F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NL comission presentations so far:
First up, SaaB Gripen
-Best value for money
-Got a lot of follow up questions
-Really bad English
2nd F35 by LM
-Shady second hand car dealer impression
-many vague promises about future items/plans.
-Used old sales numbers to show that scale of economy is crucial to keep the price low
-Managed to insult (granted not deliberatelly) one of the commission members.
3rd Rafale by Dassault
-Seemed very good prepared
-Was very open about pretty much everything
- The only thing he didn't answer was unit price. He said that would be determined if the Dutch opened up for a new full evaluation off all craft and would be dependent on type of aircraft, specific equipment, spare parts and ammo delivered with the aircraft. There would also be access to and participation with the upgrade projects, also There would be a substantial order from dassault in the Dutch economy as part of the offset.
LTG Bogdan today, just missed the livefeed -> anybody who saw it pls comment.
Last Boeing for the SH starting 14.30h
Live debat plenaire zaal - Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal 005&title=Wttewaal van Stoetwegenzaal&analoog=Encoder06_Wittewaal_Extern350k&adsl=E ncoder06_Wittewaal_Extern500k
If you want to see you'll have to select connection type first
First up, SaaB Gripen
-Best value for money
-Got a lot of follow up questions
-Really bad English
2nd F35 by LM
-Shady second hand car dealer impression
-many vague promises about future items/plans.
-Used old sales numbers to show that scale of economy is crucial to keep the price low
-Managed to insult (granted not deliberatelly) one of the commission members.
3rd Rafale by Dassault
-Seemed very good prepared
-Was very open about pretty much everything
- The only thing he didn't answer was unit price. He said that would be determined if the Dutch opened up for a new full evaluation off all craft and would be dependent on type of aircraft, specific equipment, spare parts and ammo delivered with the aircraft. There would also be access to and participation with the upgrade projects, also There would be a substantial order from dassault in the Dutch economy as part of the offset.
LTG Bogdan today, just missed the livefeed -> anybody who saw it pls comment.
Last Boeing for the SH starting 14.30h
Live debat plenaire zaal - Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal 005&title=Wttewaal van Stoetwegenzaal&analoog=Encoder06_Wittewaal_Extern350k&adsl=E ncoder06_Wittewaal_Extern500k
If you want to see you'll have to select connection type first
Ultimately I think Bogdan is the most important figure here as it's what he has to say regarding the F35 that is the most important as he already has a track record in the US of righting troublesome aircraft development programs and he's in charge of ensuring the US government get a working airplane.
Last edited by eaglemmoomin; 18th Apr 2013 at 14:34.
Moomin, yes how the Dassault bids play out in Brazil and UAE in particular, not so much India or Oman as I don't think they're seen as potential customers for F-35 yet - and it's current and potential customers that are likely to affect the price we eventually pay.
As for the no stated unit price thing, I doubt any of the three could offer any kind of price guarantee in this instance for a number of reasons; model, support contracts and numbers being the first that spring to my mind, so I wouldn't read too much into that just now.
I was going to say think of it like walking into a car salesroom, but realised that would be completely wrong. With the car, you can usually end up paying less than the first quoted price. With the aircraft, you can pretty much guarantee the cost will only go up - no matter which manufacturer you're talking to.
As for the no stated unit price thing, I doubt any of the three could offer any kind of price guarantee in this instance for a number of reasons; model, support contracts and numbers being the first that spring to my mind, so I wouldn't read too much into that just now.
I was going to say think of it like walking into a car salesroom, but realised that would be completely wrong. With the car, you can usually end up paying less than the first quoted price. With the aircraft, you can pretty much guarantee the cost will only go up - no matter which manufacturer you're talking to.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moomin, yes how the Dassault bids play out in Brazil and UAE in particular, not so much India or Oman as I don't think they're seen as potential customers for F-35 yet - and it's current and potential customers that are likely to affect the price we eventually pay.
As for the no stated unit price thing, I doubt any of the three could offer any kind of price guarantee in this instance for a number of reasons; model, support contracts and numbers being the first that spring to my mind, so I wouldn't read too much into that just now.
I was going to say think of it like walking into a car salesroom, but realised that would be completely wrong. With the car, you can usually end up paying less than the first quoted price. With the aircraft, you can pretty much guarantee the cost will only go up - no matter which manufacturer you're talking to.
As for the no stated unit price thing, I doubt any of the three could offer any kind of price guarantee in this instance for a number of reasons; model, support contracts and numbers being the first that spring to my mind, so I wouldn't read too much into that just now.
