F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Rhino power]

Originally Posted by Tourist

All aircraft are upgraded over their lifetimes. This is just normal Ops over the lifetime of a design.

From Aviation Week:

...converted from JAS 39Cs but with new engine, avionics and primary structure

The JAS-39C to E conversion sounds a little more comprehensive than a simple 'upgrade' though, '(new) primary structure' sounds like quite a significant part of the airframe will be a new design and build...

-RP

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by A1Bill

when the current estimate in ~2020$ is $85m.

Ah, their "estimates". Don't I remember them saying:

"The [F-35A] would allow for migration by U.S. forces to an almost all-stealth fighter force by 2025,"

If the Air Force holds to its current plans, it will buy 1763 F-35As. The least complicated of the designs, they will cost more than $30 million each.

during the first hours of a war F-35As would take advantage of their near Mach 2 speed and stealth

The F-35A will begin replacing the Air Force F-16s and A-10s by 2010.

Sustained g 5.3

Your spin doesn't convince me.

[Tourist]

Originally Posted by Rhino power

From Aviation Week:


The JAS-39C to E conversion sounds a little more comprehensive than a simple 'upgrade' though, '(new) primary structure' sounds like quite a significant part of the airframe will be a new design and build...

-RP

Well, follow the upgrade cycle of F15 or Tornado or Harrier etc and it seems fairly standard. The cost is as substantial as the upgrade.

[Rhino power]

Originally Posted by Courtney Mil

...they will cost more than $30 million each

At least that part is true!

-RP

[Rhino power]

Originally Posted by Tourist

Well, follow the upgrade cycle of F15 or Tornado or Harrier etc and it seems fairly standard. The cost is as substantial as the upgrade.

F-15A/B to C/D was mainly just avionics, F-15E was more comprehensive and as such was not really an upgrade. Tornado GR1 to GR.4 was mainly just avionics (F.3 excepted with it's fuselage stretch), the Harrier GR.1 to GR.3 was mainly avionics and a LRMTS added to the front, the FRS.1 was avionics and a new cockpit section, the FRS.1 to FA.2 was mainly avionics, the Harrier II/GR.5/7/9 was a complete redesign and not an upgrade. So using your quoted examples as what constitutes an upgraded airframe, I still think the JAS-39C to E is a little more significant...

You are of course, perfectly entitled to disagree!

-RP

[Tourist]

Well, the semantics of what constitutes an upgrade/redesign aside, I think we are departing from the point.

My point is/was that suggesting that the Gripen was in some way special because it could be upgraded, and that the upgrade price is in some way indicative of the new build flyaway cost as t43562 suggests seems fallacious.

[Speedywheels]

The JAS-39C to E conversion sounds a little more comprehensive than a simple 'upgrade' though, '(new) primary structure' sounds like quite a significant part of the airframe will be a new design and build...

-RP

I think the words are misleading, it isn't a conversion or an upgrade of the existing 39C. They are brand new aeroplanes with new engines, larger airframe (to accommodate the larger engines), AESA radar and other differences.

[LowObservable]

Tourist and the other froufroulating frolickers in F-35 fandom, read the bloody original.

New Gripen Aims For Low Cost, High Capability | AWIN content from Aviation Week

It's entirely clear from any reading of the text that the "flyaway" cost refers directly to the Swedish upgrade contract, which at the time was the only production contract had been signed. It's also clear that the "upgrade", even then, was one notch short of jacking up the serial number and building a new airplane underneath it. The story makes no attempt at the futile task of comparing that price directly with anything else.

Indeed, to compare the JAS 39 C-to-E mods to anything done to a Tornado, F-15 or F-16 bespeaks either missing data or a certain lack of honesty. Think F-102 to F-106. New engine, sensors, landing gear, core avionics and structural mid-section.

And Speedywheels brings up an important point, which is that the Swedish government (weeks after the story was published) announced a decision to build the JAS 39Es as all-new aircraft. I don't think that any effect on the contract has been announced.

[Tourist]

Thank you LO.

Now that you have provided a reference for your statements, I will. Not sure why you didn't just do it earlier? It would have saved a lot of bother!

[Turbine D]

a1bill,

Focusing on the F-35 for a moment, are the "Flyaway Cost" defined the old fashion way as defined in standard US Government requirements, or the new fashion way as defined by the DoD F-35 JPO? There are differences. Matter of fact, in the new way, you can't fly away at all, the engine isn't included because it is a totally separate contract.
I became interested in "What Does The F-35 Really Cost" 3 years ago because of this series that ran in Time magazine. I don't think much has changed. Have a look, especially Part 2, Alphabet Soup:

Part 1: The Era of Good F-35 Feelings

The New Era of Good F-35 Feelings | TIME.com

Part 2: Alphabet Soup: PAUCs, APUCs, URFs, Cost Variances and Other Pricing Dodges

Alphabet Soup: PAUCs, APUCs, URFs, Cost Variances and Other Pricing Dodges | TIME.com

Part 3: The Deadly Empirical Data

The Deadly Empirical Data | TIME.com

Part 4: Different planes, common problems

Different Planes, Common Problems | TIME.com

Part 5: On final approach to fighter fiscal sanity

On Final Approach to Fighter Fiscal Sanity | TIME.com

[Tourist]

Now that we have seen the benefit of references, have you got a link to the later news that it won't be converted?

