government hasn't been shy about cutting tails in the past, it now can't and has to increase it's order to make up for others? well done.
LO, you wouldn't have a link to the other partner/FMS cuts, I've read nothing about it. Or is it just your opinion of what might happen?
where are the US air forces cuts coming from, that was said by sweetman?
now you are throwing in a red herring and suggesting it's not the US, it's the other partners and FMS that are reducing their order. The US government hasn't been shy about cutting tails in the past, it now can't and has to increase it's order to make up for others? well done.
LO, you wouldn't have a link to the other partner/FMS cuts, I've read nothing about it. Or is it just your opinion of what might happen?
Last edited by a1bill; 17th Dec 2015 at 19:34.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The military haven't ordered more, the politicians have added more to help out LM, there's a difference.......
...Which is why they've been fighting off the ramp-up to full production.
...Which is why they've been fighting off the ramp-up to full production.
And on a separate note: what is the first statement based on? Hard data? Conjecture? Wishful thinking? Nabob thinking?
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's simple Ken, they are going to stop the ramp up by ramping up.
it's good that they are being nice to LM and helping them out. lets hope they stop taking money off them for missed test points and stop making them pay for cost overruns next
it's good that they are being nice to LM and helping them out. lets hope they stop taking money off them for missed test points and stop making them pay for cost overruns next
It's fairly simple, even for the pettifogging Polyannas of positivism.
LM is on record at AFA 2014 as predicting 55 DoD orders in 2016 and 41 partner/FMS orders, for a total of 96. The president's budget added two DoN aircraft, for a total of 57. It is my information that long-lead contracts were also awarded for 96.
So the question is whether the 11 aircraft just added will be matched by an increase in production. If not, and the total remains at 96, then the plan relies on 28 partner/FMS orders.
The DoD isn't going to do anything, at this point, that would block sales to partners. So clearly, they don't expect more than 28 orders, which is probably realistic, but someone tipped off Congress to authorize the extras to keep the production ramp in shape.
LM is on record at AFA 2014 as predicting 55 DoD orders in 2016 and 41 partner/FMS orders, for a total of 96. The president's budget added two DoN aircraft, for a total of 57. It is my information that long-lead contracts were also awarded for 96.
So the question is whether the 11 aircraft just added will be matched by an increase in production. If not, and the total remains at 96, then the plan relies on 28 partner/FMS orders.
The DoD isn't going to do anything, at this point, that would block sales to partners. So clearly, they don't expect more than 28 orders, which is probably realistic, but someone tipped off Congress to authorize the extras to keep the production ramp in shape.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO. being rude isn't playing nice, were you a bully at school?
it is announced when the other partners/FMS place their long lead time orders, are you saying these orders were placed without the partners/FMS making the order?
The US gov have happily cut f-35 orders before, it's a funny thing that now they can't do what the USAF and politicians want and cut the f-35 to buy legacy
it still doesn't support the proposition that they are cutting the f-35 orders to buy 70 odd f-15/16 does it
it is announced when the other partners/FMS place their long lead time orders, are you saying these orders were placed without the partners/FMS making the order?
The US gov have happily cut f-35 orders before, it's a funny thing that now they can't do what the USAF and politicians want and cut the f-35 to buy legacy
it still doesn't support the proposition that they are cutting the f-35 orders to buy 70 odd f-15/16 does it
A1bill,
You are sidestepping all the technical points that rise from your numerous statements. Presumably you hope the difficult questions will simply go away if you ignore them long enough. OK. But I would like you to answer one of my previous questions:
You stated that F-22 has "better" RCS than F-35, but that F-35 has better stealth than F-22. Without resorting to nominating previous pages of this thread and without posting links and without stating what someone else said, please explain what other EM properties lead to that conclusion and that can be.
You have made these statements, now please demonstrate what you mean by them; they are not just quotes to be thrown around to support an argument. Please explain their meaning.
You are sidestepping all the technical points that rise from your numerous statements. Presumably you hope the difficult questions will simply go away if you ignore them long enough. OK. But I would like you to answer one of my previous questions:
You stated that F-22 has "better" RCS than F-35, but that F-35 has better stealth than F-22. Without resorting to nominating previous pages of this thread and without posting links and without stating what someone else said, please explain what other EM properties lead to that conclusion and that can be.