I was going to say think of it like walking into a car salesroom, but realised that would be completely wrong. With the car, you can usually end up paying less than the first quoted price. With the aircraft, you can pretty much guarantee the cost will only go up - no matter which manufacturer you're talking to.
I don't think there's any such thing as an OTS buy for a military fast jet
Last edited by eaglemmoomin; 18th Apr 2013 at 15:15.
I think you have hit the nail on the head regarding the ambitious role growth of F-35. I can see why they have done it, but the sort of discussion the Netherlands are having now may be the result. It's certainly not a cheap F-16 replacement anymore and the bad timing of the recession won't be good for sales to small Euro countries.
The F-35 requirements have not been tightened - indeed if you call cost and schedule requirements, they've been relaxed.
The problem was always that they set out to do everything for a sub-F-16 LCC. Unfortunately there are no chapters entitled "Bibbedy-Bobbedy-
ing-Boo" in either the works of Adam Smith or Theodore von Karman.
EM - You can't offer a price until someone writes a requirement that you can meet. As far as I know the Cloggies have never done this. So to that extent Dassault is being honest. They also apparently said this week that they would only play if the ground-rules were open.
This is sensible in view of the Noggies' action in 2008, when they pretended to have a competition, and than made up lots of growth factors on Saab's fixed-price offer while accepting LockMart's moonsh... I mean, optimistic predictions like Holy Writ.
The problem was always that they set out to do everything for a sub-F-16 LCC. Unfortunately there are no chapters entitled "Bibbedy-Bobbedy-
ing-Boo" in either the works of Adam Smith or Theodore von Karman.EM - You can't offer a price until someone writes a requirement that you can meet. As far as I know the Cloggies have never done this. So to that extent Dassault is being honest. They also apparently said this week that they would only play if the ground-rules were open.
This is sensible in view of the Noggies' action in 2008, when they pretended to have a competition, and than made up lots of growth factors on Saab's fixed-price offer while accepting LockMart's moonsh... I mean, optimistic predictions like Holy Writ.
Last edited by LowObservable; 18th Apr 2013 at 16:24.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO I was talking about technical requirements as in system requirements for the avionics, sensors, engine, software, maintenance facilities, simulators and the base line KPPs I'm sure you realised that.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
F-35A cost-per-flying-hour $24,000 (Preliminary Figure)
F-35 Ops Cost Exceeds F-16 By 10% 18 Apr 2013 Amy Butler
F-35 Ops Cost Exceeds F-16 By 10%
"The long and sometimes contentious wait for a cost-per-flying-hour for the new F-35 is over.
The single-engine F-35A is expected to cost about 10 percent more to operate than the F-16 it is intended to replace for the U.S. Air Force and other international military services, according to U.S. government officials.
USAF Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, program executive officer overseeing the F-35 program, told Dutch lawmakers that the cost-per-flying-hour for the F-35A, which The Netherlands intends to buy, is $24,000, according to an Air Force spokeswoman. He [Bogdan] provided the data to Dutch legislators, including a “side-by-side comparison of flying hour costs between the F-16 and the F-35,” she says.
She says Bogdan characterized the figures as “preliminary.”...
...The Air Force has worked for months to refine this cost-per-flying-hour figure. In January, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said his staff and Lockheed Martin were trying to reconcile two different numbers for a cost per flying hour.
The company's view of ownership cost is lower than that of the service. "It was characterized in a different way, a different format," Welsh said. Of interest to Welsh and other customers is an "apples to apples" comparison to the F-16 and A-10 that F-35 will replace.
Company officials had argued the cost of some subsystems, such as the electro-optical target system, or information technology systems used to support the aircraft, should not be included in the F-35 lifecycle estimate because they are not calculated in the price of operating legacy aircraft."
F-35 Ops Cost Exceeds F-16 By 10%
"The long and sometimes contentious wait for a cost-per-flying-hour for the new F-35 is over.
The single-engine F-35A is expected to cost about 10 percent more to operate than the F-16 it is intended to replace for the U.S. Air Force and other international military services, according to U.S. government officials.
USAF Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, program executive officer overseeing the F-35 program, told Dutch lawmakers that the cost-per-flying-hour for the F-35A, which The Netherlands intends to buy, is $24,000, according to an Air Force spokeswoman. He [Bogdan] provided the data to Dutch legislators, including a “side-by-side comparison of flying hour costs between the F-16 and the F-35,” she says.
She says Bogdan characterized the figures as “preliminary.”...
...The Air Force has worked for months to refine this cost-per-flying-hour figure. In January, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said his staff and Lockheed Martin were trying to reconcile two different numbers for a cost per flying hour.