There is a reason that all scientific papers have references. It saves a lot of silly time wasting arguments.

p.s. As previously stated, I'm not an F35 fanboy, but neither am I a hater.

[Courtney Mil]

Turbine D,

I have to say that your links there to Time have lifted a shroud of confusion from my eyes. So, thank you. As a squatter in the middle ground (I want it to work, but have serious concerns about some of the technical aspects) of F-35 and it's programme, I tend to glaze over a bit when folks quote hugely different figures for (for example) unit cost. Reading Alphabet Soup now means that I see how they get there and that I was right to be sceptical about the promises (again, for example) of a F-35 for $85 million.

A1Bill,

I withdraw my earlier statement that I'll believe it when I see it. Instead, your spin is cynical and misleading or misguided and worthless.

[ORAC]

As I understand it, 39A/Bs can be remanufactured to C/Ds; and production of C/Ds can be restarted for current operators; but all E/Fs are new build.

Paris Air Show 2015: Saab sees continued future for Gripen C/D combat aircraft

[LowObservable]

Technically, the C/D can be left in the hangar overnight with a stock of replacement parts, the tomtens will get to work and a shiny new E model will be there in the morning.

That was the original Swedish plan - although it was both economically frugal and politically feasible at the time, and it's mostly the Pootster who has changed the latter equation. On the operational side, the RSwAF decided that it did not want to go through a period where a lot of its jets were in the factory being rebuilt.

But in the next few years, with rolling E/F production between Sweden and Brazil, I would expect that there might not even be an economic case for building them by conversion.

[Turbine D]

ORAC & LO,

Perhaps this will (but probably not) answer Tourist's never ending quest for references, e.g., Gripen F/Es updated from C/Ds or brand new airframes. Other than these type of articles, Tourist may need to dial up Saab for answers...

Saab's Gripen Enters a New High-fly Zone

[peter we]

F-35 for $85 million.

More like north of $300m.

Similar to Kuwaits Typhoons ($310m)
Italian MoD Source: Kuwait To Sign Deal for 28 Eurofighters

Or the $194m the Indians want to pay for the Rafale and the $305m French want to charge
Revealed: $4 bn is holding up the Rafale deal - Rediff.com India News

The there is the F-15, probably over $300m now

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/29/wo...-fighter-sale/

[KenV]

Well, Ken, you might be less open to being called a liar if you didn't make up, like the alleged 4gen helmet, or post questionable stuff like the extra apertures in the F-35I wing (which I haven't heard of anywhere and that you didn't back up). Nor would you be called a "poser" if you didn't attempt to double down on your misinformation by bragging about your super secret brief with VSI.

Oh my. I mentioned I was a USNA grad and had a classmate and later shipmate who later ran VSI for awhile and was called a liar. I mentioned I was an A-4 driver and suffered some injuries during an ejection that went awry. I was called a liar because my ejection event did not show up on some online list of A-4 mishaps. I pointed out that neither Sen McCain's mishap on the Forrestal, nor my friend's death off San Clemente show up on that list, and there's plenty of corroboration for both events. I was called a poser when I mentioned on a completely different thread that I had P-3 experience. I was called a liar when I stated (after I was directly asked) that I had F/A-18 flight experience. I was called a liar when I said I worked for Boeing on the C-17 and had hands on design, mod, and maintenance engineering experience on UK C-17's. And finally, I was called a liar when I simply stated that I saw and handled a developmental helmet at VSI. I never stated nor remotely suggested it was a classified briefing, never mind "super secret" as you just falsely claimed. All the above, no "brag," just fact. So who's the liar/poser?

Now, if simply making a statement without always providing "back up" makes one a liar, that would make you one helluva one (like your recent claim F-35 has no internal carry HOBS weapon, among many others). But since you asked:
In July 2011, it was reported that the U.S. had agreed to allow Israel to install its own electronic warfare systems and missiles in its F-35s in the future. In 2012 Lockheed was awarded a contract to make changes to the first Israeli F-35s to allow the installation of Israeli electronic warfare equipment produced by Elbit Systems. This equipment will use "specific apertures... in the lower fuselage and leading edge" of the F-35I. Israel also plans to install its own indigenously-produced guided bombs and air-to-air missiles in the F-35's internal weapon bays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhe...li_procurement


Fairly recently you decided to make a personal attack on me when I had not addressed you, and your charges were proven (laughably) wrong. You've now decided to make yet another personal attack when I was not addressing you, and once again your claims are specious. I don't like feeding trolls, so I believe I shall make this my last reply in this exchange.

[Tourist]

Thank you Turbine D.

I'm not sure why anyone would object to my request for references, particularly those of you on the anti side of the argument.


The last few references have strongly supported your case, and successfully pretty much ended a point of contention, whereas the discussions on those same points on here pre references led me at least to favour the pro side of that particular part of the argument.

Thank you.

[Turbine D]

Tourist,
You are welcome.

[a1bill]

CM, I'm sure DMO will take it on board that you think their 2008 estimate is spin.
no doubt you think the 2012 report from the Australian National Audit Office is also in on the 'fix'
http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Files...06%20OCRed.pdf

TD, it is alphabet soup, but the US costings are the same for every program, not just the F-35. It is very easy to get tangled in it. I find the SAR to be ok, the forces budget papers are a mine field.