You have made these statements, now please demonstrate what you mean by them; they are not just quotes to be thrown around to support an argument. Please explain their meaning.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM, perhaps if you look on the last page #8176
there is the link and quotes. stealth and RCS are different , aren't they?
also even sweetman, but you need to dig through the snide comments he makes
http://aviationweek.com/blog/f-35-stealthier-f-22
I normally thank people when they correct me
there is the link and quotes. stealth and RCS are different , aren't they?
also even sweetman, but you need to dig through the snide comments he makes
http://aviationweek.com/blog/f-35-stealthier-f-22
I normally thank people when they correct me
a1bill - As I have explained before, I haven't even started being rude. But if being called a "pettifogging Polyanna of positivism" (which obviously was a response to KenV's allusion to the wit and wisdom of ex-VP Agnew) hurts your sensitive feelings, I will do it again and again.
Again, put simply: if 2016 orders stay around 96, then the "extra" F-35s are being bought to substitute for the missing partner/FMS orders, avoiding a cost increase (since LL items have been bought, it would be quite steep) that would imperil other hoped-for orders.
The next question: are the on-US orders just running a little late, or is the projected late-decade surge (320 jets through the 2020 order year) a mirage? I guess we'll find out. Maybe the Turks will sign on for all their 100 airplanes.
That has little to do with ACC's concern about its ability to afford a sustained 60-80 jets in the out-years and even less to do with the potential for a bridge buy of older types. In fact, it doesn't seem that the AF and Navy are particularly enthused, as the AF is getting only three of the extras and the Navy two.
Again, put simply: if 2016 orders stay around 96, then the "extra" F-35s are being bought to substitute for the missing partner/FMS orders, avoiding a cost increase (since LL items have been bought, it would be quite steep) that would imperil other hoped-for orders.
The next question: are the on-US orders just running a little late, or is the projected late-decade surge (320 jets through the 2020 order year) a mirage? I guess we'll find out. Maybe the Turks will sign on for all their 100 airplanes.
That has little to do with ACC's concern about its ability to afford a sustained 60-80 jets in the out-years and even less to do with the potential for a bridge buy of older types. In fact, it doesn't seem that the AF and Navy are particularly enthused, as the AF is getting only three of the extras and the Navy two.
Last edited by LowObservable; 17th Dec 2015 at 23:28.
CM - I suppose in theory an F-35 could have a greater RCS than an F-22 and still be "stealthier" because of detectability by other means in other bands. But that is really unlikely given that radar is still the prime means of detection, and probably isn't what Hostage meant.
And clearly this argument is being pushed by a person who seems to be rather obsessed, but with a limited understanding of the technology involved.
And clearly this argument is being pushed by a person who seems to be rather obsessed, but with a limited understanding of the technology involved.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that IR comes under the 'stealth' heading too
I quoted o'bryan and said that I think he meant RCS when he said stealth
"We’ve taken it to a different level," O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35—verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges—is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22.
sweetman link quoted
Hostage makes another, very interesting comparison between the F-22 and the F-35.
The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”
I quoted o'bryan and said that I think he meant RCS when he said stealth
"We’ve taken it to a different level," O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35—verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges—is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22.
sweetman link quoted
Hostage makes another, very interesting comparison between the F-22 and the F-35.
The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”
A1bill,
The same internet quotes over and over again.
You've already displayed your ignorance in this area. Here's another opportunity for you. The Hostage quote about "cross section"; did he mean physical dimensions or RCS?
I ask the question again. Can you explain, in your own words, the practical differerences between RCS and stealth and how do those differences account for the reversal of two platforms' rankings?
You made the statement, so you shouldn't have too much trouble backing it up. In your own words, please. Not just "he said" or more links. You explain what you're posting here.
The same internet quotes over and over again.
You've already displayed your ignorance in this area. Here's another opportunity for you. The Hostage quote about "cross section"; did he mean physical dimensions or RCS?
I ask the question again. Can you explain, in your own words, the practical differerences between RCS and stealth and how do those differences account for the reversal of two platforms' rankings?
You made the statement, so you shouldn't have too much trouble backing it up. In your own words, please. Not just "he said" or more links. You explain what you're posting here.