The company's view of ownership cost is lower than that of the service. "It was characterized in a different way, a different format," Welsh said. Of interest to Welsh and other customers is an "apples to apples" comparison to the F-16 and A-10 that F-35 will replace.
Company officials had argued the cost of some subsystems, such as the electro-optical target system, or information technology systems used to support the aircraft, should not be included in the F-35 lifecycle estimate because they are not calculated in the price of operating legacy aircraft."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 18th Apr 2013 at 21:10. Reason: PrelimFig
That is true but when you get to the point of deleting bits of kit from the cost-per-hour estimates then the customers are going to get nervous. It was these very same bits of kit that made the aircraft competitive and to adjust in this way smacks of spin. I'm sure if I deleted all the features the F-16 has over the Hawk from the costs-per-hour I could make it look pretty cheap too.
It is unwise to split-out the cost of the EOTS just because podded systems are costed separately on 'legacy' jets. Removing, repairing, modifying or upgrading a pod is relatively easy and does not necessarily ground a legacy aircraft; as an embedded and integrated system upgrading EOTS will not be as easy. If, as seems likely, the USMC add a pod in addition to the EOTS then the costs for both will have to be shown on balance sheet somewhere.
It is unwise to split-out the cost of the EOTS just because podded systems are costed separately on 'legacy' jets. Removing, repairing, modifying or upgrading a pod is relatively easy and does not necessarily ground a legacy aircraft; as an embedded and integrated system upgrading EOTS will not be as easy. If, as seems likely, the USMC add a pod in addition to the EOTS then the costs for both will have to be shown on balance sheet somewhere.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Company officials had argued the cost of some subsystems, such as the electro-optical target system, or information technology systems used to support the aircraft, should not be included in the F-35 lifecycle estimate because they are not calculated in the price of operating legacy aircraft."
*MADL is a stealthy intra-formation Ku band system using 6 directional conformal aerials. External link is by means of a conformal top surface satellite system - now planned for Block 4+. The satellite system will not be cheap, especially in higher latitudes where a constellation will be required, which is one of the issues giving Canada and Norway kittens.
And how many of the $1M F-35 bone domes will the Netherlands need? I'm sure that Gripen pilots don't need such ridiculously expensive devices to get the best out of their superb little jets.
Gripen, Rafale and Super Hornet are all compatible with European tankers, whereas F-35A needs a boom tanker, of which Europe has but few - apart from the 2 KDC-10s of the RNAF. No doubt the 'Lockheed Liars' could quote a price for fitting a probe though - then double it.
Gripen or Rafale would suit the RNAF admirably - and end reliance on the US!
Gripen, Rafale and Super Hornet are all compatible with European tankers, whereas F-35A needs a boom tanker, of which Europe has but few - apart from the 2 KDC-10s of the RNAF. No doubt the 'Lockheed Liars' could quote a price for fitting a probe though - then double it.
Gripen or Rafale would suit the RNAF admirably - and end reliance on the US!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
MADL
'ORAC' your link does not mention satellite at all but this: "Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) is a future data waveform to provide secure data-linking technology between stealth aircraft. It began as a method to coordinate between F-35 aircraft (the Joint Strike Fighter), but HQ Air Combat Command wants to expand the capabiltiy to coordinate future USAF strike forces of all AF stealth aircraft, including the B-2, F-22, and unmanned systems. MADL is expected to provide needed throughput, latency, frequency-hopping and anti-jamming capability with phased Array Antenna Assemblies (AAAs) that send and receive tightly directed radio signals.[1] MADL uses the Ku band.[2]"
Note 1 link no work and here is a bit from lengthy explaino for Note 2 from above:
"...Originally, stealth data links were an integral part of the F-35 mission system, restricting data communications within F-35 formations, or between F-35 and specialized communication-gateway platforms. The Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL), developed by Harris specifically for the F-35, provides a low-observable link that enables communications within F-35 formations and with MADL-equipped command-and-control elements. MADL uses six antennas providing spherical coverage around the aircraft. It use a Ku narrowband waveform employed in a “daisy chain” scheme—the first aircraft sends the directional signal to a second aircraft, then to a third aircraft, and so on...."
Note 1 link no work and here is a bit from lengthy explaino for Note 2 from above:
"...Originally, stealth data links were an integral part of the F-35 mission system, restricting data communications within F-35 formations, or between F-35 and specialized communication-gateway platforms. The Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL), developed by Harris specifically for the F-35, provides a low-observable link that enables communications within F-35 formations and with MADL-equipped command-and-control elements. MADL uses six antennas providing spherical coverage around the aircraft. It use a Ku narrowband waveform employed in a “daisy chain” scheme—the first aircraft sends the directional signal to a second aircraft, then to a third aircraft, and so on...."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 19th Apr 2013 at 06:12. Reason: note 2 text
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Norwegian link says: "...The F-35 has the same communications capabilities as today’s F-16s.”
“Norway continually assesses the F-35’s technology planned for F-35 integrations. We are also considering alternative options to secure communications over longer distances. This can be varying forms of satellite-based communications, or indeed other types. It is still too early to say anything about the final solution. Initially, it will on the same level as today’s, and improved gradually.”"
IF the Canuks are not buying the F-35 does this comm problem devolve to successor aircraft? Link is from 2011 BTW.
“Norway continually assesses the F-35’s technology planned for F-35 integrations. We are also considering alternative options to secure communications over longer distances. This can be varying forms of satellite-based communications, or indeed other types. It is still too early to say anything about the final solution. Initially, it will on the same level as today’s, and improved gradually.”"
IF the Canuks are not buying the F-35 does this comm problem devolve to successor aircraft? Link is from 2011 BTW.
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 19th Apr 2013 at 07:51. Reason: Usual
Spaz - First of all, I think you follow this stuff closely enough to know very well that the idea of MADL for F-22, B-2 and anything else (including plans to plug MADL into the wider world via an airborne gateway) was trashcanned a couple of years ago.
As for satcoms, the Canadians use this:
http://www.drs.com/Products/Training/PDF/FaceII.pdf
It would presumably be possible to put it on an F-35 pylon, but it renders the aircraft non-stealthy. It is also available in internal form:
http://www.drs.com/Products/Training/PDF/FaceIII.pdf
Under contract for JAS 39E - see small print under the pic.
As ORAC noted, this is a constellation (Iridium) system so it works anywhere, whereas geostationary satellites are more problematic with higher latitudes because the antenna needs near-hemispheric coverage. Raise problem and cost by an order of magnitude or three for stealth compatibility.
JTO - I don't think anyone has told the Dutch about the potential need for a separate pod (with HDTV, Rover and a wider field of regard).
As for satcoms, the Canadians use this:
http://www.drs.com/Products/Training/PDF/FaceII.pdf
It would presumably be possible to put it on an F-35 pylon, but it renders the aircraft non-stealthy. It is also available in internal form:
http://www.drs.com/Products/Training/PDF/FaceIII.pdf
Under contract for JAS 39E - see small print under the pic.
As ORAC noted, this is a constellation (Iridium) system so it works anywhere, whereas geostationary satellites are more problematic with higher latitudes because the antenna needs near-hemispheric coverage. Raise problem and cost by an order of magnitude or three for stealth compatibility.
JTO - I don't think anyone has told the Dutch about the potential need for a separate pod (with HDTV, Rover and a wider field of regard).
Last edited by LowObservable; 19th Apr 2013 at 13:03.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MADL however, is not “mature” enough to install on the Raptor without incurring too much risk, said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz.
“We should let the F-35 development effort mature before tacking it onto the F-22, this was a cost and a risk calculation on our part,” the four-star told the House Appropriations defense subcommittee today.
the f-35 gets SATCOM in block 3/4 doesn't it?
“We should let the F-35 development effort mature before tacking it onto the F-22, this was a cost and a risk calculation on our part,” the four-star told the House Appropriations defense subcommittee today.
the f-35 gets SATCOM in block 3/4 doesn't it?
Last edited by JSFfan; 19th Apr 2013 at 19:15.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't see my point posted and LO must have missed it too "First of all, I think you follow this stuff closely enough to know very well that the idea of MADL for F-22, B-2 and anything else (including plans to plug MADL into the wider world via an airborne gateway) was trashcanned a couple of years ago"
I saw that LO and canada's talk was about f-35 now and not when it gets it's SATCOM which I think is in block 3/4, again a point that I didn't see posted
I saw that LO and canada's talk was about f-35 now and not when it gets it's SATCOM which I think is in block 3/4, again a point that I didn't see posted
To bring you up to speed with the discussion as I doubt you'll read or take any notice. Block 4. 2020 earliest. Insufficient satellite coverage at high latitudes.
Back to the debate. I did see in one of the links a statement about providing two satellites to give coverage in the high arctic. Er, how would you do that? It would be useful if you could make a satellite stay up in the arctic.
Back to the debate. I did see in one of the links a statement about providing two satellites to give coverage in the high arctic. Er, how would you do that? It would be useful if you could make a satellite stay up in the arctic.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 19th Apr 2013 at 21:21.